There are a whole lot of people in America. Lots of black men have no criminal record, and some cops really are bullies. I don’t believe in any of that “institutional racism” stuff, but I’ll bet if the MSM looked hard enough, they would be able to find some case of a white cop killing an innocent black man for no reason. Why do they push cases where the police self-protection claim obviously has some merit? Doesn’t that distract from the teachable moment we’re supposed to be enduring?
Steve Sailer (who in these days of escalating victimolatry is really indispensable) has called Ferguson a fiasco for the Democrats-MSM, but they don’t seem to have suffered from it. Ironically, if Officer Wilson had been indicted, the case wouldn’t have been nearly as useful to them. After all, the narrative being pushed is “racist white cops murder innocent blacks and get away with it“. Assuming the goal is to stoke the anger of blacks and give journalists an opportunity to display their moral superiority over the masses, losing the actual court case is something that has to happen.
So, what the media wants, the case that produces maximum mobilization of Leftist clients, is the least defensible police killing that whites and juries will defend, or the most defensible police killing that the black community will still be outraged by. If an armed black gangster opens fire on the police and gets shot, that’s no use, because blacks themselves will think it justified and may well thank the police for ridding them of such a character. If a white cop shoots a black man for no reason, most whites will want him punished, especially if the event starts getting a bit of national attention. That’s no use either; everybody on the same side does nothing for mobilization purposes. Ironically, the MSM might thus end up not pursuing the most egregious injustices of law enforcement against blacks.
In between is the sweet spot, the media resonance point, that will naturally be amplified by the media system. Police/young black man altercation happens, leaving the latter dead. Journalists and/or civil rights leaders cry racism. Accused policeman has a decent enough justification that non-elite whites stick by him. This outrages the Left, drawing more attention to the case. Once a critical amount of resistance remains in the face of media pressure, this can be cited as evidence of institutional racism and widespread white bias. This leads some whites to distance themselves from the policeman’s supporters and others to dig in–either response brings more attention to the case.
So, we have a system that naturally maximizes the animosity between races. Wonderful.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
I actually hadn’t thought of that. I’d been wondering why they hardly ever focused on cases where justification was unlikely. This explains it.
I don’t think they are anything like that organized. I think it simply that unjustified shootings of blacks by whites are so rare, that they have trouble finding them,
Kind of like the rape cases. Erdely went looking for campus rapes, and Jackie is what she found – because Jackie is what there is to find. The vast majority of blacks that get shot by whites get shot as a result of commission of a crime, and the vast majority of rape accusations are made by evil women for frivolous reasons.
Crystal Mangum is a lying thieving drunken violent whore, who made up the Duke University rape story to talk her way out of an arrest for drunken violence after an industrious night of whoring. She is currently in jail for drunkenly murdering her boyfriend while trying to drunkenly steal his rent money.
We don’t have character information for Jackie Oakley, who made up the UVA fraternity rape story, but we do know that she initially made up the initial version of the rape story trying to get Randal to sexually comfort her, and in her initial version she showed her circle of friends a photo of an actual person (a complete stranger, no connection to her) as the rapist – which would suggest that she is a woman of extremely bad character and that Randal was wise to have as little to do with her as he could.
“The vast majority of blacks that get shot by whites get shot as a result of commission of a crime”
No they don’t.
“the vast majority of rape accusations are made by evil women for frivolous reasons”
No they aren’t.
So, gimme a poster girl rape victim and a poster boy black victim.
I don’t find “poster boys” to be either necessary or desirable for victims of crimes that are practically universally regarded as abominable. But if you insist, Michelle Knight as a rape victim and James Craig Anderson as a black murder victim at the hands of a white man.
Now if we can think about generalities for a minute, I don’t think it’s too hard to realize that the vast majority of killings, of any racial combination, are unjustified. And that it is not correct that the vast majority of rape allegations are fraudulent.
I’ve noticed that the assertion that “most rape accusations are false” is going around the internet, at least among the alt-right, NeoRx blogs. Can this assertion be proven? Doubtful, but it shows how estranged males and females have become in our society, at least among Whites. In a sense this is more a threat to our survival and well-being than the racial animus. Men and women cannot live in separate societies although it would seem we can hardly live together at this point. That worries me more.
I think the left is not totally to blame for having created the racial rift. Confict between differing ethnic groups is a constant to one degree or another; we are not all the same and cannot understand one another. However the different nations and races can live apart as used to be the natural order.
Men and women, though, have to be able to trust one another, or society will get even worse.
Miss Knight, though genuinely raped, makes a rather poor example of a poster girl. Her bastard child was taken away from her by child protective services because of her extremely bad behavior. She lacked male protection and male supervision because she was, like Jackie Oakley, an evil crazy slut. Thus though her abuse was genuine and terrible, her bad behavior made her vulnerable to that abuse. If a poster girl for brutal rape, also a poster girl for the proposition that women are frequently incompetent to make their own sexual choices, and should have those choices taken away from them.
In a better society, she would have been assigned to some suitable man for seven years, as the Australian authorities dealt with difficult sluts in the early days of the settlement of Australia.
The Australian authorities during the early settlement period did not want to support fatherless children and their slut mothers, but did not want to let them starve either, so took drastic measures to ensure that all children were the result of impregnation by identifiable fathers who were able and willing to support them. They forced sluts to get married in a hurry under threat of assignment, and assigned them if the slut could not or would not get married.
If it cannot be proven, it is because the state is doing its best to conceal the evidence, which suggest the existence of evidence that needs to be concealed.
I can’t find anything about this nonsensical claim of yours that Australia assigned women to men for seven years. So I’m assuming its a myth going around neoreactionary circles.
And when you say women should have their sexual choices taken away, I assume you mean that they should be assigned to men for a period of years, who will have the legal tight to rape them?
BTW, do you have any evidence for this cover-up?
Every rape case that has received substantial publicity, for example the Mike Tyson rape case. Very difficult to find that the woman in the Mike Tyson case was a prostitute who had previously made rape accusations against her clients. And if it was not for the reactosphere, you would not have known that about the Duke University accuser.
These days if a white guy is accused of rape, the reactionaries will get on the case, but if a black guy is accused of rape, he is as done for as ever he was. The left hangs him out to dry, and reactionaries don’t care when the left devours the left. Blacks need to start their own reactionary movement.
There wasn’t a cover-up in Mike Tyson’s case. Moreover there was plenty sufficient evidence. Two medical experts testified that she had injuries inconsistent with voluntary fornication. Her prior commission of fornication was not relevant to the case. As rape can occur without seduction, and requires only that force be used in the commission of fornication (this, according to St. Thomas Aquinas).
In any case, in a moral society, even if he were innocent of rape, he would still be imprisoned for fornication.
As far as Duke, is there anyone who still believes Magnum?
And I don’t see that whites and blacks should have separate reactionary movements.
Actually it was entirely relevant to the case, being similar behavior in similar circumstances.
And as for expert witnesses, during the daycare child sex hysteria, we had an ample supply of highly expert expert witnesses who testified that a child could be raped by adult, and yet still retain an undamaged hymen, and could give that undamaged hymen a microscopic examination, and find evidence of forcible rape.
Mangum was transferred to Duke University Medical Center and received treatment for genital injuries, but those treating here declined to conclude she had been raped from those injuries. If it had come to prosecution, I am sure the prosecutor could find some highly expert experts who would conclude that those injuries were consistent with rape.
When someone is accused of rape, every bad thing he has ever done is deemed relevant and gets published in the New York Times. When someone accuses someone of rape, the fact that these activities were routinely engaged in by the accuser voluntarily with people strikingly similar to the accused is deemed irrelevant.
Dr. Nancy Kellogg’s methods had already been discredited by the time of the trial. Whereas the methods used in the Mike Tyson case were and remain valid.
Medical forensics aren’t like psychology. There are actual standards that make it possible to say whether or not someone is using valid methodology.
What newspapers publish and what is admissible in court are entirely different things. There actually was a woman who was going to testify that Mike Tyson had once exposed himself to her, but the judge disallowed it.
It is irrelevant. Unless there is evidence that the witness is a liar.
Did not seem to have had much effect during the satanic ritual child sex hunts
Which is why paranoid hysteria is bad.
James: “The vast majority of blacks that get shot by whites get shot as a result of commission of a crime”
AR: “No they don’t.”
I have no idea where to find statistics, but James’ assertion seems reasonable. I would think that the vast majority of blacks who are shot by whites are shot by white cops or by white home owners during a burglary or home invasion.
http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412873-stand-your-ground.pdf
See the table on page 8. Only 11% percent of white on black homicides are justifiable.
Note: I’m not endorsing or rejecting any other content, opinions, or conclusions of the analysis, aside from the data specifically cited.
Bruce — interesting find there. I too would’ve expected a much higher percentage. I wonder in what circumstances the other 88.6% of white-on-black homicides occur.
White may include a lot of hispanics. According to page 3, ethnicity is a totally independent variable, and I never see it mentioned again (although I’m just skimming).
I imagine it does include a lot of Hispanics. But I don’t see why that would be reason to think that the majority of white on black homicides are justifiable.
How can we know how common real rape vs. false rape are? Everybody seems to accept that there is a big sexual assault problem on college campuses, but I don’t buy it for several reasons.
1) As Jim points out, for a ubiquitous problem, they seem to have a lot of trouble finding genuine cases to highlight. Part of that may be that the hoaxes are more lurid, involve more PC perpetrators, and are otherwise more attractive to journalists. There may also be a feedback mechanism involved similar to the one I suggested for racist cop stories: journalists are looking for cases where the university administration isn’t taking action, and this will draw them toward shady cases. So the fact that poster rapes nearly always end up being hoaxes doesn’t prove campus rape isn’t common, but it’s certainly a data point in that direction.
2) Folk wisdom doesn’t back it up. Women aren’t afraid of college campuses, fraternity houses, or fraternity students like they would be if there were a real rape epidemic there. Women are afraid to go walking alone in the ghetto, despite all they’ve learned about angelic blacks. Now, one could say that when folk wisdom and elite opinion conflict, I should choose the latter because it’s scientific while the former is just blind prejudice. However, prejudice being a more diffusely acquired and transmitted form of knowledge is harder to manipulate in a top-down way. Which brings me to my main reason
3) I don’t trust the people making these claims. I expect there’s a lot of inflation of sexual assault numbers from creatively broad definitions of “sexual assault”, but I think it goes beyond even that. There have been a lot of statistical claims made by feminists that we know are not only exaggerations or questionable readings of data, but are outright fabrications. Consider the claims about domestic abuse spiking during the superbowl, about domestic abuse being a main cause of female mortality, about hundreds of millions of witches being burned at the stake during the middle ages, about hundreds of thousands (or whatever it was) of women dying per year from illegal abortions right before it was legalized. These people deserve absolutely no presumption of trust. Anything claimed by a feminist controlled organization should be dismissed until corroborated by an independent outside group, and as we know there are no outside groups–the feminists have their apparatchiks installed everywhere.
Finally, a weak reason, but I’ll throw it out nonetheless.
4) Only about a quarter of Americans go to college, by-and-large the more academically gifted quarter. Think about the nerdiest quarter of your high school class. Yeah, I know, it doesn’t take all or even most of them to make a “rape culture”, but still…
> I imagine it does include a lot of Hispanics. But I don’t see why that would be reason to think that the majority of white on black homicides are justifiable.
That’s true.
I’d tend to agree that the sexual assault epidemic on campuses in greatly exaggerated. I was just rejecting the idea that the vast majority of rape allegations are false, which is rather absurd on its face.
“White may include a lot of hispanics. According to page 3, ethnicity is a totally independent variable, and I never see it mentioned again (although I’m just skimming).”
Ah, that would explain it. Ironically that would mean they are using “white” properly, i.e., in the way that almost no ordinary people use it. In which case it is very conceivable that the bulk of “white-on-black homicides” are actually committed by Mestizo gangbangers gunning down black gangbangers, while the majority of “white-on-black homicides” committed by the kinds of people that most people mean when they talk about “white people” are actually justifiable. Reminds me of the media repeatedly calling George Zimmerman a “white Hispanic,” a phrase I’ve never heard them use before and have never heard since.
True confession time.
I lived in a dorm when I went to college in the mid-80s, and very quickly discovered the ease with which I could hook up with women. As an 18 year-old, fresh out of home, with no religious background to provide a moral framework for decision-making, I quickly started to notch up the conquests on my bedpost–maybe a dozen or more over the course of two years in residence.
Each liaison was consensual, in the sense that no one was physically forced into sex, and anyone could have left at any time. But I was pretty predatory: I used emotional manipulation to get women into bed and on a few occasions cajoled the woman into bed. Not surprisingly, these led to miserable experiences for both parties, and even with my deadened conscience at the time, I felt rotten about it.
Point is, I suspect this kind of thing is the context for a whole lot of what is currently classified as “rape” on college campuses: two half-drunken, stupid, morally unmoored kids having near-consensual sex, after which the girl retcons the experience, Lena Dunham-style into “It was unpleasant, therefore rape.” But actual, forcible, violent rape? I suspect it’s very rare indeed.
Proph,
In cases where the identity of the perpetrator is known, the vast majority of murders are committed by people who know each other, not be gangbangers.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2013.xls
Ummm. I think it’s pretty likely there is a non-trivial rape problem on college campuses which have Division I football and basketball programs. Now, those cases are not what reporters want to talk about . . .
“Known to the victim” is a term of art in criminal justice statistics which means pretty much nothing. “Yeah, I seen him befoe, he a gangsta disciple. Naw, don know his name, sheeeit.” counts as “known to the victim” and “acquaintance.” Notice that, together, the “acquaintance” and stranger categories dominate the top row of the table linked (it’s well over half).
The qualifier “In cases where the identity of the perpetrator is known” is pretty funny, too, especially in light of how few of those 12K murders feature a known relationship to the victim (a bit over half). And, yes, Virginia, there is good reason to believe that the half of the data where we don’t know the relationship features a different distribution of actual relationships than does the half of the data where we do “know” the actual relationship.
So, the table is no evidence at all against the Bonald/Proph theory that a lot of the “white” on black homicides are mestizo gangbangers killing blacks pursuant to the ethnic cleansing and criminal economic displacement activities they are currently engaged in.
I stopped doing this very quickly in college. It was amazing to me that anyone would go through all the effort and dishonesty necessary for so meagre a reward. It must be that I lack testosterone or something.
On the topic of the post, I don’t think Bonald is anywhere near cynical enough. It is, at this point, pretty plausible that the media are trying to provoke a race-conscious backlash from whites. Why they are trying to do this is an interesting question and one I don’t have any particularly good theories for.
George Zimmerman the pardo white hispanic, indeed.
DrBill beat me to the punch there. I was just going to ask what qualifies as “known to the victim.” If I bump into a guy at a sports bar and spill my beer on him and he beats me to death in the parking lot ten minutes later, was the assailant known to me? Would he become known to me if we exchanged names first? Phone numbers? Or suppose he was a friend of a mutual friend and I’d heard his name before, though not from him? Etc.
> pretty plausible that the media are trying to provoke a race-conscious backlash from whites
Maybe I’m just not cynical, but the racist cop craze and the rape culture craze have the stench of the prophets all over them. Journalists are mostly post-Jews and post-Puritans, after all. There’s the urge to demonize gentile whites and prove their own group morally superior, plus their abnormal lack of empathy for outsiders that leads them to not care about the lives they’re ruining. I doubt they’re expecting a backlash from whites. They know they hold the whip.
I don’t believe in any of that “institutional racism” stuff, but I’ll bet if the MSM looked hard enough, they would be able to find some case of a white cop killing an innocent black man for no reason.
I think they’d have to go back 30 or 40 years to find a case. I really believe that such cases do not actually exist. If they did exist, the desire of the media is so strong to find them that they would be found.
This site: http://topconservativenews.com/2014/12/challenge-name-a-white-on-black-murder-occurring-in-the-past-year/ has an open invitation to the SPLC to tell them all about white on black crime, to be fair and balanced with their (horrific) black on white page.
I’m going with Occam here: bigoted white policemen literally never shoot innocent black men in America in the 21st century.
Re: rape culture. I have a solution. I tweeted about only about 1/3 jokingly. All sexual contact outside of contract is rape. Period. Valid contracts include: 1) marriage; 2) user services agreement.
Wife; whore; or rape. It’d work.
Nicholas Kristof holds the whip? I doubt he could hold the whipped cream if a five year old wanted it.
There’s the urge to demonize gentile whites and prove their own group morally superior,
“Where are we” “You’re in my field”
“Why are we turning right” “Because the left wheels are turning faster”
It would not work. Have to punish the woman, not the man. Observe the early days of settlement in Australia, where the presumption was that the primary problem was restraining women from sex which obscured paternity and sex with men in no position to support children, and that coerced sex was unlikely due to lack of chastity.
There is a converse problem – that in addition to sex that would be obviously consensual if someone were to film it, lots of women want to be beaten up as part of sex, often want to be beaten up by someone they do not know very well. Thus women, quite a lot of women, quite frequently, consensually get into situations where they intend that they will be smacked around pretty badly and “forced” into sex. If they don’t take out a craigslist ad seeking a beating and a fucking from a stranger, how do you tell this from actual rape?
The only way that it is reasonably plausible that rape is actually rape is if a women is taking reasonable precautions against being coerced into sex, and, when coerced despite normal and reasonable caution, actively resists so that her assailant needs to take drastic measures. Which case appears to be extremely rare. If they are intent on “taking back the night”, probably looking for a dicking.
I think Bonald at 6:14pm is correct. It’s not a tactic or strategy. They just want to be outraged and to make as many of us as possible outraged.
nickbsteves is probably right too. At least about the frequency of bigoted white police shooting innocent blacks because they’re black.
I’m sure there’re cases where a shooting shouldn’t have occurred and the perp happens to be black. Maybe someday the left will hit their lotto when a cop that subscribes to american renaissance shoots a black.
And it is extremely rare, about once every few years, for a white, bigoted or otherwise, cop or otherwise, to kill an innocent black man.
Whites fairly regularly kill violent black criminals, taking out the trash, under circumstances where the state does not approve, and this gets classified as white on black homicide, and thousands of people who are three quarters indio and one quarter black kill thousands of people who are three quarters black in conflicts over drug dealing turf and the like, and these people get retroactively classified as white upon conviction, but for an actual white to kill an actually innocent black man is extremely rare, for if it ever happened, the SPLC would be all over it like a wolf on a baby.
Similarly unambiguous rapes are extremely rare. Most rapes are suspiciously non violent, and most violent rapes involve the woman actively cruising for violence and rape – taking back the night and all that. It seems that to get violently and brutally raped a woman really has to work at it pretty hard.
Rape type rapes, such as home invasions, in safe middle class areas, including university campuses seem to happen only a few times a year, perhaps considerably less than that.
This includes rapes of white coeds by black college athletes. Every conviction of a black college athlete looks mighty smelly to me.
DrBill,
While gangland killing are certainly more likely to have an unknown perpetrator and/or an unknown cause than argument based killings, there is a much smaller number of cases known to have resulted from gang violence compared to cases known to have resulted from arguments, and while there would of course be a larger percentage of unknown cause cases where the actual cause was gang related, it seems unlikely that it would be so overwhelming as to be the majority of murders.
Jamesd127,
I don’t know what you’re talking about in regard to Australia. And I see no reason why both men and women shouldn’t be punished for fornication.
Frankly, if a defendant concocts some wild story about a preplanned rape or what not, that should be an affirmative defense.
And no, rape requires only that force is used to commit fornication, not that the victim took every reasonable precaution or what not.
Bruce,
You make a good point about a distinction between an unjustified police shooting of a black person, versus such an unjustified shooting committed because the victim is black.
“kill violent black criminals, taking out the trash, under circumstances where the state does not approve”
Euphemism for murder.
It would not work. Have to punish the woman, not the man.
Well the “punishment” in my system would be a woman could not legally consent to sex without a contract. Ever under any circumstances. If she wants “the dicking” without the marriage, she’ll have to declare herself a whore or watch her “boyfriend” go to jail. Of course the boyfriends will wise up pretty fast, and in turn go to the girls who give it out legally, i.e., at a set a price.
ArkansasReactionary, you are about the least reactionary reactionary I’ve ever met. Is it something in the water in Arkansas? Surely you would not deny Americans their patrimony of English common law. The mere potential for lynching makes lynching rather uncommon, and life much more bearable for all.
No of course I would not deny that our law descends from that of England.
And I’m not sure what connection you make between lynching and English common law, as it is not legal under that system.
And there’s nothing reactionary about encouraging lawlessness.
Perhaps being from a place where hatred of blacks (and yes, that’s what it was) proliferated strongly, I’m inclined to react less favorably toward notions that the potential for lynchings made things better, or that when whites kill blacks illegally, it’s almost always justified, or the like.
Regarding your suggestion regarding prostitution, I don’t agree with ideas of fighting crime by having the state encourage it. Better to just throw them all in prison, with their only way of having sex without going to jail being in a marriage.
And for the record I do not see racial loyalty as something to be valued. While I’m sure there are exceptions, from what I can tell, such an abstract loyalty tends to be mainly a way of excusing vicious attitudes towards members of other races, without imposing any concrete burdens in terms of duty or the like. Thus making it a convenient alternative to traditional concrete loyalties such as to God, the Church, one’s country, and one’s family.
But I have used force to commit numerous fornications, and I am pretty sure that none of them were rapes
You know that assholes score. You think they stop being assholes when out of your sight?
Observe cats having sex – the male cat calls the female, the female will claw her way through a wire netting covered window to get to the male cat, and then the male cat frequently has to beat the crap out of the female cat before he can have sex. And then they do it all over again all night and day. And by the time they are through,, they are often both rather the worse for wear. Sometimes cats having sex are affectionate and gentle to each other, but that is not the way to bet, and even when they mostly affectionate and gentle, they are not that way 100% of the time.
So if a girl goes out of her way to be with a man, gets a bit of the rough stuff, and, like a female cat, comes back for some more rough stuff, was she raped?
If she’s telling him to let her go, or the like, and he’s forcing himself on her, then that’s rape.
Even if she were culpable in some way, that doesn’t mean it can’t be rape.
Why they are trying to do this is an interesting question and one I don’t have any particularly good theories for.
My theory is it’s a distraction to “look over here at this white/black thing while we fill your country with Mexicans”.
there would of course be a larger percentage of unknown cause cases where the actual cause was gang related, it seems unlikely that it would be so overwhelming as to be the majority of murders.
I doubt most white on black homicides are justifiable though I think it is a possibility.
For example, if 11% of “white” on black homicides are justifiable, all of the justifiable ones are actually white on black, and 4/5 of the “white” on black ones are mestizo on black, then you get to most of the white on black homicides being justifiable. Other combinations are possible. If half of “white” on black justifiable homicides are white on black and 9/10 of “white” on black homicides are mestizo on black, then, again, most white on black homicides are justifiable.
These scenarios look pretty extreme, but I don’t know how implausible they are, and the US government has ensured that we aren’t going to know by suppressing the relevant data. It’s obvious that blacks and mestizos are in constant, low-level conflict in several cities. It’s also obvious that whites flee any place blacks show up, so they are in conflict almost nowhere. So, is 9/10 implausible? I dunno.
And there’s nothing reactionary about encouraging lawlessness.
That’s pretty crazy, if by lawlessness you mean non-compliance with the black letter law promulgated by the state.
And for the record I do not see racial loyalty as something to be valued. While I’m sure there are exceptions, from what I can tell, such an abstract loyalty tends to be mainly a way of excusing vicious attitudes towards members of other races, without imposing any concrete burdens in terms of duty or the like. Thus making it a convenient alternative to traditional concrete loyalties such as to God, the Church, one’s country, and one’s family.
You left ethny off your list of concrete loyalties. It surely belongs before country (your list isn’t ordered by importance, but if it had been). In the context of this discussion white means white American. White American is an ethny. PC requires us to deny its existence though its existence is obvious. And loyalty to the US, as that phrase is commonly used, is about as abstract a loyalty as can be imagined.
Finally, this habit you have of bad-mouthing your ethny and the people from your place is what really stands out in this thread for its anti-reaction. You sound a lot like those token Southerners that NPR has on every now and again to ritually denounce their origins..
Yes, Nicholas Kristof holds the whip.
About once a year,an actually white kills man a black man who was not engaged in a felony at the time.
So the overwhelming majority of whites killing blacks are justified, for a broad definition of justification that people quite recently used to apply, used to apply in California as recently as the late 1920s, early 1930s.
What about rapes?
Back when East Palo Alto was the murder capital of America (and if it is not the murder capital of America today, it is because mestizos have been taking out the black trash) a young lady from Australia came to visit America, and her first stop was to stay with me. However, she wanted to wander about on her own.
So I prepared a map, and marked a list of places where an unaccompanied white woman should never go, because likely to be beaten and raped.
And on this map I marked East Palo Alto as the absolute worst of the worst and particularly warned her about how bad East Palo Alto was – that she would likely be beaten, raped, and murdered. She tells me she will positively definitely absolutely not go there, or any of the other places I have marked as bad on her map.
I take her to the train station, and go to work. Not long afterwards I receive a call that there is a young white woman in a McDonalds in East Palo who has somehow lost all her stuff, and needs me to come and collect her.
Sex is non verbal. In my experience a woman never tells you in so many words that she is up for sex (though I have sometimes been invited for coffee when there was in fact no intent to provide coffee) and she never tells you in so many words that she is not up for sex.
Both consent and non consent is communicated non verbally, and any explicit verbal communications addressing the topic are always ironic, humorous, deceptive, or transparently deluded. I have been told, self refutingly, “I don’t do this”
[i]That’s pretty crazy, if by lawlessness you mean non-compliance with the black letter law promulgated by the state.[/i]
By lawlessness, I specifically meant lynching.
[i]You left ethny off your list of concrete loyalties. It surely belongs before country (your list isn’t ordered by importance, but if it had been). In the context of this discussion white means white American. White American is an ethny. PC requires us to deny its existence though its existence is obvious.[/i]
Of course it exists. But I don’t see why it should be considered a loyalty people ought to have. Nor do I see how it is concrete in effect. What good actions would ethnic loyalty impel a man to, that he would not be impelled to by loyalty to his country?
And opposing ethnic nationalism was one of the goals of Prince Metternich, after the Napoleonic wars, surely he is a good standard for a reactionary?
[i]And loyalty to the US, as that phrase is commonly used, is about as abstract a loyalty as can be imagined.[/i]
I don’t mean that in the common “loyalty to liberalism” way. I mean in the traditional sense in which one would be loyal to one’s country, as a specific entity rather than an idea.
[i]Finally, this habit you have of bad-mouthing your ethny[/i]
I haven’t bad mouthed white Americans. I said that most homicides of any racial combination, including white-on-black, are unjustified, which you agree is probably correct. That’s not bashing white Americans, as the vast majority of white Americans have not committed homicide against anyone.
[i]and the people from your place is what really stands out in this thread for its anti-reaction. You sound a lot like those token Southerners that NPR has on every now and again to ritually denounce their origins..[/i]
I’m not denouncing my origins. I said that hatred of blacks proliferated strongly here, which it did. That’s not anti-Arkansan anymore than acknowledging that the revolution was an act of treason is anti-American. “Some members of X group did Y, which was bad, a long time ago” =/= “X group is evil and I denounce them, with all due shame of being a member of X group”.
[i]Sex is non verbal. In my experience a woman never tells you in so many words that she is up for sex (though I have sometimes been invited for coffee when there was in fact no intent to provide coffee) and she never tells you in so many words that she is not up for sex.
Both consent and non consent is communicated non verbally, and any explicit verbal communications addressing the topic are always ironic, humorous, deceptive, or transparently deluded. I have been told, self refutingly, “I don’t do this”[/i]
Well, assuming that people mean the exact opposite of what they say, is not a good rule of thumb in general, and I do not see that it should be here.
As an example, you have disagreed that using force to commit fornication is necessarily rape, it would be highly illogical for me to assume this meant you actually agreed with me. And if I were to claim to someone else you agreed with me, I would be lying.
When blacks were in their proper place, no one hated them. One hates those above, and condescend to those below.
No one hated blacks until blacks started acting as if they were aristocrats, and others were peasants, and other people started acting as if blacks were aristocrats and other people were peasants.
Which problem appeared in the North before it appeared in the South.
Being chattel is not anyone’s proper place. And not being chattel is not “being an aristocrat”.
I’m not sure if you’re blaming hatred of blacks on the end of slavery, or on the end of segregation, anti miscegenation, and other such laws.
If you’re blaming it on the latter, then that’s simply not historically accurate. If you’re blaming it on the former, see my first paragraph.
When blacks walk down the street they take up more space than whites, whites scurry out of their way, as peasant scurries out of the way of an aristocrat. Blacks talk loud, and talk over whites, and the white shuts up when the black talks over him, just as the CEO shuts up when his female executive, his supposed subordinate, talks over him, (The same relationship as in the Soviet Union between the political commissar, responsible for making sure everyone is thinking correct thoughts, and the functional commissar, who is merely responsible for getting the organizational goals performed). When there is violence between a black and a white, the white male is deemed to have provoked it by looking at the black or acting insufficiently humble, just as a Japanese peasant is deemed to have provoked a Samurai, and not only do other people consider him to be at fault, he considers himself to be at fault. The white male’s humble demeanor reveals he has internalized his inferior and second class status.
You speak as if “the white man” and “the black man” are singular individuals. Interactions between individuals do not follow such universal laws. I don’t see that such is how things actually happen, people interact according to a wide variety of circumstances.
And you haven’t answered, when did the events happen, which you are blaming hatred of blacks on?
You are in denial. In every random interaction in the street, every white acts second class to every black, acts like he is peasant and the black is a samurai.
Similarly, males and females.
“11. Show Humility to Ladies—They’re In Charge”
This is just obvious, it is the elephant in the living room. White males are aliens and outsiders in what used to be their own land, pushed to one side.
Every day, in the street, in the workplace, in front of your face. White males get pushed around, and they take it in silence and submission.
Open your eyes and look at what is happening in front of your face. When a black man walks, white men scuttle out of his way.
When your boss talks with a female executive she talks right over him, and should he manage to get a word in edgewise, he is flattering her, appeasing her, building her self esteem lest she destroy the business with a vague and impossible to disprove charge of rape, sexual harassment, or sexual discrimination.
When the black man walks from A to to B, the white furtively gets out of his way, lest he be attacked and blamed for the attack. When the female executive speaks, the CEO grovels, lest he be reported for crimethink.
The walk of the black is the walk of the master, the walk of the white is the walk of the serf.
The voice of the female executive is the voice of the political commissar, the voice of the CEO is the voice of the courtier.
Watch the black walk, the female speak. It is the elephant in the living room.
Here at work, white men commonly address black men as “sir” while not bestowing that title on other white men. I definitely notice this deliberate effort.
Jamesd127:
“Every interaction on the street” wouldn’t follow such laws. I haven’t noticed it at college, or out in the rural areas where I live. Although I would imagine it is the case in some parts of the inner city.
Bruce:
Interesting. If I may ask, what profession do you work in?
AR,
Defense industry (typical office setting). There’s some government personnel here too.
Here at work, white men commonly address black men as “sir” while not bestowing that title on other white men. I definitely notice this deliberate effort.
I do this more often, too, though with women. I think black women can be some of the prickliest, thin-skinned people I’ve ever met, so I try to use my gentlest, kindest tones. I guess when I look at this situation, I see the “aristocrat” as the person who deploys the better social manners. Isn’t the odd man out the one who has to be treated with kid gloves, because we’re all expecting him to explode if he doesn’t get his way? I rarely see such situations as Bruce describes as an expression of respect, rather it is an expression of a patient, accommodating parent toward a tantrum-prone child.
Still, I think James is being hyperbolic, though it is true white men are pushed around and almost universally hated upon in the media (unless they are effeminate fops posing as vampires).
I bet you don’t notice women behaving the way the Chinese notice American women behaving either. You don’t notice because you have internalized second class status.
“Scurrying out of the way of the black” is an accurate description of interactions on the street, but a hyperbolic description of blacks on campus, but even on campus, the black man walking around occupies more considerably more space than the white man walking around, The whites don’t scurry out of his way, but somehow, he gets more space around him.
Congratulations on being able to see what is in front of your nose, unlike most people in America, but to avoid thoughtcrime, you are rationalizing what is in front of your nose. If the child throws a tantrum, the child gets spanked. If the black woman throws a tantrum, the CEO gets spanked. Hostile work environment and all that.
Marissa,
The folks I see this interaction happening with are reasonably educated, middle-class (the blacks and the whites). In other words, I don’t see any reason to think the white men are expecting or fear a temper tantrum.
Black men don’t throw tantrums, at least not the relatively civilized ones you encounter at work and university. Women of both races throw tantrums – women express their domination of America verbally, while blacks express their domination of America in body language.
Scott Alexander has a worthy take on this phenomenon.
That’s a good reminder why I don’t read neoreactionary blogs. They don’t actually believe people believe in anything. It’s all evolutionary signals and memes. What a shallow, amoral view of life. And it’s not exactly a major discovery that controversy engenders more media or conversational attention than non-controversy. The media doesn’t even cover these controversial cases for the reasons he gives – to bring attention to police brutality.
I’m not denouncing my origins. I said that hatred of blacks proliferated strongly here, which it did.
I don’t agree at all. I am a Northerner who has spent a lot of time in the South. There is no hatred against blacks to speak of in the South, AFAICT, and I doubt there has ever been. Maybe there is some among very low class Southern whites—I have very little experience with them.
A Southern “bigot” believes blacks are overgrown children—stupid, impulsive, prone to violence, sexually promiscuous. Because they are overgrown children, they are potentially dangerous to themselves and others. Therefore, they require much more structure and supervision than do whites. Also, they are not fit to exercise the vote. Etc. Even if one disagrees with their assessment of what blacks are like, there is not a particle of hatred in any of this. I think “Hunter Wallace” at Occidental Dissent is a pretty good model of what Southern bigots are like.
Northern “bigots,” on the other hand, burn with a white-hot hatred of blacks. If you see two black women carrying on a conversation across five lanes of rapidly moving traffic, the Southern bigot chuckles at how cute the niggers are or rolls his eyes “nigs gonna nig.” The Northern bigot interprets the blacks’ behavior as a direct affront to the norms of civilized behavior—as an intentional insult directed at them and their society. Northerners either pretend not to notice black behavior or, usually after some beers, say shockingly venomous things.
The Northern bigot does not have the “they can’t control themselves” out to excuse black behavior. They believe, more or less, that blacks are basically like whites and that they should be expected to behave like whites. Should the worm turn, blacks in the South are going to be much safer than blacks in the North. If they finally give up on “blacks are just doing what any of us would do if we had been the victims of centuries of abuse” bullcrap, Northerners are going to have no place to go—no nice place, anyway.
So, regardless of whether we talk about “hatred” as powerful dislike or “hatred” as will-to-harm, Northerners have it all over Southerners.
Many blacks notice all this, by the way.
If the child throws a tantrum, the child gets spanked.
I wish I moved in your social circle.
Marissa’s point, I think, is that we live in the Twilight Zone episode, “It’s a Good Life.”
[…] makes a couple of posts on the epidemic, lately resurfaced, of False Media Narratives: Why the media keeps highlighting dubious racist police murder stories and a followup Why I don’t believe in rape culture. He also notes, helpfully, that Catholics are […]
[…] rage and why the media ran with Brown and UVA. Related: Why the media highlights dubious stories. Related: Bird-watching: Where an absurd example already […]