Posted under Race
In the interest of equal time, since we’re spreading the word about the return of black flash mobs from last summer without being told what we should do about them other than packing heat (which I fully support of course) hating black people as a whole instead of the criminals and hoodlums for being well….criminals and hoodlums and defeating Obama (That’ll show ‘em for being uppity!) I thought CHT should also warn the citizenry about the return of white, loner insane gunman. You know the type: Oswald, Whitman, Brenner, Chapman, Hinckley, etc. A fellow such as this by the name Nathan Van Wilkins, 44, shot-up a bar in Tuscaloosa, Ala. near the University of Alabama campus the very morning of July 17. He injured 17 people in the crowded bar, thankfully no one was killed. And this fellow wasn’t just shooting wildly either. According to police reports, Van Wilkins reportedly “walked up a hill on 23rd Street to the bar, fired through the bar window and then shot at people as they fled the bar.” How nice of him. Here’s his mugshot, Willie Horton-style:
Now if you read the stories on the shooting in Tuscaloosa, other than his picture and perhaps his name as giveaway,the shooter is not listed as “white” nor are colors of his victims are mentioned either. Should they be? What is one of them was black? Does that make him a racist even if he may have no racial motive in the first place? And does it matter since this fellow has a rap sheet a mile long and may also be responsible for other crimes recently committed in the Tuscaloosa area?
You can cite statistics that blacks of a certain age group are more likely to be locked up or commit violent offenses. But if we start differentiating criminals and victims based on race rather than as individuals, then that’s the day we start taking crime and fighting crime and fighting back as law abiding citizens from the gangsters and hoodlums and yes, psychopath gunman, less seriously than we should. And that makes us all less safe.
RedPhillips on 18 Jul 2012 at 1:06 pm #
Patroon, you are right that “spree” violence of this type is generally a white phenomenon, a point I made when people were pointing out the race and immigrant status of the Virginia Tech shooter.
But what does that have to do with flash mobs? The issue is owning the truth. I will readily admit that spree shooters are generally white because they are. Neither should anyone deny that these flash mobs are generally a black phenomenon, because they are.
If the Alabama shooter had shot blacks because they were black, then that would have been a HUGE story, and you know it. The black flash mobs, at least in some cases, appear to be attacking whites because they are white. Why is that not an equally huge story? In fact, that aspect has been deliberately suppressed. We know this because it is obvious to casual investigation and because the press has admitted it. (I’ll look for a link.) Why is one racially motivated crime more newsworthy than another?
DYD on 18 Jul 2012 at 9:55 pm #
‘But whites commit crimes too!’
And Christians commit terrorist acts, but not nearly at the rate or severity as Muslims.
Sean Scallon on 19 Jul 2012 at 11:44 am #
<"The issue is owning the truth"
No, the issue is where do we go with the truth? What’s the point? Where do we take this? Are we on the verge of a race war? Are we going to be joining up with Stormfront for exclusive joint coverage of RAHOWA? If Van Wilkins shot up a black bar it not only would have been a huge story, it would have been Travon Martin times three. I hope that’s not what you want to see nor do I, so I don’t see the reason why want to do a white version of it.
As I said before when this came up last year, remember the whole “church burning” hysteria back in the 1990s? It’s the same thing. Or how about the Jena 6? Remember that one? You have a truth but what do wish to do with it? There are those in the business of taking a truth and turning into a ugly form demagougery (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson being the best examples). You may wish to joy them from a white perspective, I don’t.
RedPhillips on 19 Jul 2012 at 6:25 pm #
“remember the whole “church burning” hysteria back in the 1990s? It’s the same thing. Or how about the Jena 6? Remember that one? You have a truth but what do wish to do with it? There are those in the business of taking a truth and turning into a ugly form demagougery (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson being the best examples). You may wish to joy them from a white perspective, I don’t.”
Re. the church burnings and Jena 6, the problem was that “facts” were distorted for the benefit of grevience hustlers. As has been the Martin/Zimmerman affair. And while I agree that some have sensationalized the flash mob phenomenon for political reasons (some smaller incidents being included in the list of “mobs” for example), the problem has moreso been the opposite. The MSM has deliberately surpressed the story. If the MSM surpresses the story then you can’t be surprised that it falls upon the alternative press to get the truth out. (This is the same dynamic at play with the coverage of birtherism.) That the alternative press in this case has often been those with their own racial axes to grind is unfortunate, but is a predictable outcome of the censorious nature of the politically correct climate we live in. If you make discussion of race taboo, then only those willing to violate taboos will address it.
If you want to take the honest discussion of race away from racialist on either side and give it back to the professional mainstream media, then you have to advocate that the professional media actually do it’s damn job, which is to dispassionately report the truth, not shill for the Establishment approved storyline.
James on 19 Jul 2012 at 6:40 pm #
It’s true that mass murderers are generally white or North Asian but there are so few of them they are insignificant in overall crime statistics.
On the other hand, blacks make up 12% of the population and commit around 50% of all violent crime in the USA.
Guess by whom you’re more likely to be hurt?
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/serial.htm
http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2012/06/summer-excursion-time.html
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/07/03/iowa-the-color-of-crime/
http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
Aaron on 20 Jul 2012 at 4:04 am #
I might have asked this during the last cycle here, but I don’t remember so I’ll ask it now. How about this as a policy:
1. DON’T report race in criminal incidents unless it seems race might have been a salient factor, for instance if racial epithets were used. So if somebody was killed in a robbery – or to take Lawrence Auster’s favorite story, a white girl murdered by her black lover – don’t mention the race of the victim or of the alleged killer, unless as part of a general physical description to help find him.
2. DO report on racial disparities when writing about crime in general. And do report if there’s a newsworthy trend, like flash mobs. Report that these mobs are almost always blacks targeting non-blacks (not just whites), or that blacks are X times more likely to commit murder than whites, etc.
Sean Scallon on 20 Jul 2012 at 4:59 pm #
Well what do you know, there’s another one….
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57476449/james-holmes-24-identified-as-suspect-in-deadly-mass-shooting-at-aurora-colorado-movie-theater/
James on 20 Jul 2012 at 5:47 pm #
For those of you who can do math….
Tell me this: are you more likely to be killed by a white / North Asian mass murderer or be struck by lightening?
Given federal crime statistics, what group does it overwhelmingly make more sense to avoid?
Hint: They’re only 12% of the population but commit around 50% of all violent crime.
If you still don’t get it, Derb gives the answer:
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/print#axzz21Bb5GYPK
Kirt Higdon on 20 Jul 2012 at 6:58 pm #
The only problem with the whole death from violent crime paranoia is that homicides in general rank about 15th as an overall cause of death in the US. Drive sensibly and eat and exercise sensibly and you’ll do a lot more to improve both the length and quality of your years. Also don’t get too depressed by crime statistics. Suicide ranks about 11th as an overall cause of death and you’ll be hard put to avoid yourself.
Bruce on 23 Jul 2012 at 12:02 pm #
I have a question.
Why are Catholic Paleocons more anti-racist than Protestant Paleocons? Let’s assume that everyone here and at sites like Chronicles can accurately be described as Paleocon, the limits of that phrase aside.
This is not an attempt to pick on Sean, Kirt, etc. I’m genuinely interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts on this.
My guess is simply that a church that claims universal ecclesial domain is always going to have a stronger tendency towards anti-racism. Am I missing an alternative explanation?
Bruce on 23 Jul 2012 at 12:03 pm #
Aaron,
That’s not bad but I see no reason to follow that policy until the mainstream media adopts it.
Bruce on 23 Jul 2012 at 12:09 pm #
By the way, when I say “anti-racist” I don’t mean anti-racist in the sense that left-liberals are anti-racist. I mean something like racially-libertarian. Why are Sean, Kirt and Matt (all Catholic I think?) the first to object to a white advocacy post?
Roger on 23 Jul 2012 at 1:34 pm #
Bruce,
De Benoist thinks that the universalism of the Catholic Church is the historical source of all left-wing thought and of globalism.
Bruce on 23 Jul 2012 at 2:07 pm #
Also, I want to emphasize that I’m not only referring to Sean, Kirt, Matt etc. at CHT. It’s a pattern I’ve noticed over the years elsewhere. For example, the most racially un-PC comment I ever saw at Chronicles (I don’t get the magazine – I’m referring to the website articles and comment sections) was penned by their Lutheran editor not one of their Catholic editors (Fleming is their most un-PC Catholic as far as I can tell). I also notice this pattern at (not paleo but well to the right of mainstream conservatism) What’s Wrong with the World website. Their main protestant contributor routinely links Auster/VFR. I also noticed this pattern at the old Takimag with both contributors and commentors. The Political Cesspool (admittedly it’s more or less WN-ist) is written from a Protestant perspective. Can you imagine a Catholic version of The Political Cesspool? Can you imagine a Catholic version of the website Faith and Heritage? I can’t.
Kirt Higdon on 24 Jul 2012 at 12:07 am #
I agree with Bruce that “racially libertarian” is a preferable term to the heavily loaded “anti-racist”. I’d also agree that Catholics are more likely to be racially libertarian than other Christians for the reason he suggests. Christianity in general is universal. “Preach the gospel to all nations” is Christ’s parting command to the apostles. But it is only the Catholic Church which maintains a visible universal institution. Protestant Christians propose a universal church of only spiritual dimensions, but in practice are organized along national or even smaller lines. Many churches are just free-lance enterprises. Eastern Orthodox Christians are organized along explicitly ethnic and national lines.
Belonging to a Church that honors not just European, but African, Asian, and Amerindian saints and many of mixed race certainly gives me a predisposition to a variety of people and that’s reflected in my neighborhoods, friends, business associates, and even family. (I have a couple of Korean immigrant nephews.) Had I based my whole life on a Derbyshire approach to crime statistics, I would have avoided not just people, but events, areas and even entire countries (Brazil, Bahamas) which have added greatly to the quality of my life. My life would have been/still would be orders of magnitude less enriched and more boring.
This doesn’t mean I’m opposed to a reasonable situational awareness. As a result of Walter’s article on the black flash mobs, especially in Columbus, I’ve discussed the local situation with my brother who lives there. When I visit next week, I’ll be accompanied usually by him or other relatives, but I still want to know what areas to avoid.