Followup on 'Blacks Behaving Badly' News

Followup points on this past weekend's black mobs:

As I noted in yesterday's post, the left gets sanctimoniously angry about conservatives passively noting the common trait of mob participants. Apparently, they can't find any sympathy for actual victims of crime, save the Jena 6. Media Matters continues the narrative by criticizing Drudge's encouraging collection of Blacks Behaving Badly links. Drudge obviously gets it and that's absolutely huge. The Media Matters commentariat offers this insightful analysis:

I think Drudge is an egg short of a McMuffin.

On Druge's front page he has a article that says "french fries and fat fried pies for the First Lady in Botswana". Why is a balding fat old man complaining about what a healthy young woman like the FLOTUS eat.

drudge only follows orders from the rightwing noise machine bosses. ailes, rove, luntz and bozell. newscorp is paying drudge a hefty amount to run talking points. this meme of the scary black man is what they do over and over again

You might want not want to wear your hood out in public, racist.

And here's the right-wing Drudge managing to find 5 stories about African American crime and not one story about Phylicia Barnes, Mitrice Richardson or Christopher Thomas.

Had anyone actually been hurt or killed, then maybe it becomes a national story. [Do liberals even bother reading the actual stories?]

In between the incredibly unfunny insults, the commenters did manage to put forth a few middling talking points. I'll paraphrase them in bold with my responses following:

White people do this stuff too: Apparently, Drudge and others are cherry-picking data concerning black riots, violent flash mobs, and random beatings. If the stories of similar behavior from whites and Asians actually exist, then why do liberal sites like DailyKos and Salon.com not run with them to counter Drudge's "scary black man" narrative? Where are all these incidents of whites running around county fairs beating black families, videos of whites engaging in gang warfare in college cafeterias, accounts of whites flash robbing stores? I challenge liberals to find the same exact local stories, except with white perpetrators.

Crime is going down, so this isn't a problem: Crime has gone down in recent years primarily because we've vastly increased the prison population. Of course, liberals understand the huge racial disparity here and have been on a crusade to soften the justice system as a means of imposing racial equality - justice and safety be damned. Further, crime has decreased because whites have taken precautions to avoid it, most significantly by moving away from largely black neighborhoods. Daily precautions have become a way of life for middle-class whites targeted by black crime. Our great grandparents and even our Canadian neighbors would find the insistence on locking your front door the epitome of paranoia, same with locking your car and consciously avoiding walking alone at night. Black crime is reduced only due to the diligence of whites in avoiding it.

None of the stuff actually happened: That's what they're going with now: "not only did this alleged incident not take place...". When in doubt, the left goes with the Leslie Neilson tactic, "Nothing to see here, move along."

You guys are racist: We should expect this standard liberal response to noting obvious patterns. I'm confused - when exactly are we allowed to notice racial patterns? Apparently, we must notice race when understanding racial disparities of who comprises the prison population. But apparently, we can't notice race when these same people actually commit their crimes. That would be racist, right? The left has jumped the shark, folks - it's full of the most vile, sick, and deluded people on Earth. I hesitate to call political activists evil and surely it didn't apply to many of the idealistic Baby Boomer hippies, who just got a case of limitless empathy. But today's professional left is now on the precipice of outright evil, a term I don't use lightly.

Unfortunately, the mainstream Right isn't much better, or at least, similarly deluded. Here's a thread on Hannity's forum with the conservative commenters nonplussed as to why Drudge posted all those links:

What's up with all the mob attacks on Drudge?

I was wondering this too. There definitely seems to be a surge in this, and it's very disturbing. There's also been multiple stories about mobs of teens banding together and robbing stores.

I don't know if this is a new trend or just something Matt Drudge has decided to start reporting on.

I think he's illustrating the use of social media in "flash mobs" running amok. It's a new phenomenon, and unlike the "flash mobs" we've seen in the past where people are out on a lark breaking into song and dance numbers, these are committing theft and acts of violence.

Maybe he simply wants more hits on his website and he knows that these reports will garner more hits?

On my post yesterday, a commenter discourages anger:

However, it's important that all HBDers remember that anger is an emotion that must be controlled. One of the reasons Steve Sailer is so effective is because he doesn't get angry. He doesn't let venom drip from his pen, even when that would be the emotionally accurate thing to do.

In linking to my post yesterday morning, Mangan stated that I "communicated the right amount of outrage, especially at the Carter Strange story." I vehemently disagree with the anonymous commenter who decries anger as a justified political emotion. Passiveness as a social strategy accomplishes nothing and it enervates the populace from actually enacting change. The passive intellectual crowd who offers convoluted solutions to real-world problems don't understand the human cost of their Ivory Tower ruminations. They don't get angry because it doesn't affect them, the problems so far away that it registers as a data point instead of a personal tragedy. The Carter Strange attack is NOT a data point; he's a son, a friend, and a seemingly good person.

Anger is justified for practical purposes in affecting political change and as the appropriate response to evil. We must allow a rational type of anger to interject itself into the political landscape because, in the end, politics is about people's lives. We need a political and cultural framework that supports happiness and safety. And the only way to do that is to inspire the populace, an arduous task if we demand they discard any sort of reasonable emotion.

Finally, commenter The Undiscovered Jew parrots leftist talking points in asserting whites still run everything:

White America is not being genocided, black crime is at a historic low.

White Americans (including middle class whites) won't become more attracted to sociobiology because of this one black on white attack because they don't view themselves as victims because they run everything.

Ethnic martyrs are for minorities, not white people, because white people don't feel like victims, they feel like winners.

I discussed this leftist talking point in my original post on Drudge. I'll copy it below:

Quite simply, the modern PC environment ensures those whites in power pursue initiatives at odds with the views of the white majority (new book shows rampant Hollywood liberalism) and that any apostasy from the PC doctrine, as above, is rigorously thwarted. Just because whites are in power doesn't mean they represent the desires of American whites as a collective nor does it mean, and it almost never does, that our culture and our politics seek to encourage conservatism.

TUJ broaches the concept that whites won't see themselves as victims. In a way, I agree - whites run everything. But that doesn't mean they have political, social, and cultural hegemony. They must endure a political class that ignores their concerns (primarily immigration). They must endure a social doctrine that demands adherence to PC and a complete silencing of all racial truths. They must endure a culture that denigrates them, portrays them as evil or stupid, and does not celebrate their traditions. I could keep going. Sure, whites run everything, but they're still under attack. Whites run everything but the elites pursue a paradigm at odds with the concerns of the majority of white citizens. Who cares if most of those perpetuating the war against whiteness are whites themselves?

TUJ ends by qualifying his criticism as pertaining only to the widespread marketing of race realism. OK, so we're back to esoteric arguments that will inspire no one. Are whites victims in the most general sense, as in 1930s German Jews or black slaves? Of course not. But they are victims in the sense that they must surrender to whatever PC garbage demands their acquiescence. They are victims in that their concerns, even their own basic humanity, is ignored. Should whites then not see themselves as victims or at least the intended target of a concerted effort at political and cultural genocide? I think the term "victim" applied to a racial group perhaps doesn't feel right, as I propose a more proactive, positive approach that celebrates tradition. But informing whites of the ongoing attack against their nation, of which these violent incidents represent the most potent example, is the best way to proceed. Finally, for those like TUJ who question the palatability of these incidents - Bernard Goetz.