The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersSam Francis Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

Like the fog in Carl Sandburg’s insipid poem, Martin Luther King Day this year seems to have crept up on the nation on little cat feet. We have heard few of the usual neo-conservative slobberings over how they wish they could have marched with King in Selma, nor even many of the usual lamentations of King’s now-decrepit comrades that nobody sufficiently appreciates their accomplishments.

Those noises may yet come, but the real reason we have not heard them so far may be that the festivities arrived a bit early this year, in the arrest of 79-year-old former Klansman Edgar Ray Killen for the 1964 murders of three civil rights workers in Mississippi.

The murders of course were notorious at the time and are immortalized by Hollywood in the 1988 anti-white film “Mississippi Burning,” which manages to smear every white man and woman in the state (and by implication everywhere else) by virtually stating that whites are by nature genocidal.

It’s therefore not too surprising that the media reaction to Mr. Killen’s arrest has been one of almost universal gloating. To bust a 79-year-old white Southerner for racial murders is almost as much fun as deporting 80-year-old concentration camp guards to communist countries to stand trial for war crimes, and that amusement has worn thin in recent years. Concentration camp guards have the habit of dying natural deaths eventually, but there’s an endless supply of white Southerners to put on trial closer to home.

But Mr. Killen wasn’t the only unusual suspect to win the interest of the national press last week. The New York Times, after a large story about his arrest and the murders and a long interview with the surviving relatives of the victims, also found space to tell us all about another killer of the same era—one who long ago was tried and convicted and today even acknowledges his guilt. For some reason, he doesn’t elicit quite the same reaction from the Times as Mr. Killen.

The case is that of Wilbert Rideau, who as a 19-year-old black man in 1961 robbed a bank in Lake Charles, Louisiana, kidnapped three white bank employees, and shot all of them near a bayou at the edge of town.

Two survived to tell the tale; the third, a woman, survived only briefly. Rideau polished her off by stabbing her in the heart and slitting her throat.

Like its report about Mr. Killen, the Times story about the Rideau case is full of woe—but not that of Rideau’s white victims. Its sympathies are all for the killer himself.

“All-white, all-male juries” convicted Rideau of murder and sentenced him to death, and they did so three times. Appeals courts threw out the verdicts on the grounds of “misconduct by the government.” We never hear too much about what that means, because the Times reporter, Adam Liptak, is too busy singing about Rideau’s achievements ever since. [With Little Evidence, 4th Trial Opens in '61 Killing, By Adam Liptak, January 11, 2005]

Prosecutors in Louisiana “are trying once again to obtain a conviction that will stick,” he writes, and that may be hard, in part because Rideau has been so “transformed.” (As it turned out it was too hard. A mixed race jury this week found him guilty of mere manslaughter, allowing him to go free after serving more than the maximum sentence for that crime.) “He has, from prison, become an acclaimed journalist and documentary filmmaker,” but, well, it’s Louisiana, you see, and we know what that means.

“The community’s rage lives on in this racially divided oil and gambling town near the Texas border,” and no doubt it’s all those white people, the kind Mississippi Burning warned us about, who keep nice fellows like Rideau in prison. “It’s ferocious, the way we hold on to this episode,” grumbled the Rev. J. L. Franklin, a black pastor who is monitoring the case.

Right, you’d think after 43 years, people would forget a white person being kidnapped, driven to the edge of town, shot and having her throat cut. But it’s those white folks, so full of hate and ignorance, just like over in Mississippi, where they’re probably mad about the prosecution of Mr. Killen after only 41 years.

“Little evidence endures” in the Rideau case, Mr. Liptak informs us, which only adds to the problems of yet another trial. It’s not very clear how much evidence endures in the Killen case either, but that wasn’t quite the point the Times wanted to make, was it?

The Times’ transparent double standard, its lip-smacking glee over the arrest of the white man in Mississippi and its weepy apologies for the black killer in Louisiana, tell us what the real point is.

What Mr. Killen is supposed to have done was not only murder but also an act of political and racial resistance, and that sort of thing has to be stomped on, regardless of how little evidence remains after 41 years.

As for a forgotten white woman in Louisiana who had her throat cut—who cares?

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

Just exactly how many murders will it take to convince the Open Borders lobby, whose leader now seems to be President Bush, that mass Third World immigration is not such a good idea?

Up in Wisconsin, a gentleman named Chai Soua Vang, a 36-year-old Hmong immigrant, just blew away six people, apparently because they threw him out of their privately-owned deer stand he had decided to take over for his own use.

Ten years ago immigration expert Roy Beck wrote a path-breaking article in the Atlantic Monthly about the Hmong immigrants in Wausau, Wisconsin, a discussion he repeated in his later book, The Case against Immigration.

“The number of Southeast Asians burgeoned, and the city’s ability to welcome, nurture, accommodate, and assimilate the larger numbers shrank. Most immigrants were unable to enter the mainstream of the economy. Residents resented the social costs of caring for many more newcomers than anybody had been led to believe would arrive. Inter-ethnic violence and other tensions proliferated in the schools and in the parks and streets of a town that formerly had been virtually free of social tensions and violence.”

That’s only a selection, but what Mr. Beck described is the predictable result of the mass immigration of a radically different people into a homogeneous community.

Obviously, not all or even most immigrants turn out to be spree killers, and obviously there are plenty of home-grown ones—Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, et al.

But in recent years immigrants, and especially those from non-Western and non-white parts of the world, have contributed more than their fair share to the annals of atrocity crimes.

The most obvious is the World Trade Center in 2001, but well before that Jamaican immigrant Colin Ferguson murdered six passengers on a commuter train on Long Island in 1993.

Pakistani immigrant Mir Aimal Kansi murdered two people outside CIA headquarters in the same year, which was the year after aliens first tried to blow up the World Trade Center.

In 1997 immigrant Ali Abu Kamal shot up the tourists at the Empire State Building, and later two more immigrants were arrested for trying to blow up the New York subway system.

There are a number of other cases that made national news at the time.

Are they all just coincidences? Not exactly.

The link between immigration and violence is that the aliens lack roots in the society and civilization into which they import themselves. The people they see aren’t their people, and their moral and social norms aren’t theirs either. Being strangers in a strange land, they feel little obligation to it or its members.

For immigrants on the fringe, the resulting tensions can overflow, and it’s not easy even for those not so fringe.

Thus, the Washington Post, not exactly a hotbed of nativist bigotry, offers this editorializing in its news article about the Wisconsin killings.

“Rules and etiquette on American hunting passed from generation to generation have proved unfamiliar to many Hmong, who come from Laos, where hunting is a practiced skill. The Lao mountains are among the wildest and least populated areas of the world. There are no regulations about what, where or when to hunt. Conservation officers and property owners in several states have reported conflicts with the Hmong over their hunting practices, often because they did not understand American traditions. Four years ago, Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources hired a Hmong officer to teach the community about local hunting and fishing rules.” [In Deer Country, a Puzzling Shooting Spree, By Peter Slevin and Kari Lydersen, November 23, 2004]

Well, I guess maybe the Department of Natural Resources didn’t do such a bang-up job, and who can blame it?

Why should we need government bureaucracies to explain our traditions and values to masses of aliens who have no business coming here at all?

The “conflicts with the Hmong” the Post mentions so demurely are not just about hunting, and the conflicts are not confined to the Hmong.

The exact same kinds of conflicts are obvious to anyone who deals with Third Worlders on any large scale.

Will the Wisconsin mass murders of which Mr. Vang is accused lead the dominant culture to start rethinking immigration and its social consequences?

Not a bit. Here’s what ABC News found to worry about in the incident:

“Vang’s arrest left some Hmong citizens in his hometown fearful of a backlash. About 24,000 Hmong live in St. Paul, the highest concentration of any U.S. city. And the shooting has already provoked racial tension in an area of Wisconsin where deer hunting is steeped in tradition.” [Hunting Death Suspect's Relatives Shocked, ABC News, (AP) November 24, 2004]

That’s the real problem, you see, not immigration but the racial backlash” that may or may not come about from the white people whose friends and neighbors Mr. Vang slaughtered.

Maybe the Department of Natural Resources can send in a team to teach them about racism.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

The most recent contribution to racial harmony comes from Charlottesville, Virginia, where the Washington Post reports that some people are alarmed at “racial profiling” by local cops in their efforts to catch a black serial rapist. ['DNA Dragnet' Makes Charlottesville Uneasy, By Maria Glod, April 14, 2004]

Thanks to the foes of “racism,” the rapist may remain free to rape again.

The situation is that since 1997 an unknown black male has committed at least six rapes in the city, famous as the home of the University of Virginia, in one case, as the Post described it last week, beating his female victim “so badly that she needed reconstructive surgery.”The police know he’s black because the victims have described him as black. Also they have his DNA. That’s the problem.

It’s not clear if the Charlottesville police have had the rapist’s DNA analyzed to confirm his race, as police in Baton Rouge, La., did last year. In Baton Rouge, after months of looking for a white man as the perpetrator of a series of murders, the cops had a geneticist examine the killer’s DNA from crime scenes and realized he was in fact black. They nabbed a suspect shortly after.

In Charlottesville, the police already know the rapist is black; they just don’t know which black. Therefore, they’ve compiled a little list of black males who are believed to resemble a sketch of the rapist and who are suspects for other reasons. They then approach these gentlemen and ask them for DNA samples. If they comply, as 197 have, then they’re ruled out as suspects.

The problem, you see, is that this procedure is “racial profiling.”

Actually it’s not. Racial profiling usually means stopping, arresting or otherwise throwing suspicion upon members of a racial group simply because of the statistical patterns of behavior of that group. If the police were stopping black males in Charlottesville because black males commit most of the rapes in the United States, that would be racial profiling.

But that’s not what they’re doing in Charlottesville.

As Charlottesville police chief Timothy Longo explained to the Post, the cops are not stopping black males at random. They already know the rapist is black from victims’ descriptions, and asking only black males for DNA samples is therefore reasonable:

“In most cases, he said, police are responding to reports from residents about men who resemble a composite sketch of the suspect or who seem to be acting strangely.”

Nevertheless, the progressive set at the local university has decided it just can’t stand the prospect of the cops taking what one of them called “a step backward” by actually doing something that might catch the rapist—especially, one of them sobbed to the Post, “in a place where the echoes of slavery and segregation can still be heard.”

After the usual serenade of whines and whimpers from the churches, the university and the American Civil Liberties Union, the police announced they were “scaling back” the DNA sampling.

The rapist remains free.

One black man who was approached to give a DNA sample and refused has plenty to say about how oppressed it made him feel. “The way the police are conducting this investigation, because the suspect is a black man, every black man is a suspect,” moaned Steven Turner, a graduate student in education.

A police car stopped him while he was riding a bicycle last summer and asked him for a DNA sample from a swab inside his mouth. They told him someone had reported he was acting suspiciously and that he resembled the sketch of the rapist.

In other words, they were not stopping him because “every black man is a suspect.” They stopped him because he was a suspect.

Mr. Turner refused to give them a sample, but “after the police left, Turner said, he rode around in circles for a long time. ‘I felt broken,’ he said. ‘I felt like I didn’t have a home anymore. It was devastating.’”

Is that so?

Mr. Turner hasn’t even tasted devastating. Maybe he should try being raped and beaten so badly he needs reconstructive surgery. Then he can lecture us about being devastated.

The progressive set in Charlottesville has made one of their usual contributions to human progress.

By creating a fake controversy about a perfectly sensible, harmless and scientifically based method of criminal investigation, they have managed to impede the police and help the unknown rapist to remain at large.

They may also have helped establish a precedent that other police departments in other cities will think about when rapists, murderers and other criminals commit crimes in their jurisdictions.

And because of the fear for their careers they are able to inspire in police and other public officials, they may have helped destroy permanently the effectiveness of DNA testing as a tool of law enforcement.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

Sooner or later it was certain that the lawyers for black basketball player Kobe Bryant would start yelling “racism” in defense against charges that he raped a white woman.

Just as O.J. Simpson‘s defense was able to get him acquitted of the double murder of two whites in 1995 with the same tactic, so lawyers for Mr. Bryant are now deploying it to save their client from a serious prison sentence.

But the Simpson and Bryant cases are not unique.

Last week Mr. Bryant appeared in court in Colorado, where he faces trial on rape charges, with his white female lawyer Pamela Mackey, who pronounced to the judge, “My client stands accused of a very serious crime. There is lots of history about black men being falsely accused of this crime by white women.” [AP, Bryant attorneys raise race issue during hearing]

Everyone’s read To Kill a Mockingbird, in which a saintly black man is nearly lynched and then nearly convicted of raping a white woman, when it turns out the trashy white woman tried to seduce the black. Miss Mackey is hoping the judge and jury have read the book too, or at least seen the movie, and will allow reality to imitate art.

But the Bryant rape case is not the only one where the real villains are whites (either vicious and bigoted white men or sluttish white women) and all blacks accused of raping white women are simply innocent martyrs to racial equality.

The New York Times recently reported on an obscure case in Georgia involving a black high school senior sentenced to a 10-year prison term for raping a 16-year old white girl. That rape, too, you see, didn’t really happen.

The black convicted and sentenced is a young man named Marcus Dixon, who acknowledges that he had sex with the young woman but claims it was consensual. She had vaginal bruises that suggest otherwise, and Mr. Dixon, it turned out, had a history of sexual harassment of girls in the school (where, the Times was quick to point out, he enjoyed a 3.96 grade point average and had a football scholarship to Vanderbilt. What a guy!)

I have no idea whether either Mr. Dixon or Mr. Bryant is really guilty of rape, and from the facts so far available, both of them seem to have a plausible argument that they’re not. But in the Georgia case, the local Afro-racists quickly seized the chance to score racial-political points.

On the eve of a court hearing to appeal the Dixon case, the Timesreports, “nearly 100 people gathered outside the state Supreme Court here, holding candles and singing, ‘We Shall Overcome,”and they listened to the Rev. Joseph Lowery of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, who has decided that Mr. Dixon is innocent. “If the young lady was black and Marcus Dixon was white, I don’t think we’d be here,” Mr. Lowery declared to the crowd, in an astonishingly frank admission of racial motivation.

In fact, the Dixon story is not especially significant, even if the convicted man is innocent, and in itself, as a simple case of justice miscarried, it’s hardly worth the attention of the New York Times(which seldom reports at all on brutal hate crimes against whites committed by blacks).

The real purpose of the Times story is clear from the headline it used to telegraph the point: “Student Sex Case in Georgia Stirs Claims of Old South Justice.”

There’s that mockingbird again.

The point is not that either he or Mr. Bryant is really guilty but that the unspoken assumptions of black innocence and white guilt have now so permeated the minds—of whites as well as blacks, of the media as well as the courts—that yelling “racism” can be considered a reliable if not infallible tactic to get an accused black acquitted.

“Race plays a part in everything,” said Johnnie Cochran, O.J. Simpson’s black lawyer when his client beat the rap for virtually beheading his white wife and killing her white friend to boot. In that case, black jurors simply rejected any evidence pointing to Simpson’s guilt, whatever its merits. That they did so for reasons of racial solidarity was transparent.

Do blacks ever really commit any violence or harbor any hatred of whites?

Are all white women who claim they were raped by blacks simply liars who really sought sex from them?

Can blacks today be convicted in American courts of serious or notorious crimes against whites?

That may in fact be the case or may be soon, as the myth of black victimhood and universal white evil, with the assistance of media like the New York Times and big time lawyers like Mr. Cochran and Miss Mackey, continues to entrench itself deep within the minds of both races.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

For most Americans not actually involved in the manhunt for him, the racial identity of the Washington sniper (or both snipers) was entirely irrelevant. But to American blacks, according to the Washington Post,the race of the serial killer who for three weeks was the most hated and feared man in the nation was obvious enough: He had to be white.

When the sniper turned out to be not one but two blacks, the reaction of those who for years have groused about the unfairness and bigotry of “racial profiling” was one of disbelief. [Blacks Express Shock At Suspects' Identity Darryl Fears and Avis Thomas-Lester, Washington Post, Oct 26, 2002]

“Many black people in Washington stumbled backward in shock”when they first saw the glum mug shot of John Allen Muhammad on the television screen last week, the Post reported.

The response was not confined to professional race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. It extended even to merely amateur race-baiters as well, whose number seems to include most of the black population of the nation’s capital. “All day long we’ve been saying, ‘Can you believe it?’” the black principal of a Maryland elementary school told the Post.

In fact, there’s some reason to share this reaction. I myself assumed the sniper was white, in so far as I thought about it, though it was perfectly believable to me that he wasn’t. That most serial killers are white has almost become a cliché. Nevertheless, a good many serial rapists are black, and the New York Times reports (October 28) that studies show that some 13 to 22 percent of American serial killers are black also.

Yet it’s doubtful that the black people who were stumbling backward in shock when they learned the race of the killer last week was due to any disturbance of their vast erudition in criminology. More likely it was due to what, quite simply, is known as “racism.”

Alvin Poussaint, a black Harvard psychologist who has carved a profitable career out of painting “white racism” in fancy psychiatric colors, was trotted out by the Post to comment on the phenomenon of blacks harboring negative stereotypes of white people.

To his credit, Dr. Poussaint didn’t hesitate to call it what it was. “A lot of the students around here were saying, ‘Oh no, he can’t be black,’” he told the Post. “This is the crazy thing we get hung up on because of the nature of racism.”

It’s refreshing to learn at last that non-whites can be “racist” as well as whites.

Indeed, no one as yet seems to have considered the possibility of racial motives on the part of the killers themselves. One or both of them seems to have sympathized with the Sept. 11 attacks, harbored anti-American passions and was a committed Black Muslim, but the multiracial cast of the snipers’ victims appeared from the first to prove that racial hate was not one of their motives.

Maybe so, but at least five of the 10 publicly known slain victims of the snipers were white, and two others were not blacks. Could the snipers have mistaken the race of the three wounded victims through their telescopic sights, or did they perhaps miss a nearby non-black person at whom they were aiming and shoot a black by accident?

Maybe not, but the point is that no one seems to care.

The Post story about the black reaction to the snipers’ race also notes that when David Berkowitz, the “Son of Sam” killer in New York, was arrested in 1977, “some Jews recoiled” and couldn’t believe he was really Jewish. The story also quotes various Hispanics and Arabs in the D.C. area who expressed relief the snipers weren’t of their particular ethnic persuasion.

Oddly, it says absolutely nothing about what whites think about any of it. It never occurred to the Post’s reporters to find out whether white people felt surprised or relieved that the snipers weren’t of their race.

I know of no one who asked whites what they thought about such serial murderers as Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy being white. I know of no white person who ever even thought about it.

Does this mean that whites are less “racist” than non-whites? Maybe, but what it suggests more than that is that for whites, race—at least their own race—doesn’t even exist.

For non-whites or distinctive Caucasian subgroups—blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, or Jews, to mention only a few—race or at least ethnicity does exist, and it’s an important source of identity.

What the racial meaning of the Washington sniper case tells us is that, at least for non-whites, race exists, while for whites it doesn’t.

And in the multiracial society that mass immigration is creating, those races that retain a strong racial consciousness will possess a powerful group advantage over those that don’t.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

The national crime rate is now down to its lowest levels since 1973, according to new government statistics, but that probably doesn’t make the people of Wichita, Kansas, any happier. There, jury selection started last week for the trial of what may be the most brutal mass murder and rape in the state’s history, a history that features such stars of multiple massacres as the killers of Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood and the abolitionist crackpot John Brown.

Yet what some newspapers are calling the Wichita Horror hasn’t really made it out of the local media. There may be a reason for that.

The four dead victims were all white, as was the sole survivor. So was yet another victim the same suspects are accused of killing a few days earlier. So was still another possible victim who also survived. The suspects, however, are black.

There is nothing in the crime itself, as far anyone knows, that suggests it was racially motivated, a “hate crime,” but then one gets the rather strong impression that no one really bothered to look very hard for any such motive.

That’s what makes some people—those few who know about the crime at all—angry. When a white commits murder against a black, it’s national headlines. When sexually “straight” males kill a “gay” man, that’s national headlines too. But when two blacks force their way into an apartment, rape two white women and take them and their three white male friends out and murder them in cold blood, it’s not even worth a national news story.

The crime took place on the night of Dec. 14, 2000, when the suspects, two black brothers named Jonathan and Reginald Carr, allegedly got inside an apartment where five young white people were staying. Armed with handguns, the intruders forced the whites to undress and locked the men in a closet. The two women the intruders forced to have oral sex with each other; some of the white men were then forced to have sex with the women, and the intruders themselves raped the women.

They also forced two of the victims to go to an ATM and withdraw money for them.

Finally, after ransacking the apartment for more money, they forced the victims, all naked in freezing weather, into a car, drove them to an empty field and shot each of them in the head.

Four died at once; the fifth, a woman, survived. She’s the main source for what happened.

Kansas has no “hate crime” statute, which is just as well, so there was no legal purpose in searching for a racial motive behind the crime. But since the media do a good deal of such searching in crimes where the race of victims and killers is reversed, one might expect them to undertake a little investigative reporting in this crime. They haven’t.

The national media have found space to tell us full details of white mothers murdering their children, white children murdering their parents, white kids shooting up the local schoolyard, and white wives and husbands murdering each other, but when it comes to blacks raping and murdering white victims, it’s not only not a hate crime, it’s not even news.

Aside from the transparent hypocrisy and dishonesty of the national media, what also stands out in the Wichita Horror is the utter passivity of the white victims themselves.

Three grown men (one an athletic coach) and two grown women allowed themselves to be locked in a closet for hours while the women were raped. Not once did any of the men try to resist. When one intruder left with one of the women for the ATM, there were three white men and one white woman left with one intruder. Still there was no resistance.

According to Stephen Webster, author of the fullest account of the crime in the newsletter American Renaissance, the surviving witness says while one of the intruders was raping her, he laid his handgun on the floor beside her. She thought about trying to grab it and shooting him, but she realized she didn’t even know how to fire it.

So much for firearms education. It never occurred to her or the other victims to grab the gun and thus disarm the rapist. Even when facing obvious death, not one of the victims resisted.

Maybe they were all paralyzed with fear, and that’s understandable, but maybe also white people have been so injected with the filth of racial guilt and racial cowardice that they no longer have the hormones even to think about resisting the most vicious criminal violence by other races.

Maybe that’s why the national media doesn’t want us to know the truth about the Wichita Horror—because learning the truth just might start to help make white people free.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

Nothing more clearly reveals the hypocrisy of the whole concept of “hate crimes” than the contortions of the police and city government of Charlottesville, Virginia, in trying to avoid charging 10 blacks accused of assaulting and beating several whites with racial hatred—unless it’s the contortion of the press in trying to avoid seeing hate where the press doesn’t want to see it.

In Charlottesville the 10 blacks—all but one adolescents—are accused of beating and in at least one case robbing the whites, who are students at the University of Virginia and include males and females, in incidents between last September and January of this year. As will appear shortly, the crimes were almost certainly motivated by black animosity toward whites—hate crimes—but that’s not how either the local powerbrokers nor the national media want to see it—or want you to see it. The attacks are a big issue in Charlottesville, but not so big for the Washington Post, which managed to ignore them entirely for nearly a month.

When the Post did alert the Northern Virginia region it covers, it also managed to distort what happened and why. The Post‘s coverage of the Charlottesville attacks was dumped in the Metro section, [College Town Confronts Issues of Race, Washington Post, February 27, 2002Page B01], which immediately tells us that “hate” (racial animosity) is not the issue. If hate were the issue, the story would be on the front page—at least so it was when a black, James Byrd, was murdered by whites in Jasper, Texas in 1998, and the Post wouldn’t follow a double standard, would it?

The Post started off its account of what it called the “sometimes-brutal assaults” (sometimes, you see, attacking people and beating them up isn’t brutal, so not all these attacks are really very serious anyway) by telling us that “police believe” the victims were beaten up “just for the thrill of it.” (One would think that beating people up “just for the thrill of it” is by definition always-brutal, but let it pass.) In fact the Post is wrong.

Police do not “believe” the victims were beaten up “just for the thrill of it.” As the Post later admits, “a police investigator [originally] announced that three of the suspects said they had chosen targets because they looked different.” Well, better, but still not exactly. What Charlottesville police Lt. J.W. Gibson actually told Media General News Service in a Feb. 3 interview was that “assailants did say the victims were chosen on the basis of race.”

Leave aside also that “looking different” and race are not the same thing. Lt. Gibson was citing what the suspects themselves had said—not leaping to a conclusion or inferring from evidence—so it seemed pretty clear that Charlottesville had a hate crime on its hands. But as the Post also explains, “the police chief hurried to say that the investigation was continuing, that more students could be charged as accessories and that it is premature to assign motive.” Why was that, do you think? Have the black suspects recanted their admission of racial motivation? No one says so.

What happened was that the NAACP and the usual squadron of black clergymen descended on the mayor’s office to explain to everyone that race just couldn’t be the motivation. The Rev. Alvin Edwards, who had three of the suspects in his congregation, says “class, not race, lies at the root of the assaults.” How he could know that is never clear, but no one really seems to care. “We know they don’t hate white people,” a black teenager told the Post. Do they hate rich people, then?

Of course the evidence, as Lt. Gibson originally presented it, shows clearly that the suspects themselves admitted that racial animosity was their motive, but neither the Post nor the police nor the city government nor (are you kidding?) the NAACP or local blacks are willing to accept that. The conclusion on which they insist, formulated entirely apart from the evidence and the facts, is that race had nothing to do with it. It was “thrills”; it was robbery; it was “class”; it wasn’t really brutal anyway, and it’s premature to say what the motive was, and it certainly wasn’t hate, because today the racial-political dogma, enforced by all authorities from the White House down to City Hall [send Charlottesville Mayor Blake Caravati email], is that blacks cannot be motivated by racial hatred and cannot commit hate crimes. Only whites can commit hate crimes.

That is precisely why the Charlottesville attacks expose the lies and racial-political power agenda behind the whole concept of “hate crimes” so clearly – the lie that only whites are driven by racial hate and that only non-whites can be victims of it.

And that is also why you haven’t heard of the Charlottesville crimes—and probably won’t hear about them much more.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

“Hate crimes” against whites, ignored by the national media, now appear to have become so commonplace that I receive accounts of three or four a week from all over the country. Because most of them are covered, if at all, only by local media, it’s often difficult to confirm them or learn any details about what actually happened. One anti-white hate crime that is confirmed comes from the liberal paradise of Charlottesville, Virginia, home of the university founded by Thomas Jefferson

Earlier this month Charlottesville police arrested nine black teenagers and one adult for a series of what police themselves describe as “race-based attacks” on white university students over the last six months. Between September and January, police say, the group set out “with the intention of committing assaults.”

“Assailants did say the victims were chosen on the basis of race,” an officer, Lt. J.W. Gibbon, told the press. Not all the victims were actually white, but “their appearance was white, not African-American.” Awhile all the assailants were themselves black, they were “accompanied by whites in some of the assaults.” The whites were not charged because they didn’t actually strike the blows.

In the most recent attack, six members of the gang allegedly attacked three white male university students, punched and kicked them, and gave one a concussion. Another white student reports being attacked two weeks earlier by three black males who gave him “black eyes and sore ribs.” Three more white students say they were attacked by a group of black males and females the same evening.

As crimes go, the assaults were not especially horrible. There were no gang rapes. no torture, no murder. But what there was in the crimes was black racial hatred of whites—which is why you’ve never heard of them.

Everyone has heard of Jasper, Texas, where, in 1998, three white men dragged to death a black man. President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno called a special press conference to deplore it and announce that the FBI would investigate it (even though the crime was solved and the three suspects arrested within 12 hours). The Rev. Jesse Jackson and a host of professional Afro-racial agitators descended on the town to preach and pray, deplore and denounce. For weeks “sensitivity sessions” were held in Jasper for whites who tearfully confessed to acts of racial bias they had committed. Not once did any black confess to an act of bias against whites.

The Charlottesville crimes are not comparable to the Jasper atrocity, and there’s no reason for them to gain national attention as crimes. But then the Jasper crime was not reported as a crime like the Manson murders or the Lindbergh kidnapping—but because of the white racial hatred it supposedly disclosed. The parallel with Charlottesville is the black hatred revealed. But if white racial hate is national news, black racial hate is not even newsworthy.

Indeed, no sooner had the police themselves confirmed the racial motivation in Charlottesville than city authorities stepped up to the plate to deny or evade them.

Less than a week after the initial arrests and the police statement confirming racial motivation, the Mayor of Charlottesville issued a public statement moaning and mewing about the whole matter. After perfunctory expressions of sympathy for the victims, the mayor gushed about the poor, pitiful perpetrators themselves and their families. But the mayor’s principal non-conclusion was uttered in his statement that “whether these were or were not racially motivated assaults” has “yet to be determined by the Commonwealth’s Attorney.”

So, despite what the police have already stated, despite the evidence from the suspects themselves as to why they committed the assaults and despite the racial identity of the attackers and their victims, it has yet “to be determined” whether black racial hatred was at work in the lovely and liberal metropolis of Charlottesville. And since the mayor also stated that he had held “a very open and frank discussion this morning” with black minister Reverend Alvin Edwards and [Charlottesville chapter] NAACP President Edna-Jakki Miller about these “incidents” (not, you see, crimes, but “incidents”) “and why they occurred, it’s probably pretty clear what conclusions the Commonwealth’s Attorney will reach as to the motivations of the assaults.

The Charlottesville attacks are not major crimes, but they do teach us important lessons. What lessons, exactly? That black racial hatred really exists and is capable of committing violence against whites. That political authorities won’t denounce black racial hate as strongly as white racial hate and maybe won’t even acknowledge it exists. And finally, that the Charlottesville attacks and their non-recognition by the authorities and the press tell us clearly what the future of whites in the glorious “diversity” of the coming non-white majority nation is likely to be.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

If a white law student, after flunking out of school, had shot and killed three black people, you can bet your law books we’d have a national crisis on our hands. Jesse Jackson would pop up to lead whites in repentance and threaten riots if justice were not done, and a small army of FBI agents, government officials, reporters and assorted busybodies would arrive to set us all straight about how “white racism” is still deeply imbedded in American life.

When what really happened at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia, earlier this month was the shooting of three whites by a black, however, there was no national crisis. The Rev. Jackson had more important business elsewhere; no local (let alone national) church leaders showed up to visit the families of the victims and demand justice; no FBI, no government officials, no politicians, and not much press, save the locals who quickly buried the story.

What really happened is that a man named Peter Odighizuwa, a native of Nigeria who had flunked out of Appalachian twice, blew away a white professor at the school, a white student and the white dean who had admitted him to the school a second time after he had flunked out once. There was a flutter of national news about the story before it sank into its grave, but only because the dean happened to be a former official in the Clinton Justice Department, a Harvard Law School graduate and something of a professional do-gooder. Apart from the death of a member of America’s ruling class, the story had little interest.

What is really of interest in the story, however, is not just the hypocrisy of the typical reporting on “hate crimes”—that the media obsesses over them when they involve white perpetrators and non-white victims but ignores or denies them if the victim role is reversed. That is certainly present in the law school shootings, but it’s not the major feature.

No sooner had the shootings occurred than the local media got hold of a gentleman named Zeke Jackson, head of the school’s Black Student Association. “Race was not the cause of Odighizuwa’s apparent problems, Jackson said,” the Roanoke Times reported, and since blacks themselves didn’t want to bring in race, no one else did either. The main interest of the story lies in what it tells us about the white mentality that allowed the murders to occur at all.

The dean who was shot was Anthony Sutin, who, after a prominent career as a Washington lawyer representing mainly liberal Democrats and working in the Justice Department under Janet Reno, took up his position at the Appalachian law school in 1999. He adopted one child from Russia and a second from China, and he accepted the Appalachian position apparently because he wanted to help what liberals like to call the “underprivileged.” The law school was founded to help mainly poor white students from the region.

Everyone who knew Peter Odighizuwa knew he didn’t belong there. He didn’t belong intellectually and he didn’t belong mentally. Everyone who knew him knew he was unbalanced. “Everybody knows this guy,” said one doctor who helped clean up the slaughter Mr. Odighizuwa left behind him. “He is a walking time bomb.” “He just thought everyone was conspiring against him,” said a student who knew him.

So why, when he flunked out of the school the first time, did Dean Sutin let him re-enter? He let him re-enter because Dean Sutin, for all his do-good, was a sap, a liberal bubblehead who refuses to believe that a non-white immigrant flunks out of school because he lacks the smarts to get passing grades. Mr. Sutin probably thought Mr. Odighizuwa flunked out because of “institutional racism” or “lacked self-esteem” or “never had the opportunities” that others (whites) had but denied him, a black. Because he insisted on ignoring the obvious truth that Mr. Odighizuwa didn’t have the brains to stay in school and didn’t belong there, Dean Sutin and two others are dead.

The bloodbath at Appalachian is a microcosm of what’s happening all over the United States and all over the Western world. Governed by well-meaning bubbleheads like Anthony Sutin, the white West welcomes losers and misfits like Mr. Odighizuwa into its midst, pretends they’ve assimilated, boasts about the “diversity” we’re creating and ignores any and every indication that they don’t belong here and that their presence endangers others.

If it were only the bubbleheads who had to die because of their suicidal fantasies, the problem would self-correct. Unfortunately, they usually manage to escape the consequences of their own behavior, and it’s the rest of us who, like Mr. Sutin’s dead colleagues, have to pay the final price.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

No doubt because of the influence of xenophobia and nativism in this country, America has not yet had an opportunity to welcome a new sport that the glorious multiracial diversity of the new millennium has already created. But in more cosmopolitan centers like Paris and Australia, the game is blossoming. It consists in the ritual gang rape of white women by non-white immigrants.

Back in April, 11 young black males went on trial in Paris for the gang rape of a 14-year-old white girl seven years ago. Rapes happen all the time, of course, but this one was unusually notable. It turned out to be a ritual for initiation into a gang. (VDARE note: The Guardian story on this case refers to the rapists as “French youths”. See Peter Brimelow’s review of Paved with Good Intentions for a discussion of this media phenomenon.)

The ritual is known as a “tournante,” meaning “Take your turn,” and it consists of a black male becoming “friendly with” (seducing) a white female, preferably a teenager. Once they’ve become chums, the male lures the girl to a location where his buddies in the gang “take their turns” with her. In the case on trial in Paris, it was no fewer than 14 buddies. Unlike many victims of such fun, this young lady lodged a complaint with the police. As a result, she was gangraped a second time—this time, allegedly, by the 11 who went on trial in April.

The incident is not isolated. Police investigations of similar rapes were underway in three other French cities, and one French magistrate says the game has been going on since at least the 1980s. “Their technique was to pick up a young girl—a white girl—and once she had become the girlfriend of one of the members, he would allow his mates to make use of her,” magistrate Sylvie Lotteau told the press last spring. (VDARE: Click here to read it in the French language. Computer translation here.)

But France isn’t the only nation to experience the pleasures of diversity. Reports from Australia reveal that racially motivated rapes of white women are catching on there as well.

The Australian Sun-Herald reports that police data show that some 70 racially motivated rapes of young white girls, one as young as 13, by Middle Eastern immigrants have taken place in the last two years. “Fifteen youths and men have so far been charged with more than 300 offenses relating to matters since mid-2000 alone. They are all of Middle Eastern extraction. None of those involved is presently before the courts. Their alleged victims have all been Caucasian, aged between 13 and 18.”

Unlike the French white rape sport, those in Australia don’t seem to be part of a gang initiation, but they are nonetheless clearly racially driven. “Before being brutalized,” the Australian paper reports, “other victims have reportedly been questioned about their Australian heritage or forced to endure taunts about their attackers’ prowess.” But, like the rapes in France, those in Australia follow a similar pattern in which one non-white male becomes intimate with a white girl, whom he then delivers to his friends for sexual violation, beating and humiliation.

As I remarked, these particular sports, rather like soccer a few years ago, have just not caught on in the United States—at least not yet. But a recent report from Sacramento suggests that times are changing. There four men who are immigrants from Fiji are facing trial for kidnapping and rape as part of a gang initiation, and they are part of a group of 11 suspects facing similar charges of kidnapping and raping at least nine women, most of them prostitutes. There’s no word in the Sacramento Bee story that reported these facts as to the race of the victims—no doubt because race just isn’t important, you know. (VDARE note: The Sacramento Bee did a year-long project on rape in the Sacramento area. Both their breakdown on the details of Sacramento area rapes, and their “profile of a rapist” avoid any mention of race, culture, or citizenship. They do use the word macho, but with reference to Americans.)

And that of course is the whole point, isn’t it? In the glorious diversity of the new millennium the brutal truth is that race is important—so important that non-whites who know this truth will commit rape against white women because of it. Importing millions of non-whites into what for centuries have been majority white countries doesn’t diminish the importance of race; it increases it.

Because American and some other Western governments refuse to protect their own citizens, rape, like other violent crimes, is no longer uncommon. What is uncommon—so far—is for rape to be openly committed for racial reasons, and the diversity mania and its supportive ideologies have utterly destroyed the capacity of white Westerners to understand this. Human beings aren’t really motivated by racial loyalties and racial hatreds, are they? Human beings are just interested in getting better jobs and making more money.

Racial rape is only the latest contribution of multiracialist diversity to the growth of Western civilization and its narrow-minded ethic and world-view. Just imagine what other contributions multiracialism will make possible once whites cease to be a majority in their own countries and the immigrants who are now on trial are able to take control.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Race/Crime 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”