This is unacceptable. It must stop.
A few years ago we started to hear about something called “The Knockout Game” wherein black thugs and wannabe thugs would sucker-punch unsuspecting white people with the goal of knocking them cold with a single punch. The news media quickly rushed out to assure us that there was no such thing and it was all a racist lie concocted by white supremacists to promote the myth of black-on-black and black-on-white violence. Then the SJWs with degrees in expertology told us that poor oppressed black people of color cannot possibly be racist. Black violence is speech and white speech is violence.
If you are just sitting there minding your own business and a Leftist punches you in the face, it is probably because you were being a Nazi. It is okay to punch Nazis. Even old lady Nazis.
There is a time and place for everything, and the time to discuss black-on-white violence is between 3 am and 3:01 am on the 13th of Fuggedaboutit. But the absolute worst time to discuss black-on-white violence is while our nation is coming together to mourn the coldblooded and premeditated assassination of the man who has done more to make Minneapolis the city is is today. Perhaps in 6-8 months we’ll be ready. But don’t hold your breath.
The violence we have been seeing lately is chilling. I’ve seen people getting sucker-punched and knocked cold. Then while these people are unconscious or semi-conscious the assailant or other people come up and punch, kick, stomp, and/or urinate on the victims. Meanwhile, there are numerous onlookers who, if they don’t join in, hoot, holler, howl, and carry on like Vikings gone a-raiding. In the background of many of these clips you can see looting and burning.
These are not images of peaceful protests. These are images of savagery. Savages strike fear among civilized men and women for good reason. Savagery is the opposite of civilization. Savages do not bend the knee to the rule of law. They recognize only the rule of force. You cannot negotiate with savages because they have no moral code.
Savages make nothing except trouble and babies. Savages are like locusts. They consume and destroy. But consuming and destroying don’t fit the media-produced Democrat narratives. The official narrative is that all these protests were “mostly peaceful.” These protests were nothing like the illegal anti-lockdown protests that took place a month earlier. Those protests were incredibly violent because Trump supporters engaged in homicide, terrorism, and genocide.
But. . . but. . . but. . .
The problem for the Democrats is that they cannot filter and edit the flow of information and images fast enough in real-time. Remember Reginald Denny? He was the white truck driver who was passing thru South-Central Lost Angeles shortly after the Rodney King verdicts were delivered. At the intersection of 71st and Normandie, Denny stopped his truck because the intersection was blocked by protestors. The protestors then pulled Denny out of his vehicle and beat him savagely for the crime of being white. At one point a protestor threw a brick at Denny at close range and hit him in the head, then proceeded to do a celebratory “end-zone” dance.
All of this was recorded by television cameras in helicopters circling above. Millions of people were watching live when the beating took place. Millions more watched unedited replays of the video. Millions of Americans were horrified by the Rodney King beating. But they were equally or even more horrified by the Rodney King riots.
The Rodney King riots were spontaneous. When they took place there were no groups like Black Lies Matter or Antifa out on the streets. The news media had not yet discovered narratives. Mostly the media recorded things and let people decide for themselves what it all meant. It was 1992, a simpler and more innocent time.
It is not difficult to imagine some Democrat politicians and political operatives watching the Rodney King riots and thinking that if they could harness some or all of the emotion and energy of the rioters they could accomplish a lot of things. But controlling and directing riots is easier said than done.
The Democrats have decades of experience at street theater, aka “organized protests.” In recent years we have seen the creation of Democrat rapid response organizations like Antifa and BLM that hit the streets when a spontaneous protest starts to organize and direct the protest. Democrats already control the media and since most of the riots take place in blue cities they control the cops and prosecutions. How many times have we seen Antifa goons beating the crap out of someone while the cops watch and do nothing?
Sometimes events are staged. Check out this video. The cops form a line to push back protestors, even though few are visible. A Buffalo news crew is set up and recording. Right near the center of where the camera is pointing a protestor practically runs up to two of the cops and acts weird. The two cops push the protestor backward. The protestor falls, allegedly hits his head on the sidewalk and blood immediately gushes from his ears. Both cops were promptly suspended without pay.
If your narrative is that police brutality is a major problem in this country then that video supports your narrative.
On the other hand, this video taken in Rochester shreds the media’s “mostly peaceful” narrative. When you watch this video it makes you want to see the cops pull up and start dispensing some police brutality on those looters.
Minitrue controls the internet. Sometimes I’ll search for a video I’ve seen before and I’ll have trouble finding it. I have literally typed in the name of the video and then scrolled down near the bottom of the results before I found the one I was looking for. It is as if someone has toyed with the search algorithm to suppress the video.
This is from an alleged email from a UC Berserkly faculty member that appeared in American Conservative:
I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely, and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job, and likely all future jobs in my field.
In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.
In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system. The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions.
Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or ‘Uncle Toms’. They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.
The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians. Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and our culture, without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.
A counternarrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email. Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by BLM and allies is either primarily anecdotal (as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black.
Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict. This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries.
And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation that appeals to the department’s apparent desire to shoulder the ‘white man’s burden’ and to promote a narrative of white guilt.
If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it’s fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews. None of this is addressed in your literature. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems. “Those are racist dogwhistles”. “The model minority myth is white supremacist”. “Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime”, ad nauseam.
These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to silence and oppress discourse. Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are, common to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.
Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM’s problematic view of history, and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position, which is no small number.
I personally don’t dare speak out against the BLM narrative, and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.
The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people. There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.
No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence.
Sometimes I wonder if there is a blue pill I could take to go back to being blissfully ignorant. There are things I’ve seen I would like to unsee.