Posted on 09/19/2012 10:05:17 PM PDT by neverdem
A group of those whom Eric Holder described as "his people," at least six young men, repeatedly punched a 24-year-old white woman in the face, then proceeded to kick her face over and over when she was on the ground helpless. This occurred in Buffalo, New York last week, but the event has received no attention by the mainstream media because the victim was white and the attackers were black. This was no friendly urban jostling: the woman was left with a broken nose and cracked bones in her face.
There must have been a little bit of hate in at least one of those kicks to the face, but you can bet it won't be charged as a hate crime.
Instead, those Eric Holder described as "his people" seem to get a pass on hate crimes charges when they select whites for their blood sport. But is it unfair to suggest that young black criminals are Eric Holder's people? The attorney general didn't say "my people when they are law-abiding," and he didn't say "my people when they are doing good things." The attorney general exclusively, categorically identified, by race, with one racial in-group as "his people." In post-racial America, it doesn't seem right that the chief law enforcement officer is referring to a racial group in such terms.
In Buffalo, the unidentified woman happened to be caught up in the tail end of a flash mob. Before attacking the woman, the mob first pillaged a convenience store, filling their pockets with nutritious food which society had deprived them of. The video of the looting doesn't look like something that would happen in a developed country. When the young men ran out, the soon-to-be victim just happened to be outside the store. That's when the group of attackers...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Yup.
I understand that some people (myself included) have no choice but to be in certain places at certain times due to work requirements, but how does someone end up exposed to “Holder’s people” like this? Do people still underestimate the hatred they bear towards whites, or the danger that entails?
I often have to be in Newark NJ, but it would be a cold day in hell before I am outside of my vehicle anywhere near a group like this (or anywhere a group like this might show up). On the outskirts of welfare reservations like Newark, EVERYBODY knows better (and these crimes don’t get any coverage at all except by word-of-mouth). There was a reason the Allies used convoys during WWII to supply Britain; why wasn’t this woman with a convoy of similar-colored people? (I’m not even being sarcastic)
"Even a worm will turn," it's said. But will it complain ?
Do people still underestimate the hatred they bear towards whites, or the danger that entails?
Yes...
I wouldn’t expect that from anyone who lives near Buffalo; I’ve been there, and it looks too much like Newark NJ for me to let down my guard.
Usually these attacks occur when war parties leave the welfare reservations to raid along the frontier (in areas where they are rarely seen); maybe that was the case here. In my town the local militia (town cops) would have been all over this as soon as 3 were spotted together; everybody knows the dangers of living on the frontier, and they maintain the local cavalry to deal with just this type of raid.
They report one or two new ones each week.
Virtually all these crimes are reported only by local news sources, if they are reported at all.
You also need to read critically.
Race is often not mentioned, names or descriptions are excised to conceal race, photos are not available, especially when a “group of youths” riot or injure or rob innocent whites.
Hats off to John Derbyshire, who was fired by National Review when he wrote about these violent sociopaths last April.
We need a hundred more like him.
I honestly think people doubt their gut because it would make them racist to have the fear—so they ignore it.
~ Larry Elder, "The Ten Things You Can't Say In America"
“A conservative is a liberal who got mugged the night before”. ~Mayor Frank Rizzo (D-Philadelphia)
There are two reasons this may not be technically a true statement, both involved with the definition of the word "racist."
The definition of racism, according to the University of Delaware:
Racist: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e. people of European descent) living in the United States regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.
By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/academic-cesspools-ii.html
The other relevant definition is the dictionary one. Most dictionaries have a belief in the inherent superiority of one's own race as the primary definition. Hatred and violence against another race is generally, if included at all, a secondary definition.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=racism&ls=a
Since many blacks don't really consider themselves superior to white people despite their hatred for them, by this definition they aren't really racist.
Recently looked up the Southern Poverty Law Center description of "racist music." It's when white bands have lyrics expressing hatred of blacks or other minorities. By this definition, black musical groups cannot produce "racist music."
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/racist-music
To be fair to the SPLC, they do list some "black racist" groups, though apparently none of them are musical. :)
Just the run-up to CWII.
When Bath-House Barry loses, it all begins.
The criminals themselves were probably lost to society by the sixth grade if not before. Through either reasoning with them (doomed to failure) or tougher methods, these young criminals must be made to know the consequences of their behavior. And I think tougher measures i.e. strict punishment and imprisonment will work better for everyone rather than trying to understand them.
I’ve had a black co-worker admit exactly that to me; “Black people hate white people”.
Sherman, please tell me you forgot the /sarcasm tag when you posted that.
“Only whites can be racist”? “The term applies to all white people”?
And as far as not bring able to “back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination”?? WTF? Affirmative action, EEOC, all the undocumented black-on-white crime, economic blackmail and shakedowns - they have the only weapon they need: terror.
My first point was that liberals, particularly colleges, often define racism in such a way that only whites can be guilty of it, at least in America. That’s a quote from a mandatory indoctrination session from the U of Delaware. And it’s by no means the only example.
This definition is based on the notion that racism is an expression of power. Since only whites have power in America, only they can be racist. This notion looks a little silly, to be sure, at a time when our President is black.
My second point was that the primary dictionary definition is one of a belief in superiority, so you can hate and kill another race all you want without being racist, as long as you don’t believe them to be inferior.
For instance, some (not all) Nazis recognized the great intellectual accomplishments of the “Jewish race.” They didn’t believe Jews to be intellectually inferior, they just believed they needed to be destroyed because they were a threat to the “German race.” By the primary dictionary definition, therefore, they weren’t racist.
Now it should be fairly obvious I believe both these arguments to be nonsense on stilts. They are merely examples of how, if you allow someone else to control the defining of words, they can be used to damn you while excusing everyone else.
A phrase often used to define anti-white bias, reverse racism, pretty much concedes that “real” racism is limited to whites.
This is nonsense, too, of course. Racism is racism, and there is no reverse variety.
There was a reason the Allies used convoys during WWII to supply Britain; why wasn’t this woman with a convoy of similar-colored people? (I’m not even being sarcastic)....I’m not either being sarcastic but I have an answer to your question. “Because I live in the F’ng USA!!! A country that used to respect people, jobs, and the rights inherent to us to walk down the street and not get the shit beat out of us..”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.