Paul Kersey recently called to my attention some statistics on race and crime from the Minneapolis Police Department that cover the period 2009 to 2014. Every table explains that “Victim race is determined by reporting officer, suspect race in determined by the crime victim, arrestee race is determined by arresting officer.”
As soon as the story broke about the Somali cop fatally shooting the pretty white Australian girl in Minneapolis, one of my Muslim fans emailed me a story:
“Re: Hunting in Kuwait as explanation why this Noor guy shot through the car
“I remember being in Kuwait with the president of the investment bank I worked for. We were invited by one of our directors to hunt turtle doves. There were five of us in all and each had a 12-gauge shotgun.
“Instructions were: Only shoot straight and up; shotgun point in air resting on shoulders when not being used. That’s it. I was on the far left, and the fellow on the other end was a Syrian.
“Well, we were out there and no straggling turtle doves were migrating. A half-hour later, not one shot was fired. Then, two birds from a tree ahead darted out, between me and the houses on my left.
“We all looked, but the Syrian turned toward us and began shooting over our heads at the birds. The rest of us hit the ground. Even though our host took his gun away, I gave them mine and went back because, if there is a way to overreact, the Syrian would think it is natural and can’t even consider the consequences.
“You cannot place these people in a position of authority (for example with a gun in their hands). They will always shoot as a default reaction to anything that is instant. Neither training nor thinking can change their natures.
“And that is why he shot. He had a gun.”
Since then, we’ve found out that this is exactly why Officer Mohamed Noor shot the gentle yoga instructor walking toward the police car. He heard a loud noise — or as Powerline blog is calling it, “The Loud Noise Heard ‘Round the World.”
Noor shot from the passenger seat, killing Justine Damond, according to his partner, sitting at the wheel, who is presumably now deaf. Damond had called 911 to report what sounded like a rape in the alley behind her house, and was approaching the responding police car when she was shot.
As usually happens when Muslims attack, the press is consumed with worry about their mental state and well-being.
Somalis on edge after Minneapolis cop named in fatal shooting — The Daily Herald (Everett, Washington), July 18, 2017
Somalis in Minneapolis on defensive after police shooting — St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota), July 21, 2017
Minneapolis shooting brings unwelcome attention to Somalis — Associated Press, July 22, 2017
There are nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world, amounting to a quarter of the world’s population, controlling 50 countries. The English-speaking world is about a fifth that size and constitutes a dwindling majority in about a half-dozen countries. But, somehow, no matter how the story is written, Muslims always get to play the victim, and Anglo-Saxons are cast as the aggressors.
That’s why a Somali cop’s fatal shooting of a pajama-clad Good Samaritan has gone directly into the “Be Nice to Muslims!” file, rather than the “Why Are All These Somalis Here?” file. (Answer: Because of an earlier mistake with excessive Scandinavian immigration.)
I can’t help noticing that it was precisely the “Be Nice to Muslims!” dictate that put this Somali nincompoop on the police force in the first place.
Among Noor’s evident errors the night he killed Justine:
1) Shooting from the passenger seat, the bullet whizzing inches past his partner’s face, through the driver’s side window;
2) Not turning his bodycam on when responding to a 911 call;
3) Shooting to kill because he heard a loud noise;
4) Believing that white women in America pose a threat to a policeman.
A few of the Weather Underground ladies were accomplices to cop-killings, 40 years ago, but even they weren’t lone white women cop-killers.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, women of any race committed about 10 percent of all murders from 1980 to 2008, and black people committed a majority of all murders. Other than a small child, it’s difficult to think of a demographic that poses less of a threat to a policeman in America than a 40-year-old white woman.
Noor’s African-American neighbor, Chris Miller, said he was shocked when he heard about Damond’s shooting — until he found out it was Noor. Miller told The Daily Telegraph (Australia) that his Somali neighbor was quick to anger and was always going off on women and children. “He is extremely nervous,” Miller said, “a little jumpy … he doesn’t really respect women, the least thing you say to him can set him off.”
Sounds perfect for a police officer!
May we see Officer Noor’s cadet exam? His training reports? Does anyone believe there is the slightest possibility that Noor was not rushed through the Police Academy so that the nice people of Minneapolis could feel good about themselves for having a real Somali on the police force?
Minnesota’s importation of these stone-age people is a completely self-inflicted wound. It’s as if the state decided to inject itself with Hepatitis C. Hey, you know what? We’re too white and pure. Everyone tie a vein off and give yourself a shot of hep C. We could learn from that!
With Somalis, you get all the social pathologies of Muslims and the American underclass rolled into one package. There’s the terrorism and pederasty — but also the criminality and joblessness!
At least with taxpayer-draining Mexican illegals, you can say, yes, but they provide the rich with such cheap labor! Someone, somewhere in America, gets a benefit. There is absolutely no benefit to the more than 100,000 Somalis brought in by Minnesota, except to feed the Scandinavian ethnomasochism, expressed as arrogant self-regard.
Gosh, they’re good people. R.I.P. Justine.
COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
Last Friday, Nigerian immigrant Henry Williams Obotetukudo, aka Henry Bello, opened fire with an AM-15 rifle at the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, killing one doctor and injuring a half-dozen others. I would prefer to leap right in and offer my ideas for stopping these immigrant shooting rampages, but first I’ll have to tell you the facts the media won’t.
The New York Times, still unaware there’s an internet, is trying to pass off the Nigerian as a Californian, the non-doctor as a doctor, and Mr. Obotetukudo as “Dr. Bello.”
In the Times’ major biographical profile of Bello the next day, he was described as a “sharp dresser from California.” The only other reference to the shooter’s provenance came several paragraphs later: “Dr. Bello lived in California off and on from 1991 until 2006.”
ABC News had reported on the day of the shooting that Bello was a “Nigerian national” — so the cat was already out of the bag, New York Times. Local New York station PIX11 also reported that he was a Nigerian. Even newspapers in Ohio knew that Bello was a Nigerian.
But as we go to print, the Times still has not identified Bello as a Nigerian immigrant. It issued a “correction,” but only to clarify the exact street of a homeless shelter where Bello had lived. No correction to the “California” bit.
Sadly, the Times didn’t allow any comments to the online version of its story, but CBS did. There were four comments, two about the incident (“rot in hell”) and two about CBS’s report:
“Where was Bello born?”
“Where is he from? Where did he receive his medical degree? Worthless reporting.”
You’re not fooling anyone, media.
Having misled readers about Bello’s nationality, the Times professed utter bafflement about the shooter’s motive, saying it was “marked with as many questions as answers.”
If the Times simply reported facts, instead of strategically constructing news stories to protect favored groups, it might have noticed that there have been a LOT of mass shootings by certain types of immigrants.
There are mental illness shootings, gangland shootings, still-angry-about-the-divorce shootings and so on. Some immigrant murderers are mentally ill or criminals — thanks to our excellent and extremely rigorous vetting system! But there are enough like Mr. Obotetukudo to qualify as their own category: the Disappointed Immigrant mass shootings.
The usual elements are: 1) immigrants from wildly different cultures, who have 2) unrealistic expectations about what their lives should be like in the U.S., combined with 3) an inability to achieve success in the U.S., and 4) a failure to grasp our customs — often, even our language, typically marked by 5) a particular rage at women.
The same way girls from the Midwest come to New York City expecting to live like Carrie Bradshaw in “Sex and the City” (she was paying $700 a month for a $2,700 per month apartment, plus $40,000 on shoes), some immigrants seem to expect their lives in the U.S. to be like something out of “Dynasty.”
Bello, for example, declared bankruptcy in 2000 — from one of the priciest towns in the world, Santa Barbara, California. And he just kept failing. He was fired from the Bronx hospital. He lost his license as a “pharmacy technician.” (He was not a “doctor,” despite the media’s insistent reference to him as one.)
The Nigerian couldn’t even pull off being a fake doctor, sounding more like a character out of a comedy sketch. Co-workers described him as “very aggressive, talking loudly, threatening people.” Once he was arrested for fare-jumping — just like your trusted family physician. Recently, he’d been living in a homeless shelter.
His Third World approach to meeting women resulted in his being arrested in 2004 for lifting a 23-year-old woman off the ground in Greenwich Village, while trying to penetrate her through her underwear and saying “You’re coming with me.” Although initially charged with felony assault, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor — otherwise he might have been deported and America’s beautiful mosaic would be diminished.
Apart from the turnstile jumping, all of Bello’s arrests involve similarly rom-com, meet-cute scenarios. In 2003, he was arrested for kicking in an ex-girlfriend’s door at 5:10 in the morning. In 2009, he was charged, in separate incidents, with harassing women by trying to look up their skirts.
All this insanely inappropriate behavior would have continued ad infinitum, with American women being sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism, but, finally, the Unstoppable Force of Diversity met the Feminist Immovable Object: He was fired from the hospital for sexual harassment.
In his revenge shooting, he killed one doctor: a woman.
Bello blamed his firing on “racism and discrimination,” so at least he was capable of assimilating to the American custom of immigrants being constantly aggrieved.
Close observers will notice the same basic pattern over and over again. Immigrants from backward cultures develop extravagant expectations about their lives in America, fail to master the most rudimentary civic habits, and then erupt in shooting rampages when their lives aren’t turning out as planned.
One will find similar elements in the many, many immigrant mass murders — Jiverly Wong (American Civic Association, Binghamton, New York); Nigerian immigrant Peter Odighizuwa, (Appalachian School of Law); Palestinian immigrant Ali Hassan Abu Kamal (Empire State Building), Bosnian immigrant Sulejman Talovic (Trolley Square Mall, Salt Lake City); Hmong immigrant Chai Soua Vang (hunters in Wisconsin); Mexican immigrant Salvador Tapia (Windy City Core Supply); Korean immigrant Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Poly Tech) and on and on.
Liberals have a mystical idea that we can pluck people from the most discordant cultures, put them in middle-class houses in the suburbs and then, magically, primitive tribesmen will be imbued with the core beliefs of our republic and civilization, developed over centuries.
Instead, we have Aztecs getting loaded up on Tecate and hopping behind the wheels of cars; Nigerians demanding to be called “doctor” while picking up women on the street and trying to drag them home; and Hmong responding to the concept of private property by wiping out a pack of Wisconsin hunters.
The New York Times might even help their Muslim friends by reporting the truth! Perhaps some Muslim mass murders — Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon and the Orlando nightclub, for example –- aren’t problems of Islam, at all. Maybe the problem is assimilation.
It would be a major step forward if the media would just stop lying to us. Until then, Times reporters can still be issued badges, but they shouldn’t be press badges.
Many people have written about the extreme political polarization in the United States today. However, few people have suggested any way to end it—or at least reduce it to normal, manageable levels—other than saying that the other side should be more reasonable. On this subject, there are three questions we should consider:
- How extreme is the political polarization today?
- If it is worse than in the past, why did it become so bad?
- What, if anything, can be done to end it?
How extreme is today’s political polarization?
Angry feelings between “liberals” and “conservatives” or between Democrats and Republicans have always been commonplace, but there have been periods when they were more intense than usual. Two such periods were the Vietnam War (roughly 1960-1975) and the McCarthy era (roughly 1950-1954).
I lived through both periods, and it seems to me that polarization is more extreme today. I have asked others who lived through those times, and they agree that divisions have never been sharper.
In 1952, at the height of McCarthy era, a Republican Dwight Eisenhower was elected president. Those who had supported his Democratic opponent, Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, were disappointed, but they accepted the results without protest. In contrast, when Donald Trump won the general election there were immediate calls for members of the Electoral College to ignore the will of the voters and vote against him. The addresses of various electors were printed, together with physical threats against them; no prominent Democratic politician publicly denounced these threats. Calls for Donald Trump to be impeached started shortly after the election, even before he had taken office.
The protests against the Vietnam War were both intense and widespread. However, there were never open suggestions that the presidents prosecuting the war should be assassinated. Yet recently, a prominent TV “humorist” posted an image of herself holding up President Trump’s severed head. Kathy Griffin is hardly alone. Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and Robert De Niro are among at least a dozen leftist celebrities who have fantasized about killing or attacking the President.
A production in New York City of Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar includes an actor dressed as Donald Trump being stabbed to death—as the audiences applauds enthusiastically. I have attended various productions of that play, and there was never any applause when Caesar was assassinated even though Julius Caesar, unlike Donald Trump, had staged a military coup that had overthrown constitutional rule in Rome, and had then taken the title “dictator for life.”
A few weeks ago, a deranged left-winger began shooting Republican congressmen who were practicing for a baseball game. Most people, including leading Democrats, were rightly horrified, but not all. Sonia Gupta, a former prosecutor from Congressman Scalise’s home state of Louisiana, tweeted: “Before you start dropping to your knees to pray for Steve Scalise, remember that he is a racist piece of shit and hateful bigot.” I can recall nothing remotely as venomous when President Ronald Reagan was shot in an assassination attempt in 1981.
As this interactive map shows, there have been hundreds of attacks on Trump supporters since the election. Richard Spencer was sucker-punched by a stranger on inauguration day. Charles Murray was attacked at Middlebury College, and Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter were prevented from speaking at Berkeley by violence and threats of violence. It is now routine to withdraw invitations from conservative speakers or to shout them down if they try to speak.
Hostility now extends to ordinary people, not just politicians and prominent figures. In 1960, only 4 percent of Democrats and 5 percent of Republicans said they would not like it if a child of theirs married someone from the other party. By 2010, the figures had risen to 33 percent for Democrats and 49 percent for Republicans, and levels of hostility are surely higher today.
What causes extreme polarization?
There seems to be little agreement about what has caused this level of polarization. Economic conditions are not worse than normal. Military casualty rates are not high. Crime rates are not unusually high. Stores are bulging with goods, and people are buying them. Many people are enjoying obvious luxuries such as foreign travel and trips on cruise ships. Life expectancy at birth—a good measure of the general health of the population—is at or near a record high. Racial antagonisms are not clearly worse than they have been in the past.
Liberals and conservatives are badly divided on issues such as abortion, how progressive tax rates should be, and how large transfer payments should be. However, that has always been the case, and such disagreements cannot explain the extraordinary level of political polarization, nor its steady growth.
I would note that the increasing division between the two parties is not due to the Republican Party moving to right, but to the increasingly leftwing march of the Democratic Party. Donald Trump is less conservative than Ronald Reagan was in 1980, and to the left of Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Compare, for example, their stands on immigration, school integration, abortion, or gay rights. However, the policies of the Democratic Party have altered greatly since 1952. Compare, for example, its current positions on free speech, abortion, and racial quotas with the views of Hubert Humphrey, Adlai Stevenson, and John F. Kennedy.
I would like to make two suggestions as to the possible causes of extreme and growing polarization. They are not mutually exclusive, and both may play a role.
First, I believe loss of faith in our country—most evident among the college educated—is a result of a slow, long term decline in religious belief. A belief in Christianity was the glue that held our country together through earlier difficulties. As that faith wanes, our divisions become harder to bridge. Note that Edward Gibbon, in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, suggested that loss of faith in the old Roman religion was a major factor in the fall of Rome.
By this I am not suggesting that Jews are naturally unpatriotic because they are not Christians. The theological differences between religious Jews and religious Christians are minor compared with the differences between believers and non-believers, and orthodox Jews tend to be politically conservative. There are also many who are not religious but who still love and honor the United States, but this is not necessarily true of many atheists and agnostics.
Second, during the Vietnam War, many young people—particularly college students—lost their faith in the essential goodness of the United States. Instead, they came to think of this country as basically imperialist and racist—a force for evil. In the course of time, these radicalized students became professors, and large numbers of their students have been propagandized to accept similar views. The result is polarization, which is particularly marked among the college educated.
If these explanations for our current high level of political polarization are correct, we cannot expect tensions to subside any time soon.
What can we do?
There are several alternatives.
- Try to cooperate with Democrats to reduce hostilities
- Do nothing, and hope that polarization will go away, or at least not get worse
- Try to crush our opponents militarily
- Work for a peaceful partition of the country
Cooperation with Democrats sounds reasonable, and I have no objection to trying it, but I don’t think it will succeed. Most of the leaders of the Democratic Party are not interested in reducing ill will, but prefer to increase suspicion and hatred of the other party. They have been charging Trump with stealing the election, and have been calling for impeachment. Some of them even claim that impeachment is not enough, and that he should be tried for treason and executed! They constantly call Mr. Trump a fascist and compare him to Hitler, which suggests that his assassination would be acceptable, and even praiseworthy.
Doing nothing and hoping for the best will not accomplish anything. A continuation of the present situation is just what we want to avoid; it is clearly unstable. Wishful thinking has never been a sound policy.
The last time polarization was high as it is today, the result was civil war. Abraham Lincoln crushed his opposition militarily, at a cost of about 1.5 percent of the population (that would be over four million dead today). We must avoid a civil war if at all possible.
I think the best way to deal with extreme polarization is to break up the United States into separate countries. In one of them, Democrats and left-wing voters would be in the majority. In another, Republicans and conservatives would be the majority. Within each country there would be far less polarization than there is now in the United States.
This is obviously a drastic step, and many people shrink from even considering it. However, there are many instances of countries being partitioned successfully, and in the great majority of cases, partition worked out for the best.
- Norway split from Sweden in 1905
- Singapore split from Malaysia in 1965
- Bangladesh split from Pakistan in 1971
- Cyprus was divided into a Greek part and a Turkish part in 1974
- The Soviet Union broke into 15 separate nations in 1990-1991
- Yugoslavia broke into seven independent nations in the early 1990s
- Czechoslovakia split in two in 1993
I have written a book, Restoring America that describes how the United States might be successfully partitioned. It answers such questions as: How would boundaries be determined? What would happen to liberals living in a conservative area and vice versa? What political procedures would be needed for the breakup? How would the armed forces be divided?
The current state of polarization is not sustainable. We should begin thinking now about realistic, humane ways to defuse tensions that are likely only to get worse.
After a Bernie Sanders supporter tried to commit mass murder last week — the second homicidal Bernie supporter so far this year — the media blamed President Trump for lowering the bar on heated political rhetoric by calling his campaign opponents cruel names like “Crooked Hillary” and “Lyin’ Ted.”
As soon as any conservative responds to Trump’s belittling names for his rivals by erupting in a murderous rage, that will be a fantastically good point. But until then, it’s idiotic. Unlike liberals, conservatives aren’t easily incited to violence by words.
What we’re seeing is the following: Prominent liberals repeatedly tell us, with deadly seriousness, that Trump and his supporters are: “Hitler,” “fascists,” “bigots,” “haters,” “racists,” “terrorists,” “criminals” and “white supremacists,” which is then followed by liberals physically attacking conservatives.
To talk about “both sides” being guilty of provocative rhetoric is like talking about “both genders” being guilty of rape.
Nearly every op-ed writer at The New York Times has compared Trump to Hitler. (The conservative on the op-ed page merely called him a “proto-fascist.”) If Trump is Hitler and his supporters Nazis, then the rational course of action for any civilized person is to kill them.
That’s not just a theory, it’s the result.
A few months ago, 38-year-old Justin Barkley shot and killed a UPS driver in a Walmart parking lot in Ithaca, New York, then ran over his body, because he thought he was killing Donald Trump. During his arraignment, Barkley told the judge: “I shot and killed Donald Trump purposely, intentionally and very proudly.”
In the past year, there have been at least a hundred physical attacks on Trump supporters or presumed Trump supporters. The mainstream media have ignored them all. (You can click the Anti-Trump Hate Map to see some of them here.)
Schoolchildren across the country are being hospitalized from beatings for the crime of liking Trump. In Pasco, Oregon, a 29-year-old Trump supporter was stabbed in the throat by a Hispanic man, Alvaro Campos-Hernandez, after a political argument.
Last month, the anti-jihad scholar Robert Spencer was poisoned in Iceland by a Social Justice Warrior pretending to be a fan, sending Spencer to the hospital.
It’s become so normal for leftist thugs to assault anyone who likes Trump that, in Meriden, Connecticut, Wilson Echevarria and Anthony Hobdy leapt out of their car and started punching and hitting a man holding a Trump sign, rolling him into traffic right in front of a policeman.
If any one of these bloody attacks had been committed by a Trump supporter against a Muslim, a gay, a Mexican, a woman or a Democrat, the media would have had to drop its Russia conspiracy theory to give us 24-7 coverage of the epidemic of right-wing violence.
The liberal response to this ceaseless mayhem toward conservatives is to produce a single nut, who fired a gun in the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C., last December (hurting no one) to “rescue children,” after reading on obscure right-wing blogs that the restaurant hid a Democratic pedophilia ring. (They’ve also hyped a long list of “hate crimes” that were utter hoaxes.)
Congratulations, liberals! You got one. And some tiny number of girls raped men last year. QED: Both sexes have a rape problem.
Liberal aggression has ratcheted up dramatically since the dawn of Trump, as has the dehumanizing rhetoric, but epic violence from the left is nothing new.
We don’t have to go back more than century to note that every presidential assassin and attempted presidential assassin who had a political motive was a leftist, a socialist, a communist or a member of a hippie commune. (Charles J. Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, Giuseppe Zangara, Lee Harvey Oswald, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme and Sara Jane Moore.)
Instead, we’ll start in the 1990s. Al Sharpton’s speeches inspired people to murder two people in Crown Heights in 1991 and seven people at Freddie’s Fashion Mart in 1995. As scary as David Duke and Richard Spencer are, I’ve never heard of anyone committing murder after listening to one of their speeches.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, among other acts of violence, Obama supporters Maced elderly volunteers in a McCain campaign office in Galax, Virginia. They threw Molotov cocktails at, stomped and shredded McCain signs on a half-dozen families’ front yards around Portland. Another Obama supporter broke the McCain sign of a small middle-aged woman in midtown Manhattan, then hit her in the face with the stick.
(All this for John McCain!)
At the Republicans’ convention that year, hundreds of liberals were arrested for smashing police cars, slashing tires and breaking store windows. Police seized Molotov cocktails, napalm bombs and assorted firearms from the protesters. Elderly convention-goers were Maced and sent to the hospital after protesters threw bricks through the windows of convention buses. On the first day alone, the cops made 284 arrests, 130 for felonies.
That same year, California voters approved Proposition 8, banning gay marriage. In response, left-wing opponents of the measure ferociously attacked Mormon and Catholic churches, smashing glass doors, spray-painting the churches and burning holy books on their front steps. The mayor of Fresno and his pastor received death threats serious enough to require around-the-clock police protection.
(Although the measure would not have passed without the support of black voters, liberals held black people blameless for their opposition to gay marriage. Mormons and Catholics were a much funner target.)
In 2009, one conservative had his finger bitten off at a Tea Party rally in Thousand Oaks, California, by a man at a MoveOn.org counter-protest. At a St. Louis Tea Party rally, an African-American selling anti-Obama bumper stickers was beaten up by two Service Employees International Union thugs, resulting in charges.
For the past few years, the media have enthusiastically promoted Black Lives Matter, hoping to galvanize the black vote. The mother of Michael Brown was even invited to appear on stage at the Democrats’ convention. But, as the British discovered with their Indian auxiliaries during the Revolutionary War, having ginned them up, they couldn’t calm them down.
As a result of the media’s tall tales about homicidal, racist cops, Black Lives Matter enthusiasts staged sneak attacks, executing two policemen in Brooklyn, five in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge.
Liberals know damn well that their audience includes a not-insignificant portion of foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics, prepared, at the slightest provocation, to smash windows, burn down neighborhoods, physically attack and even murder conservatives. But instead of toning down the rhetoric, the respectable left keeps throwing matches on the bone-dry tinder, and then indignantly asks, “Are you saying conservatives don’t do it, too?”
No, actually. We don’t.
COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, Illinois, who aspired to end his life as a mass murderer of Republican Congressmen, was a Donald Trump hater and a Bernie Sanders backer.
Like many before him, Hodgkinson was a malevolent man of the hating and hard left.
His planned atrocity failed because two Capitol Hill cops were at that Alexandria baseball field, providing security for House Whip Steve Scalise. Had those cops not been there, a massacre would have ensued with many more dead than the gunman.
Recall. There were no armed citizens at that Tucson grocery in 2011, when six were murdered and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was gravely wounded along with a dozen others. The nutcase doing the shooting was only wrestled to the ground when he dropped a clip trying to reload.
The Alexandria attack brings back memories of long ago.
A day before my 12th birthday, when I was in Children’s Hospital with a broken leg, my parents brought me the news that Puerto Rican terrorists had just attempted to assassinate Harry Truman at Blair House.
A heroic cop, Leslie Coffelt, died stopping them.
In my second year in high school, blocks from the Capitol, Puerto Rican nationalists entered the visitor’s gallery of the House and began firing semiautomatic pistols. Five Congressmen were wounded.
Democratic politics has often proven a dangerous calling.
Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and JFK — one in every 10 of all our presidents — were assassinated.
Attending a service for a South Carolina Congressman in the Capitol in 1835, President Jackson survived twin misfires of two pistols. Old Hickory used his cane to attack his assailant, who was collared by Congressman Davy Crockett of Tennessee.
As a third-party candidate for president in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt was shot in the chest. “It takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose,” Teddy scoffed, and finished his speech.
In February 1933, President-elect FDR, in Miami, was the target of would-be assassin Giuseppe Zangara, whose arm was jostled at the moment of firing. The bullet killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak.
Between the assassination of JFK in 1963 and near-mortal wounding of President Reagan by John Hinckley in 1981, Martin Luther King was murdered in Memphis in April 1968, and Sen. Robert Kennedy, two months later, in Los Angeles.
Presidential candidate George Wallace, campaigning in Laurel, Maryland, was shot five times in May 1972 by Arthur Bremer, who had spent weeks stalking President Nixon. President Ford was the target of two attempts on his life in 1975, the first by a Manson Family hanger-on Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, the second by radical leftist Sara Jane Moore.
What drove the assassins?
In the early 20th century, it was anarchism. McKinley was killed by anarchist Leon Czolgosz in Buffalo, New York.
In 1919, Carlo Valdinaci tried to assassinate Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer with a bomb on his porch at 2132 R Street. Valdinoci tripped on a wicket and his dynamite bomb exploded prematurely, blasting Carlo’s body parts all over the neighborhood.
Palmer’s neighbor across the street, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Roosevelt, rushed over to help.
Palmer ordered a roundup of anarchists in what came to be known as “Palmer Raids,” and put in charge of field operations a 24-year-old lawyer and D.C. law-enforcement prodigy by the name of John Edgar Hoover.
Hoover’s career flourished. But the career of America’s most famous anarchist, Emma Goldman, faded. She and ex-lover Alexander Berkman, who had tried to kill Carnegie Steel’s Henry Clay Frick during the violent Homestead Strike of 1892, were rounded up and deported in 1920 with hundreds of anarchists to the new Russia of Lenin and Trotsky in a ship the press dubbed “the Red Ark.”
A. Mitchell Palmer did not get the 1920 presidential nomination he was seeking. But neighbor FDR did make it onto the ticket.
As radical anarchists were the principal terrorists of the first quarter of the 20th century, and Puerto Rican nationalist-terrorists dominated the 1950s, the 1960s and early 1970s were marked by the seemingly endless violence of the hard left, beginning with the Communist Oswald, who had tried to shoot Gen. Edwin Walker in Dallas before killing JFK.
The campus violence and urban riots of the decade, from Harlem to Watts to Newark and Detroit, to Washington, D.C., and 100 cities after Dr. King’s death, were not the work of the Goldwater right.
Those were the days of the Black Panthers, Students for a Democratic Society, Weatherman and the Symbionese Liberation Army. It was America’s radical left shooting cops and burning down ROTC buildings. Leftist violence propelled the political careers of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
As for James Hodgkinson, he was a Trump-hating left-wing terrorist.
And those who incite sick minds with images of a bloodstained decapitated head of the president, and cheer Central Park productions of “Julius Caesar” with the assassinated Roman Consul made up to look like the president, cannot evade moral culpability.
Hannah Cornelius died on Saturday morning, May 27th. The 21-year old student was abducted in her own car by a Coloured (mixed-race) gang in the university town of Stellenbosch, near Cape Town. They drove her away, gang raped her, and then strangled and stabbed her. Her body was found at two o’clock that afternoon. Horrors like this hardly reach the front page anymore, so inured have we become to liberal, multicultural South Africa.
When people are killed here, they become hashtags. So it was with #HannahCornelius. After the initial flurry of tweets, the news died down. A friend once compared our reactions to murder to that of a herd of gazelles grazing on the savannah. Now and again a predator catches one; the herd shudders, but life goes on. An hour or two later the herd is at ease again, nibbling juicy leaves of grass.
Hannah Cornelius was strikingly beautiful, kind, full of laughter, and a straight-A student at Stellenbosch University. She spoke Afrikaans, English, and French—a foreign language she studied at school. The mainstream media carefully omitted the race of Hannah’s killers; they were simply “men.” White feminists let loose a barrage of their favorite hashtags, such as #menaretrash, with the implication that white men, too, were collectively responsible for Hannah’s death. Another favorite leftist cliché was quickly applied: “gender-based violence.”
Four Coloured men have been arrested for the crime. This is, in itself, a miracle, since most homicides in South Africa are never solved. Only 8 percent of murderers are convicted, so they have a 92 percent chance of, literally, getting away with murder. Affirmative action has taken its toll on the police, especially in the more technical departments such as forensics. However, CCTV footage of Hannah’s hijacked little blue Volkswagen Golf—a gift from her 91-year old grandmother—helped police find the killers. All four have all been charged in the Stellenbosch Magistrate’s Court with murder, rape, car theft, robbery, and abduction. They will again appear on 28 July 2017 when more details of the crime should emerge.
Newspapers have focused on Cheslin Marsh, a male Stellenbosch student who was with Hannah when she was hijacked in the early hours of Saturday morning. The attackers drove him around in the trunk of the car and later pelted him with bricks. Mr. Marsh ended up in the hospital with a broken arm, and will probably be a key witness at trial.
Cheslin Marsh’s picture was published in the press; he is Coloured. What was Hannah doing at four in the morning alone in a car “having a conversation,” as it was reported, with a man of the same race and culture as her attackers?
I have been haunted by the murder of this beautiful young Afrikaner, and I tried to find out more by speaking to another Stellenbosch student. I learned that Bird Street, where Hannah was carjacked, is notoriously dangerous, since it is fewer than 2 kilometers from the black township in Stellenbosch known as Kayamandi. Someone else familiar with the university told me that “all the Stellenbosch girls are very scared of the Coloured gangs, and being attacked by them.” So why was Hannah not afraid, and why was she parked in a dangerous street in the early hours of Saturday morning when criminals might be on the prowl?
There are clues. She had a former boyfriend named Fanelo Arens—also Coloured. They met when they were students at a liberal, private, English-language high school called Reddam House. This says a lot about the environment in which she grew up.
Afrikaans-language government schools may be the last bastion of white racial consciousness in South Africa. That is why our government is waging a kind of war against them, as well as against white home schoolers. I had a conversation with some girls at an Afrikaans school here in Johannesburg and they all said that they were revolted by interracial dating. As one told me, “The idea of being kissed by a black or Coloured boy makes me sick.”
I suspect Hannah would have retained some element of race realism if she had been educated in a normal Afrikaans school of which there are still many available at a high academic level. Somehow, her lawyer parents decided to uproot her from their own traditions and push her along the internationalist, globalist, multicultural route. In a sense, that was Hannah’s first death, or the first crack in the armor that every white girl needs in ANC-run South Africa.
And so it was that in her first year at Reddam House—she must have been no more than 13 or 14 years old—she was spotted in the library by Fenelo Arens, three years her senior. He started courting her and eventually became her boyfriend. On Fenelo Arens’s Facebook there are photographs of him holding or kissing white girls.
In just a few decades, South Africa has gone from being probably the most anti-race-mixing country in the world to one in which it has become almost de rigueur—with all the tragic consequences.
Hannah was therefore being broken down long before the fateful Saturday morning when she met her grisly end. As my student source at Stellenbosch University explains: “Liberalism is like a brain tumor; it grows and grows and eventually affects your judgment. Hannah’s judgment must have been impaired to be sitting in that road at that hour.”
Hannah Cornelius was an Afrikaner—a member of my own tribe. Sometimes when I meet a pretty young girl who speaks English with a strong South African accent I ask if she is not Afrikaans-speaking, with English as a second language. Sometimes such a girl replies: “No, I am English. But people often tell me I look like an Afrikaans girl.”
There is a certain look, a certain style that constitutes the “Afrikaans girl.” It is exemplified by the (horribly liberal, alas) Hollywood actress Charlize Theron, and by the many models from South Africa who have become internationally famous for their beauty.
We are a distinct people, descended from 40,000 Dutch, French, and German immigrants who lived in the Cape in the 18th century. We are bound by language, culture, and genes. Our quirky Dutch, German, and French-Huguenot surnames follow us, even when we emigrate to Australia or Canada.
In a sense, Hannah Cornelius—my kinswoman—never had a chance. Even with her beauty, intelligence, excellent grades, mastery of French, and so on, she was never allowed to develop into a normal, care-free, protected Afrikaans girl, moving mostly in a white environment, meeting white boys her age at teenage parties or braais (our word for barbecues). Instead, she was flung into the liberal melting-pot, her identity confused, her corpse finally collected by the South African Police Service from a dirt road on the outskirts of Stellenbosch.
There are similarities between her death and that of the American Fulbright scholar Amy Biehl, who also came from a liberal home and supported the radical black movement in South Africa. As we know, she was stabbed and stoned to death by a black mob on August 25, 1993 after giving a lift to a black student to Gugulethu, the black township outside Cape Town.
Amy Biehl’s liberal parents, Peter and Linda, set up a foundation in her name to help other young blacks from the very area where she was killed—in a sense rewarding them for murdering her daughter. Willem and Anna Cornelius have also spoken of starting a charitable foundation in memory of their slain daughter. It sounds ominously familiar.
In novels and in real life, we interpret the story of someone’s life differently when we arrive at the end. Only then do we recognize some of the clues strewn on the way that help explain what may be a shocking conclusion.
That is why I say Hannah died three times: Once when she was uprooted from her family and her national tradition, once when she consorted with someone not of her own race, and once when the Coloured gang mauled her to death.
In other countries, people may be free to experiment and take social risks. In South Africa, such risks may be fatal. Where you live, where you go to school, whom you associate with, where you shop, where you park your car—all determine your chances of survival.
Even before I finished writing about Hannah Cornelius, news broke of another blond-haired Afrikaner turned into a hashtag: #JohannBotha. He was a TV and radio presenter who also happened to be an opera aficionado. Once more, the mainstream media are presenting his death as a kind of incomprehensible accident, something incongruous beyond our understanding. Johann Botha was shot in a bar by four black robbers in downtown Johannesburg, along with the bar owner.
I met Johann a few times, among the media fraternity here in Johannesburg. For years he was the host of a successful TV program about South African wildlife and conservation. His views tended towards the liberal. Like Hannah, he was a gentle, caring soul.
In exasperation I tweeted:
— Dan Roodt (@danroodt) June 8, 2017
Of course, English-speaking whites also fall prey to our roving murderers, but two of our own had become hashtags in just one week. Immediately, a horde of blacks and liberals attacked my tweet, calling it “racist,” threatening me with complaints to the South African Human Rights Commission, for which “human rights” means “hunting down white racists.”
Members of my own tribe are being mercilessly hunted down, but because we are white we must not be angry. Because we are white we deserve no sympathy.
On May 22, Salman Abedi, 22, waiting at the entrance of the Arianna Grande pop concert in Manchester, blew himself up, killing almost two dozen people, among them parents waiting to pick up their children.
Saturday, three Islamic terrorists committed “suicide-by-cop,” using a van to run down pedestrians on London Bridge, and then slashing and stabbing patrons of pubs and diners in the nearby Borough Market.
By all accounts, the killers bore no special grudge against those they murdered. They appear not even to have known their victims.
Why, then, did they kill these strangers, and themselves?
A BBC eyewitness suggests a motive: “They shouted, ‘This is for Allah’, as they stabbed indiscriminately.”
The murderers were Muslims. The rationale for their crimes lies in the belief that their bloody deeds would inscribe them in a book of martyrs, and Allah would reward them with instant ascension into the paradise that awaits all good Muslims.
Ideas have consequences. And where might these crazed killers have gotten an idea like that?
Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?
On Palm Sunday, an explosion in Tanta, 56 miles north of Cairo, killed 29 and injured 71 Copts as they prayed at the Mar Girgis church. A second blast at a church in Alexandria killed 18 and wounded 35.
On May 26, masked gunmen stopped two buses carrying Coptic Christians to Saint Samuel the Confessor Monastery in Egypt, and opened fire, killing 26 and wounding 25.
“I call on Egyptians to unite in the face of this brutal terrorism,” said Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of al-Azhar, Egypt’s 1,000-year-old center of Islamic learning.
Yet, years of such atrocities have effected a near-complete cleansing of Christianity from its cradle provinces in the Holy Land.
If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?
Clearly, from the suicide bombings and shootings of civilians in the Middle East, now across the West, there is a belief among some Muslims that what the killers are doing is moral and meritorious — taking the martyr’s path to salvation.
When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?
In condemning the London Bridge attack, Prime Minister Theresa May said that recent atrocities across England were “bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism.”
Correct. There is an extremist school of Islam that needs to be purged from the West, even as this school of fanatics is seeking to purge Christianity from the East.
We are at war. And the imams of Islam need to answer the question: “Whose side are you on?”
Are honor killings of girls and women caught in adultery justified? Are lashings and executions of Christian converts justified?
Do people who hold such beliefs really belong in the United States or in the West during this long war with Islamist extremism?
Other questions need answering as well.
Is our commitment to diversity broad enough to embrace people with Islamist beliefs? Is our First Amendment freedom of speech and of religion extensive enough to cover the sermons of imams who use mosques to preach in favor of expelling Christians from the Middle East and an eventual takeover of the West for an Islam where Sharia replaces constitutional law?
Are such Islamist beliefs not intolerable and perilous for our republic?
Clearly, the West is in a civilizational struggle, with the outcome in some doubt.
Four years after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese empire had ceased to exist. Japan was smoldering ruins, its navy at the bottom of the Pacific. An American proconsul, Douglas MacArthur, was dictating to the Japanese from the Dai-Ichi building.
Today we are in the 16th year of a war begun on 9/11. We are mired down in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Our victory in Afghanistan is being reversed by the Taliban.
While the ISIS caliphate is being eradicated in Raqqa and Mosul, its elements are in two dozen countries of the Mideast. Muslim migrants and refugees, ISIS and al-Qaida among them, are moving into Europe.
Terrorist attacks in the West grow in number and lethality every year. The new normal. Now, second-generation Muslims within Europe seem to be converting to a violent version of Islam.
To fight them, we are being forced to circumscribe our sovereignty and empower police and intelligence agencies of which free men were once taught to be wary.
Wars, it is said, are the death of republics. And we now seem to be caught up in an endless war.
“ISIS” did not attack in Manchester; a second-generation Muslim, son of immigrants, did.
The Islamic State may have inspired 22-year-old Salman Abedi, but ISIS in the Middle East did not murder 22 youngsters and injure dozens at a performance of pop tart Ariana Grande.
ISIS, no doubt, is pleased Salman Abedi has killed in Manchester. The outfit is eager to continue providing inspiration, even training, to his kind. But the ephemeral ISIS did not send Abedi and his ilk to kill Britons.
The Abedis, who fly the Libyan flag outside the family home, were invited into England. Policy makers and power brokers in the West have invited Muslim immigrants to live among us in the idiotic belief that, underneath the nosebags (the burqa, the abaya and full-body swaddle), they were just like us.
Almost all these Muslim killers are legitimate immigrants. Before the Manchester murderer came Knifeman Khalid Masood, on Westminster Bridge (March, 2017). There were the immigrants who carved up Drummer Lee Rigby, in Woolwich, and the Muslim who gutted an American woman in central London, both in 2013. It’s hard to keep up.
This is how citizenship in the West has been rubbished. Not by ISIS, but by your representatives: State officials who regard all of us impersonally and imperiously. The same overlords squint at the great unwashed of England or Middle America from behind their parapets in White Hall and Washington. The same sorts despise us all for wanting neighborhoods that are safe, recognizably Anglo-American, maybe even a tad monocultural.
While the Muslims who strike at our families live among us, they’re not of us.
Look, language mediates behavior. To properly respond to the vipers that elect to kill Americans, Europeans and Englishmen, we need to closely describe them.
To be vested in linguistic accuracy is to be vested in the truth. The closer language cleaves to reality, the greater the likelihood that correct, and corrective, action will follow.
Certainly the term of choice must reflect not ideology, right or left, but reality. For if we don’t describe exactly who’s killing us; we’ll be unable to eject them from our midst.
The more abstract the expert Idiocracy gets in defining what is murder-by-Muslim immigrant, the more removed will be their solutions—removed from solutions that are at once achievable and the legitimate purview of limited government.
You and I will be forced to pay for elaborate schemes that relate not at all to the problem at hand. Think about George Bush’s dumb dictum of fighting them over there so they don’t come here. “W” failed to consider that thanks to longstanding liberal immigration policies, the snakes were hibernating among us. Besides, bombing Syria or Iraq doesn’t stop a Manchester. To the contrary; it triggers it.
So don’t be fooled.
ISIS and an abstract ideology called “radical Islamic terrorism”—a redundancy, if ever there was one, since Islam unreformed is radical—are not attacking us. Men and women upon whom we’ve conferred the right to live among us are.
Berlin endured a Christmas-market massacre, in 2016. There was slaughter in Nice, Paris, even in an ancient village in Normandy, where an elderly priest was decapitated on the altar by two young jackals. Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston, and Chattanooga Tennessee (where four Marines were executed, in 2015): The carnage, ongoing, is too great to catalog. It emanates not from ISIS in the Levant or in the abstract, but from flesh-and-blood Muslims living right here, in America, England and on the Continent.
Also sorely missed in the discussion is that in the US, Great Britain and Western Europe, state and civil society acculturate immigrants into a militant identity politics. Essentially, newcomers are taught to hate their hosts. Nations whose institutions promote cultural relativism and hate of the dominant culture have no business importing the sort of immigrant who’ll be quick to act on an ideology of hate—be it the self-hate of the host, or the hate in Jihad.
Of course, these dormant murderers—Muslim Americans, Canadians, Europeans or Englishmen—did not act alone.
Behind almost every murder-by-Muslim-immigrant are State central planners: Policy-makers, immigration authorities, immigration attorneys, local networks of Islamic organizations, activists, media agitating for more Muslim immigration, an FBI erecting protective barriers around bad actors—civil liberties, they call it—and a command-and-control judiciary that has decided the American Bill of Rights belongs to the world, and was written to enrich immigration lawyers and their clientele the world-over.
If the truth is that the threat we face is not in the Middle East, but here at home, and that it’s more often than not an invited and legal threat—the solution presents itself.
There has been much debate about the very meager statistics on inter-racial rape. For years, incomplete but still informative estimates were available through the US Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey (see table 42 on page 55). Although these numbers are extrapolations based on small numbers of reported rapes and include verbal as well as physical sex assaults, it is clear that there is much more black-on-white than white-on-black rape.
In 2009, Barack Obama became president, and put Eric Holder in charge of the Department of Justice. Since then, the information on inter-racial crime from the National Crime Victimization Survey has been kept from the public.
While it’s going to be a long time before any kind of precise figures are had, most everyone in America would be willing to concede that there is more black-on-white rape than white-on-black. The implicit admission of this can be found in the standard liberal excuse: interracial rape figures are lop-sided because there are five times as many whites as blacks in the United States, so black rapists naturally find a lot of white victims. That might be plausible if the United States were well integrated, and if the average black man lived around a lot of white women. He doesn’t.
America as a whole is “diverse,” but most Americans live in neighborhoods with people of the same race as themselves. As a rule of thumb, the more racially diverse a city is, the more racially homogeneous its neighborhoods are. Therefore, if rapists choose their victims at random, that victim is likely to be of the same race. Most black rapists live in inner cities, and are especially unlikely to live around white women. In a country as segregated as the United States, all interracial crime at least suggests a certain degree of racial targeting.
Furthermore, celebrated black authors have written very explicitly about their desire to punish white women by raping them.
James Baldwin wrote:
[T]here is, I should think, no Negro living in America who . . . has not wanted to smash any white face he may encounter in a day, to violate, out of motives of the cruelest vengeance, their women, to break the bodies of all white people. . . .
Rape [of white women] was an insurrectional act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women . . . I felt that I was getting revenge.
Amiri Baraka, originally known as LeRoi Jones and who was named New Jersey Poet Laureate in 2002, wrote in his poem “Black Dada Nihilimus:”
Come up, black dada nihilismus.
Rape the white girls.
Rape their fathers.
Cut the mothers’ throats.
And, indeed, some blacks have raped white women for reasons of pure, political hatred.
For a 179-day period in 1973 and 1974, a group of Black Muslim “Death Angels” kept the city of San Francisco in a panic as they killed randomly-chosen “blue-eyed devils” in what came to be called the “zebra murders.” Estimates put the number of white victims at between 15 and 73. Female victims were often raped before they were executed.
In 1992, Joseph Gardner of Charleston, South Carolina, and his two friends, Matt Williams and Matt Mack, decided to get “get even” for white oppression by murdering a white woman. They abducted Melissa “Missi” McLauchlin and brought her back to their trailer park. They raped her and put out the word that they had “captured a white woman.” Three other black men came and also raped her. Then they tortured her with bleach and hydrogen peroxide, shot her in the face five times, and left her to die by the side of a road.
In 2008, a white woman wept on the witness stand as she described her rape at the hands of a black man who broke into her apartment in Raleigh, North Carolina. He told her he was punishing her for the historic crimes of whites.
In 2013 Corey Batey, a black football player at Vanderbilt University filmed himself and some of his teammates as they raped a white woman at a party. Mr. Batey then urinated on her face, saying, “That’s for 400 years of slavery you b—-.”
In 2016 Lee Harris raped a white woman at knifepoint and told her he did so “because you are white.”
Blacks in other countries have raped white women for similar reasons. In Britain, a black illegal immigrant named Amos Moobeng raped a teen-age girl because she was white.
In Brazil, a black man named Sailson Jose das Gracas confessed to murdering at least 41 whites. As he explained: “Women for me has to be white, not black, because of my color. I got pleasure from them fighting, screaming and scratching me.” Das Gracas did not rape his victims; he masturbated after killing them.
Zimbabwe, where most whites have been driven from the country, “rape gangs” target the few white women who remain.
In prisons, black men rape white men out of hatred and a desire to dominate them. A 2001 report by Human Rights Watch concluded that tens of thousands of men are raped every year in the United States—almost all of them white prisoners raped by blacks. Some blacks make whites their sex slaves, whom they buy, sell, and rent out to other blacks.
“Within a week he was pimping me out to other inmates at $3.00 a man,” said a white who was forced to become a black inmates “wife.” “You can buy a kid for 20 or 30 dollars on most wings,” explained one convict. “They sell them like cattle.”
Sean Smith, a white man in a South African prison, said he was raped every day of his months-long sentence, often several times a day. “They did it not just as part of gang dominance but in my case it was showing supremacy over a white man—I was the only one there,” he said. By the end, he was HIV positive.
There is vastly more black-on-white than white-on-black violence of all kinds, not just rape. Of the estimated 650,000 black-white crimes of violence committed every year, blacks are the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This means that a black person, on average, is 27 times more likely to attack a white than vice versa. It is impossible to know how much of this sharp disproportion reflects deliberate targeting, but racial hatred surely accounts for some of it.
Over the course of a decade, John Floyd Thomas, Jr. raped and killed as many as 30 elderly white women throughout Los Angeles County, which means he was probably the area’s most prolific serial killer. He is black and every one of his victims was white. Was this a coincidence or was he, too, “getting even”? His Wikipedia page is silent about the race of his victims; this would be unthinkable in the case of white killers, such as Joseph Paul Franklin or Dylann Roof, who attacked blacks.
Even when blacks do not openly express anti-white animus, the sheer brutality of their crimes suggests something more than conventional criminal motives. When Curtis Vance raped Anne Pressly, a white woman, he beat her so savagely with a garden tool that her “jaw was forced to the back of her head and cut off blood flow to her brain.” The mother of the victim found her lying in a pool of blood, gasping for air.
The black-on-white crimes that became known as the “Knoxville Horror” and the “Wichita Massacre,” were likewise cases of rape, murder, torture, and sexual humiliation so appalling that it is very difficult to believe the killers were not acting out of deep hatred for whites.
White-on-black rape is not unheard of. In Oklahoma City, a half-white half-Japanese police officer was recently convicted of targeting black women for rape. However, crimes of this kind rarely show the vicious brutality of the haunting cases noted above. White rapists simply do not seem to mutilate or kill their victims. The most famous black rape victims—Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum—turned out to be hoaxers, along with many others.
Whatever the exact numbers, there is no doubt that blacks rape whites far more often than whites rape blacks. It is clear that at least some blacks rapists hate whites, and rape is a particularly satisfying way for them to express their hatred.