More black-on-white mob attacks in Portland

I found this in a comment at American Renaissance (xxxtonygunsxxx). Little by little, Portland is getting the “diversity” it always wanted. A local news station reports how vibrant youths are making life in Portland more interesting:

Investigators are searching for dozens of teens reportedly involved in mob assaults on two consecutive nights in a Southeast Portland park.

The Portland Police Bureau reports that a little after 10:30 p.m. Wednesday, responding officers found several groups of teens roaming the park. As they were telling the teens to clear out, a witness directed them to a 14-year-old boy who had sustained facial injuries in an alleged attack.

The boy told police that he was with a friend when a group of African American teens approached him, beat him up, and stole his cell phone, iPod, headphones and hat. While police found no other victims, witnesses alleged that a group of five to 10 African American teens were deliberately seeking out and attacking white teens, and also assaulted a transient.

He was transported to a nearby hospital for treatment.

At about 10:30 p.m. Thursday, officers again responded to the park, where they found three men who claimed they had been attacked by a group of 20 to 30 African American teens. The men, ages 22, 23, and 26, said they were at the tennis courts when a group nearby began throwing bottles onto the courts, and then approached them and instigated a fight. Two of the men suffered facial injuries, but declined medical attention.

Not that there’s anything new about this phenomenon; it occurs naturally wherever there are more than a few blacks. But it must be getting pretty bad for a “mainstream” news outlet to actually report its racial dimension.

Every now and then I ask myself if we’re really justified in berating blacks to the extent we do, if they, as a group, truly deserve to be compared to apes, designated as inferior beings and given the epithet of “sub-human”. Then incidents like this surface (just about every day).

It’s not that every black is violent and dangerous. Clearly this is not so. But it’s difficult to not notice the lack of self-flaggelation among blacks. Where are the “African-Americans of conscience” who publicly condemn such attacks? Why has the “African American community” not produced any popular leaders who actually work to redeem its image through penitence and introspection?

White liberals, living comfortably in their gated communities, condemn anybody who brings up black-on-white violence as “racist”. Meanwhile, and predictably, the vast majority of blacks do as they see. Monkey see, monkey do. There seems to be no independent thought among them at all.

But there are a few conservative blacks who do hold their co-racials accountable. Yes, there are a few. But any black, who is blessed with a few more I.Q. points and some eloquence, is able to make a name for himself  (and probably a decent living) among white “conservatives” eager to show they are not racist.

White “conservatives” are, to white leftists, what blacks are to whites. Monkey see, monkey do. If white leftists fall over themselves in adoration of the black man, then so too will white “conservatives”. Each time they do so, they seem to think it’s some sort of novelty or one-upmanship over the leftists. They seem to believe that, by doing so, they are sowing confusion and discord with the camp of the Left. Nothing could be further from the truth. White racialists roll their eyes at blacks and think “how unoriginal they are”, while leftists roll their eyes at “conservatives” and think “how unoriginal they are.”

Advertisements

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in Africa and blacks, crime and violence. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to More black-on-white mob attacks in Portland

  1. It is one basic human need and right to feel safe walking around in one’s neighborhood without fear of getting beaten up. It is quite traumatizing if one does not dare to leave home at night, or even at any time of the day. Or need be afraid of being robbed, even worse, with violence and injuries.

    This is a permanent fear and trauma. Very serious. Seriously disturbs one’s life. Having to lock up one’s children at home to keep them safe.

    Other then Blacks themselves, maybe feminist women could voice such concern. They are powerful enough and a “victim” protected group.

    But feminists are too busy to organize “take back the night” marches and “rape” prevention at safe college campuses. They don’t dare to do slut walks in bad ghetto neighborhoods, nor to even do “take back the night” marches.

    I wish you had quoted and linked to a few reasonable black leader’s statements. Obama mentioned a few times that Blacks should study and work, I believe. Not sure about violence.

    It’s not that every black is violent and dangerous. Clearly this is not so. But it’s difficult to not notice the lack of self-flaggelation among blacks. Where are the “African-Americans of conscience” who publicly condemn such attacks? Why has the “African American community” not produced any popular leaders who actually work to redeem its image through penitence and introspection?

    Here, of course, the official press whitewash, that hides black violence, is very detrimental. The prohibition on “racial profiling” is also quite serious.

    UK: Police stop and search innocent white people to balance race figures, terror watchdog says

    • It is quite traumatizing if one does not dare to leave home at night, or even at any time of the day. Or need be afraid of being robbed, even worse, with violence and injuries.

      This is a permanent fear and trauma. Very serious. Seriously disturbs one’s life.

      Excellent point. We must not forget the length of time the individual suffers this kind of stress, nor must we forget how helpless the individual feels.

      One thing that confused people about the causes of shell shock in the First World War was, there had been bloody combat in all wars, and loud horrible explosions in war for a centuries before 1914. Yet only in the 1914-1915 period did huge numbers of troops come down with what we now call post-traumatic stress disorder. Why?

      Men served in positions for weeks and months at a time with no break. In these positions they generally could not see the enemy, nor could they retreat, nor would advancing do them any good (although they could be ordered to do so). So they were in danger, and feeling helpless, for long periods.

      It rendered many of them quite insane. Some refused to believe they were still at war. Some wandered, babbling childishly. The situation in the crime-riddled areas is scarcely better. Most of them are not of the age, gender, or ethnicity that would allow them to identify with and join the perps. They just sit in their homes and self-medicate with television and drugs, just as many WWI soldiers spent every possible minute dead drunk.

      Inducing as many people as possible with PTSD, using vibrant yoots as artillery, is part of the anti-white establishment’s plan to eliminate competition.

    • So why is the largely Caucasoid anti-White establishment worried about competition from proletarian Whites but not other groups?

      1. Because they are defending the Blank Slate Black Legend. They must shore up the lie that education determines your future, in order to justify their massive spending of other people’s money on college bureaucracy. So they take a group of Whites who could succeed, due to their genes, deny them a useless education, inflict PTSD, and then blame the PTSD-perpetrated failure of those Whites on their lack of education.

      2. Because they believe the basic truth of Human Bio-Diversity. They know that the NAMs they choose to overeducate will largely be incapable of competing cognitively. They can carefully use AA race preferences to mask this fact, again shoring up the lie that education produces success.

      3. The anti-White establishment’s feeling about “Asians” (Northeast Asians) is a little bit nuanced. The establishment knows the NE Asians are the only North Americans who can really compete with Caucasoid groups in general, but also notes that NE Asians are drawn to productive rather than parasitic economic sectors. Thus the establishment wants/needs Asians to keep designing and improving high-tech products so that the government will have someone to tax, believing that the Asians will never dominate school faculties, college English departments, college bureaucracies, social service bureaucracies, newspapers, or prosecutors’ offices. These are the sources of Blue State power (Red State = the military, more or less).

      So the establishment imports NE Asians as non-political hosts for establishment parasitism, and imports NAMs weapons against the native proles.

      Why the establishment thinks it can rule a nation divided between NAM welfare recipients and NE Asian taxpayers is beyond me. I guess they are just silly.

  2. also see how George Zimmermann must not be suspicious of a Black behaving strangely in his neighborhood. And how he should have stayed put in his car in order to avoid to provoke a Black youth and entitle him to feel provoked and beat Zimmermann. Trayvon Martin, racial profiling, political correctness

  3. bob says:

    A new paper that analyzed some 7,556 haplotypes concludes that the eurasian/black split occurred 160,000 years ago:

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

    See Fig. 3. If this is correct, the split must have occurred in Africa prior to the dispersal to Eurasia. Also, the time available for evolutionary divergence between blacks and eurasians is tripled.

    If the usual taxonomic practices were applied to humans, this split would constitute a speciation event.

    • jewamongyou says:

      It’s typical of simple-minded leftists to assume that no divergence could have occurred in Africa prior to our exodus from there. They equate “Africa” with our common “Eve” – even though they’re the first to stress the huge genetic diversity that exists in Africa today.

    • Doug says:

      Here is a simple test used by scientists to determine if 2 populations are sub-species:
      1) They live in different places, or have otherwise been reproductively isolated, historically.
      2) Each population has different traits
      3) The traits breed true: When reared under the same conditions, parents of each sub-species produce offspring that look like them.
      4) The 95% Rule: If you mixed individuals of each population (sub-species) you could identify 95% or more of the individuals as to their correct population (based on some combination of traits.
      5) When brought together artifically, individuals from the 2 sub-species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring (i.e.., they are the same species, but different sub-species).

      For all 5 million species on earth, these rules apply. Now, compare Africans and Europeans to determine if they are or are not sub-species, as defined by science.

  4. destructure says:

    The problem is that most whites try to be fair but most blacks won’t reciprocate. It’s time to f* fair and defend our interests.

  5. Pingback: The latest murky thinking from the Mercury « Jewamongyou's Blog

  6. ethnicmuse says:

    So is it your opinion that Africans in America do not have reason by way of the legacy of slavery to be violent?

    • jewamongyou says:

      They have no justification for being violent. As for their reason, it’s probably partially genetic. Slavery was a long time ago.

      • ethnicmuse says:

        I doubt that you have any evidence of a violence gene. Why not argue for a violence culture or culture of poverty which enables a persecution complex? Slavery may have been a long time ago but are they not mentally enslaved by American cultural Eurocentrism? What if violence is a rite of initiation so that this would only be examples of group think? I fail to see the need to single out Africans (most of whom in America are Afro-Europeans) as violent when there are multiple examples of violence from all groups (most notably Europeans: slavery, genocide, land theft, legal discrimination, lynching, etc).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s