Violence against whites on YouTube

There have been many recent racial attacks, against whites, that have been posted to YouTube. Sagat linked to one a few days ago.  Hoosier Nation also posted a few examples.  A few have been featured, over the years, on Amren as well.
When we read the comments, we always find the inevitable leftist claim that such behavior is just as common among whites and that race probably wasn’t a factor at all.  It was just coincidence that the perpetrators were black and the victims white and we shouldn’t take it seriously when racial epithets are hurled against the victims.  In their world, there must be a campaign to besmirch the good name of blacks by finding the few black on white attacks, that have been caught on video, and posting them.
Fair enough.  It should be fairly easy to find some similar attacks on YouTube – but featuring white perpetrators and black victims.  I searched YouTube for “whites attack black” and came up with the equivalent of Google’s “did you mean blacks attack white?” – because almost all of the search results featured black on white attacks.  The only exception was of one clearly deranged white woman attacking the black clerk at McDonald’s because they didn’t have the meal she wanted.  The white attacker was just one woman against one woman.  She was not noticeably physically larger than the victim.  She was clearly off her medications and there is, in this case, no reason to suspect there was a racial motive.  There was one other exception and it was a television news clip that made a big fuss over the racial aspect of the attack.  According to the video, no “hate crime” or “ethnic intimidation” charges were brought against the perpetrators – which makes me wonder if they are leaving something out.  But let us, for the sake of argument, assume that this really was a racial group attack by whites against a black.  It is telling that only one or two actual white on black attacks come up through such a search.  A search for “white on black attack” yields similar results.
The vast majority of black on white attacks are, of course, not caught on video.  The vast majority of those that are caught on video do not make it to television news.  There is no doubt that those we see on YouTube are merely the tip of the iceberg.  Furthermore, I would venture to guess that the odds of justice being served in most of these attacks, are slim to none.  Media coverage of such attacks is almost nonexistent.  There are no large organizations, or political parties, to advocate for the victims.  If we so much as complain about this state of affairs, we are labeled “racists” and “haters”.  And people wonder why we are angry.

This entry was posted in crime and violence, government/corporate discrimination against whites. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Violence against whites on YouTube

  1. Ryan says:

    I can’t even begin to fathom the amount of long, drawn out debates I’ve had about racial issues on YouTube.
    The debates always follow the same pattern, they post some emotional rhetoric, I respond by posting crime statistics that show this isn’t as uncommon as they’d love to think. They respond with even more emotional rhetoric, usually this time about poverty being linked to crime. Then I respond by posting facts about how well off blacks are more likely to commit crime then poor whites. Finally they respond, typically with a one like response like “It’s poverty stupid” or “Don’t pretend you know what 400 years of slavery can do to a race.”
    After that I decide to just give up.

    • Matt Parrott says:

      Try to keep in mind that you’re arguing more for the vast silent audience watching you and him debate. It’s as rare as lightning to actually have somebody concede defeat in a public debate, even if the person knows he’s been defeated. What is common is a few of those hundreds of people watching making a mental note that their instincts and observations are corroborated by hard science.

    • John McNeill says:

      Ryan, I respect your willingness to stand up for the truth, and no doubt you do it well. However, do you really think that getting into a debate on black criminality is the way to win people over to our cause?
      Now don’t get me wrong, I think it’s important that the truth about this is known, especially when liberals like to pretend that Jim Crow-era lynchings are still the norm.
      However, I think too many nationalists regard talking about black/Hispanic violence as the way to bring people over to our ideas. I’m not so sure that is really effective. It doesn’t seem like arguments that are based on fear of non-whites, be it violence or sexual abuse really win people over, even if there is truth to them. For example, the BNP made Muslim abuse of English girls a central issue in a recent election, and it had next to no effect.
      Could it be that such arguments are ineffective in part because of the individualism found within white society, where a white person will hear a story about violence against whites, and be like “oh well, it’s not happening to me, so why should I care?”
      Then of course there’s the problem of exceptions to the rule, like people who hear your arguments on black crime and black violence and cite all of their black friends and co-workers who live quite civil lives. Again, it doesn’t really negate the truth of your arguments, but it puts you in a bad light especially when dealing with people who know next to nothing about ethnonationalism.
      So what then? Perhaps we as nationalists should consider the strategy of sticking to the positives. Andrew Yeoman at the Shadow Conference suggested that nationalists should make themselves unattackable. He cited charity and other community-oriented measures as an example. I also think promoting positive European-American identity is also a good approach.
      You mention how you try to bring awareness about black crime on youtube and feel alone and overwhelmed. Such is the case for nationalists who choose to go with the negative approach. However, I’ve noticed that on youtube videos like the Asatru Folk Assembling that focus mainly on European identity, the nationalists are able to fight on a much more higher ground. Liberals don’t really have much to fight against us when they are arguing against a European-American’s right to an identity that they support for minorities.
      I’ve also found that it’s easier to promote American white ethnonationalism when I avoid saying anything critical of minorities, and focus on European-American identity. Liberals have a hard time telling me that my identity is illegitimate, especially when they know next to nothing about genetics and ancient European history.
      I think think is a strategy that is worthy of consideration.

      • fred says:

        Those are some interesting points to consider. I’ve recently argued on another blog for the separation of politics and identity. Not that one doesn’t affect the other. But I don’t think political activism is more effective when promoted from a WN perspective.
        For example, many people are concerned about illegal immigration and want enforcement. But they’re much more receptive if it’s coming from FAIR or NumbersUSA or the Tea Party than a WN organization.
        I similarly think most people would be more more receptive to identity and heritage if it isn’t linked to politics. Linking the two merely points a target on themselves. For example, if I’m discussing illegal immigration then the issue is illegal immigration. And if I’m discussing heritage in a positive fashion then one can’t criticize me without looking intolerant. But if I combine the two then they can easily dismiss both as just “bigotry”.
        Not that one can’t be both political and ethnic. But not simultaneously. I obviously address both topics on blogs such as this. But I’m an individual, not an org. And outside of a few selective blogs on the net I don’t mix the two.

  2. John McNeill says:

    fred, (for some reason I can’t reply directly to your post.)
    You bring up many thoughtful points. Your views of the separation of politics and identity resonates with me, especially since I’m one of those Plan-B nationalists who doesn’t have much faith in any current movement reversing demographic trends.
    One thing I’ve realized over the past year is that this struggle is as much a cultural one as a political one, if not more so. How can a white political movement ever arise if there is no strong sense of American white identity/group mentality? I believe that such a sense of community and nationalism needs to be constructed first before any real political movement can ever take off. We need to challenge and deconstruct the extreme individualism found within white society. And as an example, Yeoman’s BANA activities are a good role model, although I think there’s other avenues that we can pursue. Even supporting European cultural festivals or awareness programs is a good step.

  3. Californian says:

    Try to keep in mind that you’re arguing more for the vast silent audience watching you and him debate.
    The thing is to use debates over these issues as a means to reach the greater audience. Give them the facts they can use. Then the word will spread.

  4. Matt Parrott says:

    I think an inappropriately stark “either/or” dichotomy is being suggested, here. We certainly shouldn’t rely as heavily on crime and intelligence statistics as we have in the past decade or so. We should definitely more to more culture and identity-related arguments.
    But we shouldn’t remove those arrows from our quiver.
    I try to only use those arguments in a reactive sense. Too often, I see people explaining that we need to defend our White heritage because Blacks are prone to criminality or Mexicans are statistically less intelligent. If Mexicans were as smart as us, or even smarter, we would still have a right and obligation to preserve our heritage and way of life apart from them.
    But when our opponents start blaming us for the education gap or Black criminality becomes an issue for some reason in the zeitgeist, we shouldn’t hesitate to frame what they’re seeing with facts about intelligence and criminality.
    We just need to use restraint with that knowledge, avoiding the temptation to bludgeon our opponents with facts when moral and emotional appeals are more appropriate in the context.

    • John McNeill says:

      Matt, I agree with you that there are appropriate situations for bringing up such facts. However, I think we need to be careful about how and when we choose to use them. We need to be mindful of the audience as well as the primary participants in the debate. If we’re on Youtube or some other public website where there’s going to be a large amount of spectators unfamiliar with our ideas, then we need to be very diplomatic and mindful of arguments that will generate public outrage and present us in a poor light with unfamiliar viewers.
      And of course, in any debate on racial differences, there’s always the risk of racial chest-beaters that will drag down the debate into idiotic rantings over whose race is better or worse. I’ve seen too many of those instances happen on HBD blogs where commentators from different racial backgrounds participate.
      Discussions on IQ/crime/ or any other subject where races are inevitably compared (with one or more races coming across in a negative light) needs to be handled by the right people with gloves on. I certainly don’t have confidence in my own ability to discuss it in a constructive manner, hence why I usually say that I believe there are racial differences and each races developed attributes to suit its own needs based on its own environment, else they would not survive from a Darwinian perspective. Then I move on to discussing white identity, history, culture, birth rates, etc.
      For the record, I’m not calling for a complete suppression of such information. By all means, someone should keep an eye on racial statistics, it’s good to know the truth. And as you said, there are times when its appropriate to call our reserves.
      I suppose I’m just more cautious about when to invoke it, and think that the average nationalist puts him/herself in too much trouble by getting drawn into a fight that is much more unwinnable in our current PC paradigm.

    • Harpo Marx says:

      Ever gone golfing?
      I don’t know much about the sport myself (except if a ball in the lake is a hole in one, I’m ready to go pro.)
      What I do know is, you don’t use a driver to tap in a put, nor a putter to drive.
      Likewise . . . arguments, like golf clubs, are effective depending on the circumstances.
      Jared Taylor is an example. He has opened the eyes of thousands simply by revealing solid, irrefutable facts regarding the Color of Crime.
      There’s a time to be positive. There’s a time to be negative. There’s a time to be on the offensive. There’s a time to go on the defensive.
      I don’t think it is too much of any particular strategy. Rather, it is the appropriate use of a given strategy.
      There are, however, so universally applied principles that can be utilized. (Never use a baseball bat to launch a golf ball down the green.)
      1. Maintain a high standard of quality.
      Every time I visit the web site I recoil in horror at the incredibly pathetic writing. Fragmented sentences for example. (Yes, that IS an example I just used.) The absence of apostrophes in possessives also seems to be a frequent glitch at that site.
      2. Repel the repulsive.
      Example 1 – Years ago the BNP learned that Jew-bashing did nothing more than get them labeled “nut cases.” (And, quite frankly, those who ramble on endlessly about ZOG and hooked noses actually ARE nut cases.)
      Example 2 – The abuse of offensive iconography demeans the movement. There is nothing worse than some loon showing up at rally wearing a swastika.
      There is a reason why the leftist media ignores AmRen, NPI and VDare in favor of portraying race realists as trailer-trash in Klan outfits: Credibility!

      • John McNeill says:

        Harpo Marx, I wish groups like Amren would actually listen to your advice on repelling the repulsive. I know Jared Taylor isn’t an anti-Semite, but his troubling associations with people like David Duke and Don Black has done more harm for AmRen than good. Too many nationalists who claim to reject the dark side associate with those that do rant about hook-nosed conspirators and act like it’s no big deal, then act all flustered when the media mentions this during an interview.
        If we are claiming that we are different from the Stormfront crowd, then we need to walk our talk.

  5. Half Sigma says:

    Well there was the Epic Beard Man video in which an older white guy gave a black man a good beating.
    But the old white guy had some mental health issues, and the black guy intentionally provoked him and made the first physical contact.

  6. Harpo Marx says:

    @John McNeill
    Good points, John.
    I don’t know what affinity Jared has with Don Black or David Duke, though I recall Duke’s disruption at an AmRen meeting a few years ago.
    It could be that Jared is simply trying not to be divisive and alienate those in an already very small movement.
    My worry, btw, is that Western culture is deteriorating and that multiculturalism is a means to that end. Seems the only options are a) be in denial or b) be labeled a racist. I personally believe one can be a race realist without being a racist.

    • John McNeill says:

      I’m afraid I had to factcheck myself, and noticed that Taylor’s association with Duke is rather minimal, but he has appeared on Don Black’s (and his son’s) radio show as a guest. And it would have been more accurate for me to mention Taylor’s ties to David Duke disciple James Edwards.
      I think you are right about why Jared Taylor chooses to continue this “big tent” white nationalism, and I can understand the logic. However, we need to be more than simple tribal moralists, where we think of what’s good for our tribe and nothing else. We need to stand up for what’s right.
      Harpo, you are absolutely right that one can be a race realist/ethnonationalist and not be a racist. One can be proud of one’s people and seek to preserve it, without sliding into hatred and bigotry. The BNP is one such example, as is the FN, FPO, DFP, Jobbik, and other European parties. And here in America we have fine groups like BANA and the Asatru Folk Assembly that show us that nationalism isn’t about denouncing minorities.
      If we of the positive-nationalist persuasion work together, we can build a movement that will shatter the misconceptions that white America believes about nationalism. And the SPLC/ADL will be speechless. They already have a hard enough time against an intelligent man like Taylor. The only ammo they have is his associations with extremists. Imagine if that was taken away, what kind of progress we could make?

  7. Pingback: The N-Word (part 2)/Hatred IV: Real live racism! « Unamusement Park

  8. Pingback: Unamusement Park » Blog Archive » The N-word (part 2)/Hatred IV: real live racism!

  9. Believe me, any Whites attacking Blacks would be big news and would be blown out of proportion. It is actually amazing how rare this is.
    George Zimmerman is an example (who then could be threatened by Blacks with total impunity
    Rodney King is another example.
    In both cases, the Whites were justified. And yes, you have to read my links if you have not learned why these attacks were not only justified but necessary

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *