Search Box

Sunday, October 2, 2016

How whites react to black misbehavior

About a week ago commenter Puzzled sent in a link to an excellent article -- Protest Thugs and the Real Evil in Charlotte -- describing what was really going on in North Carolina the week before.

The mainstream media, of course, covered the goings on predictably. Keith Lamont Scott, who had a long record of assault, including assault with a deadly weapon, was described as a quiet family man.  The rioting, which involved much violence and the looting of several stores, was described as a peaceful protest. And the fact that the cop who shot Scott was black was usually buried fairly deeply. That the black mobs were attacking random whites because of their race went completely unreported by most of the MSM.

None of this is surprising. In fact, the public now routinely expects this kind of see no evil-hear no evil-speak no evil dishonesty from the media.

But it's not just the media. In general, when whites are individually confronted with blacks who misbehave, or do something dumb, they just pretend not to notice.

When I was 14, in 1968, I got sent to a small private school. The headmaster, Charles Merrill, was the son of the Merrill who founded Merrill Lynch. (He was also the brother of poet James Merrill.) Charles Merrill gave scholarships to a certain number of poor black students from Dorchester and Roxbury, to balance out the sheltered upper middle class whites who comprised the bulk of the students.

One of the black students was named Johnny Barnes; he was two grades ahead of me. One time we were sitting at a lunch table with a group of other students and he reached his hand across the table to touch a girl's breast. The girl was also black, so she just pushed his hand away brusquely, without making a fuss about it. Johnny then got this mischievous little boy smile on his face and said, "Sorry Michelle, I forgot where I was."

I found it hilarious that he would just do that in front of everybody, so cracked up laughing. But when I looked around, no one else at the table was laughing. They were all just looking away.

Johnny must have realized that he had a receptive audience in me, though, because he reached across the table to touch Michelle's breast once again, a sly grin on his face. This time she brushed his hand away with a little more annoyance, but maintained her stolid disposition. Johnny cracked that little boy smile again, and said, once again, "I forgot where I was."

I tried to contain my laughter, but that somehow made it worse, and so laughed even harder. Meanwhile, everyone else at the table just continued to studiously ignore him.

Later that year there was a party at someone's house. Johnny was there; I saw him smoking marijuana on the front lawn. Later he came into the house and started to dance, by himself, to the music.

Johnny started to mimic a guy masturbating, but he did it while dancing, and keeping perfect rhythm with the song. As he continued, he pretended that his penis was continuing to grow, until he was using both hands to masturbate an imaginary organ roughly two feet wide and four feet long. As he did it, he had his eyes closed and wore a blissful expression, as if consumed by passion. Never once did he crack a smile, and never once did he lose his rhythm.

It was the most outrageous, coolest, and funniest thing I'd ever seen. It was also, of course, the most socially inappropriate. I can't recall ever having laughed harder. This time, there was one other guy who seemed to be watching him, and he too was beside himself with laughter. He walked over from the other side of the room to where I was, but neither of us was capable of coherent speech, all we could do was point at Johnny and sort of splutter with laughter. We were both, literally, in tears.

But even with all that mirth, I noticed that this one other guy and I were the only ones paying Johnny any attention at all. Everybody else was acting as if they hadn't even noticed his dancing. And it wasn't as if it was easy to miss. He was doing that dance with big, dramatic, impassioned gestures. Actually, it was impossible to miss.

But of the twenty or so people in the room, only two of us seemed to find it noteworthy and funny.

You could say I was laughing at Johnny, but really, I was mostly laughing with him. I think.

(I have to wonder what he would have thought had he known that someone would write about that incident 48 years later.)

In any case, most of us have noticed similar situations. A friend once told me that there was a black student at his majority white high school who got away with all sorts of things a white student would not have. One time a teacher was asking questions of the students to see if they had completed a reading assignment. He then asked the black student a question. The black student replied, "Man, you wanna know that shit so bad, why don't you look it up yourself?" (He wasn't trying to be funny, he was just annoyed that the teacher would call on him.)

I asked my friend what the teacher did. My friend said, "Nothing."

I asked, what would have happened if a white student had replied that way? My friend shrugged, "He would probably have been reprimanded."

On another occasion the students were told to fill out some sort of official form (I'm not sure what the form was). The same black student just crumpled his form up and threw it on the floor, saying, "This is bullshit," and walked out.

And, once again, he didn't get into any trouble.

When I was in business school, I took a class which required us to break up into four man groups, with each group assigned to come up with a solution to a problem. Our team included one black student. He obviously didn't know what was going on, and every now and then he would say something completely nonsensical, but with a business buzzword or two thrown in, just to appear as if he was contributing to the discussion. I would always look at the other two students, curious what their reaction would be. They would look at him, deadpan, listen politely, and then continue the discussion as if he had never spoken. But they never laughed, smirked, or questioned him.

(I found their reaction almost as funny as his comments, though I managed to repress my laughter this time.)

When I lived in New York City, back in the 80's and 90's, I would often see black people acting out in some way in the subway: smoking, panhandling, having their music turned up too loud, etc. Never once did I see a white person object to their behavior. Most wouldn't even look at the miscreant. (In all fairness, white miscreants are usually ignored too; in big cities, people learn to simply avoid those who might be crazy.)

But even with blacks who are obviously civilized, whites pretend not to see them make mistakes. When Vice President Dan Quayle misspelled "potatoes" back in 1992, the media went wild. When George W. Bush mispronounced "nuclear" (he said "nucular"), the comedians went wild. But when Obama said, back in 2008, that he had visited 57 states, there was only a deafening silence from the MSM.

Obama has actually been comedy gold over the years, as I pointed out here and here. But no comedian has been willing to mock him. Some of this, of course, has to do with the media's liberal bias. But even a Democrat who was white and made similar gaffes would have attracted more comedic attention than Obama has.

Q: If a tree falls in the woods and there are only liberals there to hear it, does it make a sound?

A: Of course it does, even though the liberals act as if it did not.

Mostly, whites have just been brainwashed into knowing that they're not supposed to show disapproval of, or laugh at blacks, because to do so would demonstrate "racism." It's a sort of paralysis by political correctness.

I understand that feeling; I've felt it myself. It's two parts wanting them to feel comfortable, two parts wanting to be liked, three parts wanting to prove you're a good person because you're not "racist," and about eight parts not wanting to set them off.

It's that last part, the fear, that's actually the strongest -- though tacit -- acknowledgment of racial differences. Whites instinctively sense that blacks are much more volatile, and will fly off the handle and scream racism and make a scene and possibly even turn violent at the slightest provocation. So, whites keep their heads down and pretend not to notice anything.

The dynamic involved is not entirely different from the way that a sociopath will manipulate people: with the constant, implicit threat of a completely unrestrained reaction to anything you might do which displeases him. People end up walking on eggshells around someone like this.

Just as whites do around blacks.


Anonymous said...

Wow, John, brilliant post. I will have several responses, because there is so much here to respond to, but briefly -

Part 1: What you've just encapsulated is the American racial code, which is nothing less than a choke collar. As someone who has spent a lot of time outside the US (and no John, I'm not telling you where I've lived), I can testify that it is such a feeling of liberation when you don't have that choke collar on.

Also, I've known quite a few non-Americans, expats, etc., who come to the US and in the best of faith say things, do things, that violate the racial code, and end up in hot water. They may be absolute racial liberals such as Benedict Cumberbatch, who said "coloured person" rather than "person of colour", it doesn't matter. They get their asses kicked.

Most of the Eastern Europeans I've known have very honest racial attitudes to begin with, and sincerely can't understand why white Americans are so cucked. It's hard to explain to them. No matter how well I try to explain to them, there comes a point where they explode and say, "So fucking what?" or words to that effect.

And I can't answer them.

If I wanted to, I'd rehearse here the ostensible reasons for the racial code, but that would be tedious. Slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, yada yada. You know the story. But ultimately, I don't think that any of that matters. I think the reason is the low mean IQ and the accurate suspicion whites have that no matter what they do, the lower end of the black spectrum can't be reformed.

That said, this still doesn't explain why the compliance. And my answer is: because our society is controlled by cucks and allies, and if you go against their beliefs, you lose everything.

Pt. 2: Being educated is a process of indoctrination and seeing selectively. Children see things - and they ask the most embarrassing questions - but inculcation means that by adolescence you no longer see them. They become 'natural.' At that point it takes a perceptive older person to point out stuff to you. This happened to me. An older woman pointed out the extent of black misbehavior to me when I was 14 or so and it shocked me. Of course, she was right. (She was also a big liberal in most ways but a race realist.) Later on, I took the liberty of repeating some of her truths to a friend. Her reaction was funny - she stopped what she was doing, cold. Then she looked at me and said, "You are absolutely right!" She said it as if what I was saying was, like, relativity - something obscure and intellectually challenging.

I think this is the way it is with most white people nowadays. They are so brainwashed and so dependent on the system that if you pointed out the truth, it would be a terrible shock to them. But they would on some level admit it.


Mark Caplan said...

But when Obama said, back in 2008, that he had visited 57 states....

In fairness to Obama, he was counting Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal (twice), South Africa, and Tanzania -- the seven missing states.

(Believe it or not, there is a Wikipedia entry for "United States presidential visits to sub-Saharan Africa" from 1943 to the present.)

Pangur said...

Blacks and their enablers richly deserve what's coming to them.

White reticence is indeed the norm and will be until it isn't, at which point the above groups will likely find themselves unpleasantly surprised.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Thank you very much....Yes, a choke collar, good metaphor.

Yeah, I've noticed that Eastern Europeans are a lot more "real" when it comes to this stuff, too. They haven't been indoctrinated, so just blurt out the truth, unaware of the cardinal sin they're committing. I sometimes wonder if this is why the Eastern European boxers and European basketball players do better against American blacks: they haven't yet been taught they're supposed to kowtow to, and be intimidated by, blacks.

And finally, yes, people need the truth pointed out to them. It's as obvious as could possibly be, but somehow, after all the brainwashing, people don't see it.

John Craig said...

Mark --
There really ought to be a rule, no one who hates this country is allowed to be President. When Michelle Obama said that when her husband was elected President, it was the first time she had ever been proud of her country, I think she spoke for both of them.

Anonymous said...

" I sometimes wonder if this is why the Eastern European boxers and European basketball players do better against American blacks: they haven't yet been taught they're supposed to kowtow to, and be intimidated by, blacks."

That's exactly it. Also they haven't been feminized & cucked. (Maybe the same thing.)

I am enjoying using the word cuck a lot, as you can see.

" I think she spoke for both of them."

Next week someone is releasing tapes of Obama in Africa when he was a young revolutionary. I hope it isn't a dud, like the Michelle "Whitey" tapes. Which I happen to think are real, but they were suppressed.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Ah, that could be interesting. I sure hope those tapes are real. I sort of liked Obama when I first heard of him, he appeared to be a reasonable guy who was against the war in Iraq, which I was also against. But by about June of '08, when the Jeremiah Wright tapes came out, and Obama said "that's not the Jeremiah Wright that I know" after going to his churchgoer 17 years, it was apparent that Obama was nothing but a con man. And then some of the earlier tapes of Obama on a radio show came out, and he sealed all his college records, and more stuff about his radical associations came out, and it all became clear.

Anonymous said...

Right - I would love to see his college transcripts. And what was his relationship with Rezko?

"He obviously didn't know what was going on, and every now and then he would say something completely nonsensical, but with a business buzzword or two thrown in, just to appear as if he was contributing to the discussion."

Read this:

"Do we require that white students justify their presence in the classroom?"


" Do we need them to bring something other than their interest?"

Yes. Brains.

"Obviously, black students march into classrooms all over this country and blow physical concepts out of the water with their individual intellects. "

WTF does this mean? Jesus. If this is the future of America, we are so fucked. Until now the hard sciences have escaped the rot, but I think we are fooling ourselves.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --

Anonymous said...

This is a good post. Yes, in our society, more is always expected of whites than blacks. It gets old. Too many whites are afraid of blacks, letting them get away with their dreadful behaviors. If we had an all white nation, the blacks would seek us out, choosing to immigrate into our world because they recognize that with whites, they will always have a better existence. Whites create the world that blacks want for themselves, so they will do their best to live where whites are. Their culture and ways are not always welcomed.

- R.R.

Anonymous said...

About that choke collar. A manager of a sports team just referred to his players as animals. What, no outrage? Manager is black, players are mostly white.

"“Let the animals run wild, and they are certainly running wild tonight,” he said. “I love it. Look at them. These are the wildest I’ve ever seen.”"

It's a funny comment. When players clinch a playoff berth, they do act like animals. I take no offense at the comment. But what if....

Yeah, I know. It gets old.

John Craig said...

Anon --
It used to be considered a compliment when a coach would say about a player, "That guy is a real animal."

But today, of course, the game is to take offense at everything, just to show how refined and sophisticated your sensibilities are.

Anonymous said...

twas i


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
That's what I figured, but I wasn't sure.

Anonymous said...

So, back to the post - the lies are so rampant - what do you see in the future? What does your crystal ball say?

I have no idea what is going to happen. I just don't see the US falling apart, but maybe it's because I dont' want it to. I do see a country where a) half the population hates the other half b) the left half is descending into a form of literal psychosis but c) the 1% of that left half has all the cards (privileges; loot; cushy prestigious jobs). This can't go on indefinitely.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Honestly, my crystal ball is pretty murky. All I know is we're headed in a bad direction at the moment. Eight years of Obama has divided us further, and I agree that the left half is divorced from reality. They live in a topsy turvy world of political correctness, which is just another way of saying factual incorrectness. And as long as people won't face up to reality, no realistic solutions can be devised. And when reality is practically criminalized....things look particularly bad. Anyway, sorry, but can't answer your question. The best I can give you is a big fat I don't know.

Anonymous said...

So I guess what we're both saying is a) the future is unpredictable and b) speaking of fat, there's enough of it to grease the skids and keep enough people from going totally apeshit. We're rich & powerful enough to suppress rebellion.

I buy that.

One thing that's important for us to remember is that you read all sorts of stuff on the so called 'alt-right' but out there in the real world, people are still watching pro football, Kaepernick or no. (I mentioned him again! I must have a crush on him!)


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
We're rich and powerful enough for now. But in the long run, with the demographics of this country changing as they are, who knows. I'm as puzzled as you are.

I think it's time you just came out and admitted your Kaepernick crush. It'll feel better once you have that weight lifted.....

Douglas Carkuff said...

I would say this. I have lived and worked among American black people and people who are actually black people from Africa and I have certainly encountered the kind of thing you are talking about - frequently - but I will say that it is a mistake to attribute this to ethnicity rather than culture. The actual Africans I have known and been friends with do not remotely resemble American people of African descent in their attitudes and behavior. In fact, they are generally more gracious and well mannered than most of the working class white people I grew up around. I will also add that my son's girlfriend is black (God, I hate using that description almost as much as I hate using "African American" and I might add that Africa is huge continent with a wide variety of peoples and cultures, so "African American" essentially, means nothing.) and she grew up not in that Milieu that produces that inner city, gangster type attitude in people and she carries none of that baggage. In fact, she is ridiculously formal in her speech and her behavior - almost Japanese in her reserve. Of course, I blame the progressives and their social engineering agenda for producing this generations of, not to mince words, really awful, egocentric and thoughtless youths. I also blame the racialists whose agenda consists of perpetuating the racial animosity which they feed and live off of.

Anonymous said...

LOL, I'll never say it out loud. Seriously I am more of a Blaine Gabbert type. And that's another thing - he is trying to displace Gabbert (who appears to be doing his best to cooperate, it must be noted, i.e., screwing up) as starting QB. Don't underestimate the fuck up the competition's mind factor. He's trying to rattle Gabbert. I think Gabbert is a fine looking man.

Back to the subject, I came across a news article about the increase in interracial homicides, but I can't relocate it, so here is an account from a partisan site:

Facts are facts. You'll have to trust me but the news article I read (not the Daily Caller, which is right-leaning) strove mightily to excuse the brute facts. They pointed out that 89% of all murders are intra-racial. They pointed out that in a country of 320 million, interracial murder is vanishingly rare. All true, but do they ever say this in the case of a black killed by a cop? And murder has a particularly horrifying aspect. It is total and final. You can't recover from it.

And, the news article didn't point out something really important, which most people wouldn't think of: that the black on white murder rate is twice the white on black murder rate, while there are 6 times as many whites in the country as there are blacks. This alone is astonishing.


John Craig said...

Douglas Carkuff --
I agree completely about the difference between African blacks and American inner city blacks. I know one of the former, and she has nothing but contempt for the latter and their entitled attitudes.

I think most of today's race realists are a reaction to the hypocrisy and dishonesty that emanate from the Left. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "racialist," and I'm certainly not a white nationalist myself (I'm not even white, I'm Eurasian), but I do see how the country is deteriorating and much, if not all of it, is due to the Leftist agenda, which includes blaming whites, especially white males, for everything that goes wrong in the country, while absolving all sorts of other groups on the grounds that they're oppressed minorities. Yes, there are undoubtedly cultural differences between people; but there are also racial differences, and to deny those is just unrealistic.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Murder tends to be mostly an intra-racial crime (though even there, the black-on-white rate is far higher than the reverse). It's when you look at ALL violent crime that the disparity becomes really glaring. (The four major categories of violent crime are murder, rape, armed robbery, and assault and battery.) When a white commits a violent crime, he chooses a black victim 3.9% of the time; and when a black does, he chooses a white victim 47.7% of the time. The rape statistics are the most skewed of all: white-on-black rape is close to nonexistent in this country; that's not true of the reverse.

One thing about that article you linked which doesn't seem true: it said the white percent of the population in this country is 77.1%. If blacks are 13 to 14%, and Hispanics are roughly 17%, and Asians are something like 4 or 5%, how can that be? Maybe they're counting Hispanics as white, or some fraction of them as white, I don't know.

Douglas Carkuff said...

John, by racialists I am referring to those who perpetuate racism, albeit, "good" racism. I wasn't referring to you. Racialists are those who promulgate "racial consciousness", which is, in essence, a euphemism for racism.

Douglas Carkuff said...

And as far as racial differences go, yes, there traits more or less prominent in some gene pools versus others, but there certainly vastly more differences within gene pools than there are between them. Obama is just as white as he is black, but his emphasized blackness is certainly the result of culture. The last thing I am is an apologist for moral bankruptcy of the worst of urban black culture and the mentality involved. I have certainly encountered that mentality, but I don't the ethnicity of the people involved has much of anything to do with it. If you grow up in a system that rewards the worst human inclinations and for which there are few consequences for behavior any decent person would find repulsive and where your cultural heroes are the worst sorts of people, well, you are going to reflect that. And, yeah, I have had encounters with people whom I was afraid to stand up to merely because I knew they had no moral inhibition with respect to their behavior, but I don't think that lack of moral inhibition is based in race.

John Craig said...

Douglas --
In response to your 5:58 comment, well, this is the second time in a week I have overreacted to a friendly comment. I guess I'm getting oversensitive. Hopefully it's just a phase I'll outgrow.

In response to your second, I agree completely about Obama. And there's no question about the self-destructive nature of the culture of the inner city. But you can't entirely divorce culture from genetics. Moral inhibition is one thing, regular old inhibitions is another, somewhat related thing that overlaps, and I think that there is a strong racial difference in inhibition, as I wrote about in March. And if you combine a natural lack of inhibition with a sense that one is morally in the right because one is constantly told that he is the victim of racism, that makes for a very combustible person.

Anonymous said...


I've noticed these differences as well. Who couldn't? This is a vexed discussion, but briefly, while white America is in a race for its very life, I don't see why we have to take in these immigrants.


Let's have a laugh:

They should have known he was black. He managed to avoid them with some pretty nifty moves.



PS The real laff was the response of the cucked sports journalists, who were so sure he was a white prankster. To be fair, so was I, but I don't make my living by race-cucking.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
That is a funny story. And sports journalists do seem to be a predictable bunch these days.

Anonymous said...


I feel I was somewhat short with you. I retain some of my old racial liberalism. I think that the vast majority of the behavioral traits of Af-Ams that we are talking about are environmental. Perhaps the mean IQ isn't, but you can have an IQ of 85 and be a civilized human being and have an IQ of 130 and be a shit. I totally admit upfront that Af-Ams have been treated horribly and that their behavioral patterns are a survival mechanism. If John wants we can continue this conversation.


Do I have to put in the @ sign before a name? It seems to be the internet protocol.

Here's another example of black misbehavior and white sports race cucking. Giants pitcher Madison Bumgarner (white, Southern) has a reputation of being a hothead. He particularly has a bad relationship with one Yasiel Puig (black, Cuban), who plays for Giants div. rival LA Dodgers. He just had a dust up with Puig. You can look up the details on the net, but what happened afterward was sickening. Bumgarner was accused of, you guessed it, racism. Not everywhere, but there were twitter rumblings, and a even a few mainstream sports cucks hinted this.

I was previously unfamiliar with Puig. I looked him up on the net. He is a complete turd.

He came to the US with the aid of Mexican drug dealers (I admit I didn't read the entire, confusing original article):

He beats people up, including his sister:

His teammates hate him:

A star pitcher teammate (big cuck Christian) wants him traded because he is toxic:

He is lazy and got sent down for a spell:

I'm not taking sides in his spat with Bumgarner - yet. I'm just letting facts speak for themselves with respect to the latest incident. Conflict between white pitcher and black batter? Gotta be racism! Never mind that not one teammate has ever accused Bumgarner of being a racist. High strung, hotheaded, yes. A racist? Never heard a word before now.

Bumgarner at 27 is already an immortal. If he retired tomorrow he'd be in the Hall of Fame in five years, first ballot. I firmly believe that if he weren't who he is, he might have been suspended, with the scarlet letter "R" tattooed to his forehead.

It's that bad.

Appalled (formerly Puzzled)

John Craig said...

Appalled --
I don't even know what the protocol is, as long as people know what you're saying and whom you're addressing, it's all good with me.

The whole thing with Madison Bumgarner was quite predictable. Was there ever the slightest possibility that the media would react in any other way? In the media, whites -- especially those with conservative leanings -- are guilty until proven innocent, and if proven innocent, that is usually given very short shrift. And people of color are victims unless proven otherwise.

I read a couple of those articles about Puig, and he does sound like an awfully difficult personality. My guess is, because that's so obviously the case, and because his other teammates dislike Puig so much, this particular bad blood won't get as much publicity and as many horrified gasps of disapproval -- as, say, John Rocker's words about his experience riding the NYC subway.

Pangur said...

Whites would do well to pull their attention away from pro sports, which underwrites the sort of white-hating nonsense that has become the norm. NFL ratings are down this year, although it's too early to tell if this is a trend or just a blip.

Far more enjoyment to be had watching a good local high school or college game.

John Craig said...

Pangur --
That's a great suggestion. There's something pathetic about worshipping people who despise you, or at least who are organized by people who side against you most of the time.

Anonymous said...


What happened today.

I work out at a gym that hires staff from a welfare to work program. They do the cleaning. I try to avoid them but sometimes my schedule forces me to use the gym when they're there. They are lazy and bad at their jobs. I once noticed a woman sitting on one of the pieces of equipment, reading her cell phone for 10 minutes.

Today two of them, a man and a woman, had a long, obscenity-laden gossip session in the weight room. They didn't even bother to lower their voices. At one point I had to ask them to move because they were near a piece of equipment I wanted to use.

They then moved to the next room, where the treadmills and Lifecycles are. I use a Lifecycle, and was stuck in the room with two loud, obscene, gesticulating, guffawing blacks. After several minutes of this (which came after 10 minutes of listening to them in the weight room) I went to the manager's office and told them about it. The manager took care of it.

I'm still angry.

Six generations after slavery and blacks still have characteristics of a field hand. I'm not their boss. I don't evaluate their work product. But couldn't they carry on their slanging match in a stairwell? How stupid do you have to be to scream about other people in a public place?

Very stupid but that's not the only factor. I think that blacks see whites and don't see them. They complain all the time about how we don't see them - but it's really the other way around. White see blacks very well. And avoid them.