In Harlem, Feral Black Girls Try to Evade Paying Subway Fare, Then Assault (Black) Policemen, and Seek to Escape; What to Do?

 


 

This video has likely gone viral by now; I found it via Larry Auster’s blog (“Uptown Girls Get into All-Out Brawl with Cops, Who Call in Reinforcements ”), where in a second entry, the following reader, a former New York City school teacher, opened the discussion.

“The Black Culture of Defiance and Its Continuing Expansion”

Irv P. writes:

I just had a chance to view the video of the brawl in the subway station. This is not something new to my eyes and ears. For many years I was witness to and was immersed personally in hundreds--yes, hundreds--of these "situations" (as in a school administrator or school security guard saying over their walkie-talkie, "we have a situation here"!).

This is not atypical behavior. It goes on to some degree every time these kids don't get their way. Years ago I coined a phrase at a school leadership meeting (set up by then chancellor Rudy Crew, consisting of parents, teachers, administrators). I said that our school had and encouraged a "culture of defiance." I tried to explain to the others in attendance what I meant by this. In vain, I tried to contrast how our dysfunctional school operated, with a functional school such as the ones my own kids attended. The biggest difference was in the overall culture of the school, culture being loosely defined as "the way we do things here." In a functional, civilized environment, rules are seen as necessary for the good of most participants, and enforcement is desired by nearly all. Sanctions are expected for misbehavior, with consequences increasing if modification of behavior is not evidenced. In the culture of defiance, everyone is "taught" by the way we DON'T do things here, that they can get away with almost anything and defiantly shout "Don't touch me, get off of me and F ... you" or the rule breaker may just walk away knowing that nothing of significance will ever be done to make him regret his actions. This culture has been growing steadily for about 43 years. I would place its origins at the time of the Ocean Hill-Brownsville community school board take over in 1968 (although white liberals in the education establishment had been pushing for decentralization for several years before it came into being). It may have even been the beginning stages of "Black Run America."

What you are seeing in this video is the school culture of defiance taken into the public realm by an ever emboldened pampered "defier," just as all of the mob convenience store robberies, fairground "wildings" and the like are expressions of this same phenomenon.

The restraint you see by the police exists because they know that they can't win if their behavior turns "unprofessional." It is what I call the "he said damn" defense, known and used cunningly by instigators like the girl swinging her striped bag at the cop in the video. If he used his baton on her, the entire focus now becomes his actions rather than the fare jumpers'. In schools with cultures of defiance, the angered kid will curse the poor schnook teacher with every expletive known to man and beast. At some point the overwhelmed pedagogue will utter something like "That's enough, damn it." The kid will then say "Why you cursin me ... you cursin me." That may or may not get the teacher to erupt even further. If he does, better for the kid. If he maintains his cool, he's still sunk when and if the parent is summoned, because the feckless administrator, usually black, will invariably take the side of the underprivileged family against the unprofessionalism of the interloping white teacher (or Uncle/Aunt Tom teacher). In their minds, whoever defends this civilization is an enemy. You see, they realize they are taking over, and keep putting their toes in the water to see just how far they can go.

As you have said time and again, until the majority in our society reassert their dominance over our culture, with confidence, courage and resolve, we will only continue to see the dismantling of this once great Republic.

* * *

Everything Irv wrote conforms to my studies of violently racist black behavior in public schools all over the country, including its roots in Ocean Hill-Brownsville. (See my chapter on education in the NPI report I edited and co-wrote, The State of White America.

However, it’s gotten much worse. Black females today of all social classes do not just react violently to being told “No,” they routinely go actively looking for violence, e.g., attacking whites and Asians on the subway, bus, or in the street, even going out of their way to a supermarket in a white neighborhood and arranging shopping carts, their toddlers, and themselves, in order to completely block an aisle, and then waiting for a white or Asian shopper to come along for them to jump.

And just like the girls Irv spoke of, they know that nothing will happen to them. Any black women in the vicinity will jump to lie to the police, and say that the attackers were the victims. The police will support them, and in one case I experienced last year, the supervising officer at the scene was a black female sergeant who covered for the attacker, the attacker had a brother who was a policemen on the NYPD, which she loudly bragged about in the supermarket, and who was permitted to illegally visit with her in the police station’s cell area, where only officers doing fingerprinting and photographing were permitted to be. (I made an official complaint to Internal Affairs, which went nowhere.) And the white officers involved treated her like family.

Short of dealing drugs or killing a black man, most black women can’t get themselves locked up today. Look at Tawana Brawley (aka Maryam Muhammad). She was never so much as prosecuted. And how about Crystal Gail Mangum? She didn’t find herself in serious trouble until she killed her black boyfriend.

In The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy (1987), black democratic socialist sociologist William Julius Wilson brought the term “unmarriageable (black) men” into the mainstream. He was speaking of men who could not afford to support a family, and who therefore were not seen as husband material by black women.

Wilson was trying to put a good face on a very ugly reality; by then, the majority of black women no longer even thought in such terms anymore. In 1950, sure. In 1960, o.k. But 1987? Gimme a break.

How about talking about “unmarriageable black women”? But this isn’t about economics. The girls assaulting the cops in the video are probably not poor, and even poor black girls enjoy such privilege in this society that they can always get decent jobs with minimal effort or qualifications, and once they do, they can virtually never be fired.

No, the term “unmarriageable,” whether referring to black women or men, must be a moral notion. The females in the video are unmarriageable because they are uncivilized. They are violent, and have contempt for the law, and surely other people’s persons and property.

But they could care less. They have no interest in marrying, nor do the males for whom they spread their legs. Black moral collapse today is so far advanced that even many friendly, intelligent, civilized black women do not even think about marriage, though they work and have babies.

When I used to moonlight as a security guard at Toys R’Us in 1997-1998, I knew an attractive, intelligent, funny, black woman of 27. She got herself knocked up by some irresponsible, immature guy she spoke of, chucklingly, as a “sperm donor.” I told her, Someone’s going to have to force these women and these “sperm donors” to get together, or there’s going to be hell to pay.

My rare experiences in New York with black American men who actually raise their own kids—rare because there are so few of them here—have mostly been so negative, with the fathers teaching their sons to have a homicidal hatred for all whites, and to criminally target them from a very tender age (violence, pickpocketing, etc.) have convinced me that the typical black child will not be appreciably better raised, with or without a father in the home.

Besides, black illegitimacy did not just happen by accident. I believe that it happened not just because of the 1960s’ and ‘70s’ welfare revolution, but due to a conscious decision by black females of all childbearing ages not to marry, because white people do marry. (See also: Listen in class, respect one’s teachers, and do one’s school work; speak proper English, without “Ebonics,” and without constantly cursing; dress respectably; get a job, show up on time, and do an honest day’s work; obey the law, carry oneself respectably, etc.)

Note that growing up during the 1960s and early '70s on Long Island, I was surrounded by black girls, but had no problems with them (and many problems with violent white girls) prior to my first encounters with a black girl gang in 1976, just before leaving town for college.

It is impossible for “the majority in our society [to] reassert their dominance over our culture, with confidence, courage and resolve,” because they are set upon not just by violent, racist blacks, but by a white elite that has been waging war on them with equal ferocity for anywhere from 47 (U.S. Civil Rights Act) to 57 (Brown v. Board of Education) years.

A wise old head once said to me, “Whites always run.” The problem I see, after 26 years of observing whites in New York City, is that whites who stay who are not racial enforcers (“allies,” in multicultural speak), get ground down into racial dhimmis.

The only way the white majority could reassert itself would be through total separation from blacks and Hispanics, and through returning fire on the elites, with both the law book and the sword. Does anyone see that happening?