The Goldman Effect: Mugged by a Bobo: On the Danger SWPLers Pose to the White Working Class

Ivy League weenie/SWPLer, Brian Goldman

The Goldman Effect: Mugged by a Bobo: On the Danger SWPLers Pose to the White Working Class
march 7, 2012
The State of White America

The Goldman Effect concerns how upper-middle-class whites ("SWPLers" or "Bobos") can, through their thoughtlessness, place themselves in dangerous situations that their white social "inferiors" must then rescue them from, whereupon the now ruthless "SWPLers" leave their rescuers in the lurch, misrepresent and exploit the situation, and never so much as thank their benefactors.

SWPLers—"Stuff White People Like" types—refers to an idea that blogger Christian Lander got from David Brooks, who had dubbed the demographic in question, the "Bohemian Bourgeoisie," "Bobos," for short. Brooks thinks this is a praiseworthy demographic. SWPLers/Bobos are well-to-do whites who combine previously antipodal categories such as bohemian and capitalist, and who embrace Third World peoples—from a safe distance, as illegal household help, or in terms of safely "exotic," but not too exotic vacations.

SWPLers/Bobos represent a menace to society, particularly to working-class whites.

If you're a white Philadelphia cabbie in Center City, who poses the greater danger to you: A SWPL/Bobo Passenger, or a racist, black, lynch mob?

The question was rhetorical.

Crime scene: Center City, Philadelphia, infamous for almost three years for racist black mob attacks on whites, Saturday, January 28, 2012.

White Ivy League weenie Brian Goldman rides in a cab, leaving the windows wide open, blissfully unaware of his surroundings, and gets sucker-punched at a traffic light by a member of a black lynch mob that spews racial epithets at him. Instead of closing the window, locking the doors, and telling the cabbie what happened, Goldman gets out of the cab to see what's going on. And gets hit again. The white, working-stiff cabbie then gets out and grabs a tire iron, risking his life to save Goldman from the racist mob, while scores of people watch.

While the cabbie takes a beating on Goldman's behalf, Goldman runs away, and cannot be bothered to call 911.

(Unbeknownst to Goldman, the cabbie did call 911, and reported everything to the police, including the racial epithets. For those suspecting me of hyperbole, due to my use of the phrase "black lynch mob," the traditional legal meaning of "lynching" refers not to a murder, but to a mob attack. Unfortunately, the public has been unduly influenced by racist blacks such as the NAACP and professors of black studies, as well as white leftists.)

Goldman continues on to his scheduled date, where he uses the story as an "icebreaker"—"It was a good icebreaker. The date went very well."—and then quickly types up a column about it in his school paper at the University of Pennsylvania ("Penn"), being careful to misrepresent just about everything that happened. He leaves out the racial epithets, the fact that the attackers were all black and the victims both white, instead speaking abstractly of "flash mobs" and "the bystander effect," condemning "bystanders" who failed to call 911, even though one bystander, the cabbie, risked his life to intervene and did call 911, while Goldman did not, even when he saw the cabbie who had just rescued him getting beaten up.

"There was not an officer in sight and all the traffic behind us had stopped. People got out of their cars to watch. The Wendy's right across from us was filled with spectators eager to catch the bloody battle."

"Flash mobs" are harmless, planned, predominantly white gatherings of people who suddenly engage in collective performance art in public places. Goldman used the MSM's euphemism for a racist black lynch mob attack against whites and/or Asians. Speaking simultaneously out of both sides of his mouth, Goldman emphasized the attack's character as a "flash mob," while explicitly denying its racial character in interviews with local reporters, to whom he also denied having heard any racial epithets.

As for the "bystander effect," he misused that, too, to the degree that it had any validity to begin with. "The bystander effect" was formulated as a credulous response by social scientists to a journalism hoax that they swallowed whole: The New York Times' misrepresentation of the Kitty Genovese murder-rape in Kew Gardens, Queens. (By the way, Goldman is from Queens, as is this writer.)

In 1964, racist black serial killer-rapist-necrophiliac Winston Moseley stalked, stabbed, murdered and raped Kitty Genovese, but either New York Times "reporter" Martin Gansberg, or his editor, A.M. Rosenthal lied, asserting that 38 of Genovese's neighbors had heard her screams, but did nothing. The truth is, Moseley had stabbed and punctured Genovese's lung, making it impossible for her to scream, had initially fled when a neighbor shouted at him, and later returned to the back of the building, where he found the disabled Genovese, whom no one else could see or hear, where he finished her off and raped her.

The other reason Goldman's invocation of "the bystander effect" is dishonest, is because the people watching the attack on him were likely black, thus that they were not apathetic "bystanders" at all, but spectators enjoying the show.

Social scientists claim that the bystander effect—of people not doing anything when they see an injustice being committed—is more likely to occur, the more witnesses there are. (I have to admit to having at least one experience that supports the theory. In 1972, a lone black woman saved my life when she called out from behind her apartment door, "What's going on out there," thus interrupting an older kid named Tyrone Huffman, who was busy stomping me to death.)

While the phenomenon of people witnessing evil and doing nothing certainly occurs, we'll never get a straight answer out of antiversity researchers, who are paid to lie.

And we will never get honest, rigorous research on this topic because the majority of the time when people witness evil acts committed in public in this country, the assailants are black (in urban areas, most of the rest are committed by Hispanics). Although blacks constitute only 12.6 percent of the population of citizen and non-citizen residents in this country, they account for an absolute majority of reported violent crime, including murder. (Not to mention, millions of unreported or "disappeared" violent crimes—see also here, annually.) In every profession responsible for reporting on society—the media, academia, social work, government agencies, the schools—telling the truth about black evil is a firing offense.

When people hear or see someone being victimized and do nothing to help him, the two easiest explanations are not apathy, but that:

• They do not give a damn; or
• They enjoy the victim's suffering.

Other explanations are that a person has previously gone to others' aid, and suffered negative consequences, such as:

• Being condemned;
• Being ignored (e.g., calling 911 with no police car responding);
• Seeing someone else who did nothing get praised; and/or
• Being himself victimized.

Since 1988, I have observed a new wrinkle that goes beyond the so-called bystander effect: Whites who see a lone white assaulted by blacks or Hispanics, and who support the attackers, even to the point of lying to the police. (Blacks, of course, routinely lie to the police on behalf of black criminals.)

In addition to the problem of racially dishonest researchers, there are the problems of politicization (this sort of issue frequently gets raised in conjunction with loaded phenomena such as the Holocaust), and ubiquity. The problem of people committing public acts of evil and of witnesses doing nothing is pervasive, happens daily, and is getting worse.
 

A Sophist, or Worse?

I don't mean to suggest that Brian Goldman is merely a sophist. I'm convinced, based on his denial of the racial epithets and the attack's racist character, that he's a flat-out liar.

Goldman also surely lied about the duration of the attack, claiming that he had to fight off a violent mob—which he suggested had 15 members—for "10 minutes." Having been in such situations many times while younger (not to mention, having since reported on many more)—most of which I was able to bluff my way out of, after having protected myself from getting sucker-punched in the first place, and having also taken some horrific but very brief beatings, I can state with certainty that had the mob beaten Goldman for ten minutes that he would not have lived to tell the tale, let alone sloughed it off, and headed off to a fun date. The entire attack was probably over in one minute or less, thanks entirely to the heroism of the taxi driver, whom Goldman apparently never paid.

More credibly, Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Allison Steele wrote, "Goldman, who said he never heard [the racial epithets], fled the scene after a minute."

Goldman probably got hit twice, at most. Unless he is Superman, if he had been repeatedly hit in the head by a mob, he would have gone down, in which case he would not have been able to run away. Once black racist thugs get a white victim down, they start to stomp on his head.

After Goldman's column ran, the Philly newspapers approached him, and he lied to them about the character of the attack; and when the authorities refused to prosecute the attack as a hate crime, he inexplicably praised them.

As I see it, there are three problems with what happened in Center City that night: A spoiled, worthless, SWPL phony [hereafter: The Weenie] permitted a preventable incident to arise through his mindlessness; a righteous, white working stiff risked his life for The Weenie (who even quoted the father of SWPL, David Brooks, in his column!); and the mob didn't hit The Weenie hard enough.

At the end of Goldman's column, many readers ripped him a new one for his cowardice and hypocrisy. I was especially influenced by the second of the following three related comments.