Milwaukee, South Carolina, and America’s new lynch mobs
Aug 10th, 2011 by Unamused
The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department has released 911 audio from the mass lynching of innocent whites by racist blacks on August 4, opening night at the Wisconsin State Fair. Hear it at Today’s TMJ4, in “Authorities release 911 tapes of State Fair mob attacks.”
Caller: “We’re outside State Fair and there’s a white guy getting beaten up by about 100 black people.”
Caller: “84th Street right by the Pettit Center.”
Callers: “It’s like a fricking riot out there. They’re jumping on our cars and everything.” “There’s 300 black people.” “There’s, like, a riot.” “You better get some cops down here by State Fair Park.” “There’s about 200 kids out here beating guys up.”
Caller: “My mom just got attacked by a black mob, and her eye is, like, bleeding.”
Dispatcher: “Where are you?”
After a lot of confusion, caller: “We’re on 84th and the freeway.”
(A woman is repeatedly screaming in the background.)
Caller: “She’s bleeding a lot.”
Caller: “My wife comes home with a fricking black eye, and you guys ain’t doin’ (expletive) about it?”
When the 911 dispatcher asks if she needs medical, attention, he responds, “You need to get the (expletive) riot squad over there and haul them off to jail.”
Caller: “My friend just got hit in the face. They opened the car door and hit her in the face. They pounded her car.”
At least seven police officers were injured amid the chaos, and we are now hearing some of the cries for help as fights broke out and property was damaged.
And check out the comments at the Blaze, on “Hear the Chilling 911 Calls From the ‘Racially-Motivated’ Mob Violence in Wis.,” which reports that “the suspects are being described as African Americans and the victims are reportedly Hispanic and Caucasian” (of course).
Yes, a mass lynching — battery by mob — like the Carter Strange beating on a grand scale. That’s what I’m going to call this sort of behavior from now on.
Of course, “this sort of behavior” — lynching — is to be expected from blacks (at least, by the informed readers of Unamusement Park), for three reasons:
- blacks are much more criminal than whites, in Wisconsin or elsewhere
- blacks have been told for decades that the source of all their problems is either whites in general or “racists” in particular (even when that clearly makes no sense at all), the latter meaning rational whites, or sometimes actually all whites; see, for example, this 2002 article in the Guardian, in which the black author (you know, some people just deserve to get their houses burned down in a riot) notes that (a) “of course” all whites are racist, and (b) no non-white can ever be racist
- blacks know that the mainstream media (like the Chicago Tribune, cleveland.com, and the Baltimore Sun), as well as so-called “anti-racists” (actually just anti-white) like the SPLC, can be relied upon censor, ignore, or at worst — as in the case of the State Fair mass lynching — greatly understate any openly anti-white behavior by blacks (as to do otherwise would leave them vulnerable to charges of “racism”)
The West Allis Police Department has constructed a timeline based on those 911 calls, according to FOX6. Note that in constructing said timeline, the police (presumably to serve and protect… someone) have scrubbed the calls of all reference to race, so you won’t see a whole bunch of black dudes f****** jumped on me, I’m bleeding all over (actual call) anywhere. However, FOX6 does confirm that “[t]he suspects have been described as African Americans” and “[t]he victims were either Caucasian or [so-called] Hispanic.”
Black people being racist? Violently racist?! But that’s not the story we want to report! Better throw in a white guy reminiscing about lots and lots of unspecified and unsubstantiated but supposedly really, really bad racist beatings he was involved in, more than twenty years ago. That’s relevant as heck. Here’s the “anti-racism” hustler himself — don’t believe a goddamn word of it:
Arno Michaels understands all too well the hate driven mob mentality as a former leader of Milwaukee’s white power movement more than 20 years ago. He says, “When I was that age I made these kids look like Boy Scouts. I routinely attacked people, because of the color of their skin.”
Blacks lynch too much, so let’s scrap the lynching law
I have one further, irresistible, enormous remark on the Carter Strange case.
Four of his eight assailants were charged with second-degree assault and battery by mob, the latter officially known as “lynching” (a reasonable-enough definition of the term) until January 11, 2010, when the South Carolina Sentencing Reform Commission voted to rename it “assault and battery by a mob” and “soften consequences for situations in which no one was killed or seriously injured in an attack by two or more people on a single victim” (Christian Science Monitor).
Why did they feel the need to rename the crime? Too many blacks were lynching people, but “everyone knows” that lynching is just something whites do, so enforcing the law or even referring to the crime as “lynching” is racist. That is neither an exaggeration nor a misrepresentation.
This is what passes for justice these days: social “justice,” meaning laws written and enforced only for the benefit of designated victim groups — like blacks, for instance. Blacks, as “everyone knows,” are the constant victims of — well, every conceivable form of oppression, from poverty to drug addiction, from tougher sentencing to state-sponsored mass-murder by lethal viruses! (That’s how 62 percent of American blacks view HIV/AIDS, according to the Washington Post (June 25, 2000), and it’s about as ignorant as the “oppression” theories of poverty, drug addiction, and sentencing.) And if you can’t actually find any examples of this oppression, this “systemic, societal, institutional, omnipresent, and epistemologically embedded phenomenon that pervades every vestige of our reality,” well… that doesn’t prove that white racism is dead. No, of course not — it just proves how high up the white man’s conspiracy goes.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, the panel of lawmakers ostensibly voted to change the law “because prosecutors had abused it to put bar-fight participants in prison for up to 20 years,” but
the real issue ran even deeper, a key lawmaker acknowledges: For decades, the law has been used to address African-American gang activity, with over half of all lynching charges and convictions being levied against blacks.
Another, more accurate way of putting it would be that over half of all lynchings in South Carolina are committed by blacks, since we know that the justice system is not biased against them.
The South Carolina Sentencing Reform Commission voted Monday to rename the law “assault and battery by a mob” and to soften consequences for situations in which no one was killed or seriously injured in an attack by two or more people on a single victim.
Remember that they’re doing all this — changing the name and softening the consequences — because black people are committing too many lynchings.
The emotional and historical power of the word “lynching” – especially in the Deep South, where the majority of lynchings happened – has long been seen by critics as especially cruel when applied to instances in which black men are arrested.
It’s now considered “especially cruel” to say the word “lynching” within earshot of the kind of soft, delicate, marshmallowy-type minorities that beat Carter Strange very nearly to death, fracturing his skull and disfiguring him.
“Lynching is a particular type of crime that has been recognized socially and by the state as having certain distinct attributes, and so the [South Carolina lynching law] is a corruption not only of the idea of what a lynching is, but also the historical memory of what a lynching is,” says University of North Carolina history Prof. Fitzhugh Brundage, who has written on black historical memory in the South since the Civil War.
According to race baiters and race traitors alike (Prof. Brundage is white), “lynching” is a crime only white people can commit, just like “racist” is something only white people (and according to some, all white people) are. If South Carolina is so racist as to force innocent black people, at gunpoint, to commit 78 percent of robberies, 57 percent of aggravated assaults, 59 percent of rapes, and 75 percent of murders (or whatever equally fanciful explanation anti-white intellectuals offer for black crime rates), thereby “corrupting” the lynching law (Prof. Brundage goes on to call its modern application “grotesque”), which is supposed to target white people only (gosh darn it), then clearly we must rename the law, and soften the consequences for those poor, innocent, lovable, cuddly little — oh God, there’s one now! Where’s my pepper spray? Where’s my gun? What do you mean, I can’t have a gun? It’s in the Constitution! I DEMAND MA GUN
Returning to reality: according to police, the lynching law “had become an effective tool to fight urban gang crime,” meaning of course black gang crime. And a spokesman for the attorney general confirmed that “the law is colorblind,” as it does not mention race. Still, it had to go, because according to the chairman of the reform commission,
it was brought to our attention that, “Look, this name has a negative connotation and people are being charged with something that really has nothing to do with what people perceive to be lynching.”
When his or her preconceived ideas about race don’t match reality, a race realist (not to say “a sane person”) updates those ideas. The South Carolina Sentencing Reform Commission, on the other hand, decided to rename a crime and go easy on the criminals. One of these policies is conducive to civilizational survival; the other, decidedly not.
Meet Kamau Marcharia, the “black warrior”
We find more race denialist insanity from the Associated Press in “State lynching law now used mostly against blacks,” a story (you may have noticed) about a law being used mostly against blacks, as if to imply their persecution (newsworthy), as opposed to blacks committing most crimes (the opposite of newsworthy). It begins with an anecdote about a black man’s “ancestor” who was allegedly dragged to death by a Model T Ford. Assuming “Kamau Marcharia” is more credible than Rosa Parks, that sounds like a clear case of lynching. But it turns out laws apply to black people when they’re the perpetrators of crime, too! OH NO
… Marcharia was not prepared for the call that came three years ago when his son and three other black boys got into a fight with a white boy at middle school and were summoned to court – to answer charges of lynching.
“I didn’t even know there was a law like that,” the veteran civil rights activist says. “I was outraged. See, a 13-year-old fighting because somebody either pushed him or punched him is not lynching. …
Four black boys beat up a white boy? Clearly there is only one logical explanation (at least, according to the father of one of the black defendants — a man who has been howling at the kid about one incident of historical white racism “[f]rom the time his son was old enough to understand”): the white boy must have either pushed someone or punched someone, or maybe he threw a french fry at them, or whispered a racial slur, or something that sounds like a racial slur (like “shnigger,” which I personally say four or five times a day), or looked at them the wrong way (actual recent example), or something else that would justify the “fighting” (i.e., four-on-one beating).
Today in South Carolina, blacks are most often the ones charged with lynching – defined in the statute as any act of violence by two or more people against another, regardless of race.
According to an Associated Press analysis of crime statistics, black South Carolinians are charged with lynching twice as often as whites. Though they make up just 30 percent of the state’s population, blacks account for 63 percent of the lynching charges.
In all but two of the state’s 46 counties, blacks are charged with lynching out of proportion to their representation in the population. In Oconee County, for instance, blacks comprise 8 percent of the residents but 44 percent of those charged with lynching.
South Carolina is 27.9 percent black and 64.1 percent (non-Hispanic) white. If blacks are charged with 63 percent of lynchings, then they commit about 63 percent of lynchings (possibly more), because the justice system is not biased against blacks. Assuming (non-Hispanic) whites commit (or are charged with) every other lynching (the other 37 percent), blacks commit 1.7 times more lynchings than whites, and a black South Carolinian is 3.9 times as likely to lynch someone as a white. In Oconee County (7.6 percent black, 85.9 percent white), under the same assumptions, a black person is 8.9 times as likely to lynch someone.
Prosecutors and police argue there is no racial profiling behind the law’s application, noting that blacks are charged with other violent crimes more often than whites. But it’s the use of the word lynching that trips Marcharia and others.
“Obviously, the law has outlived its purpose,” says J. Wayne Flynt, a professor of Southern history at Auburn University. “Its intent was to stop extralegal violence, essentially aimed at blacks.”
There you have it: some crazy racist lawman has discovered a loophole in our law designed to protect blacks; namely, that whites can also be the victims of crime, and blacks the perpetrators. Therefore the law has outlived its purpose. Add Professor Flynt (also white) to the list of anti-white intellectuals — race baiters and race traitors, every one.
“It’s ironic at least,” says William Gravely, another anti-white intellectual, on the matter of the black lynching rate — that is, the rate at which blacks commit lynching. “In one sense it’s a kind of denial of the large historical record going back to the late 19th century.” Yes, prosecuting violent black gangs certainly is a denial of the historical record in one sense: the sense that go fuck yourself, Professor Gravely.
Former attorney Tom Broadwater, who tours the country trying to make whites feel guilty with pictures of lynchings (of blacks, obviously), thinks it’s a conspiracy: “an attempt to minimize the seriousness which the word `lynching’ carries with it.” What kind of crimes are minimizing the seriousness of lynching? Well, here’s one from 1999:
in North Charleston, seven black high school students wielding pipes and trash cans were charged with lynching after a 35-year-old white man was beaten into a coma and eventually had to have a portion of his brain removed. One of the attackers was allegedly heard saying: “Yeah, we’re going to get us a white boy.”
Meanwhile, Kamau Marcharia says that “the law as it has come to be used in South Carolina” — that is, the law being used to punish black criminals — “is an affront to blacks.” Oh wow, an affront to blacks? That sounds serious. It’s not like we’ve heard that five or six hundred thousand times before.
“That law was passed, in my judgment, to make sure that African-Americans, two generations from now or two decades from now, will lose the memory of their history, what happened to them,” says Marcharia, whose full name is Swahili for “black warrior.” “That kids born in that period of time will see lynching as a fist fight, when we know that lynching is murder and killing, burning people and evil.”
Kamau Marcharia, the “black warrior,” has his one sad story about how the evil white man killed some unnamed “ancestor,” and he’s been drilling it into his son’s head since he was “old enough to understand.” There’s no chance either of them will lose that memory — which of course isn’t a memory at all, but a selection from black history, with an eye to making white people out to be the villains for their various and variously fictitious historical (meaning IT’S OVER NOW) “injustices,” presumably including the white man’s original sin: dragging those poor, helpless black people (sold by other black people) all the way from wonderful Africa to awful America.
Oh, I’m sure there’s plenty of discrimination in Marcharia’s past — his, and everyone else’s, black or white or otherwise. But there’s a difference between memory and history, on the one hand, and obsession and incitement on the other.
Unsurprisingly, by the time this story came out, Marcharia’s son and three of his black friends had already been charged with battery by mob for beating up a white middle school student. The father’s only concern: that the crime was called “lynching.” But… but… that’s OUR word! WE use it, to make YOU feel guilty for things I claim YOUR ancestors did to MINE! WE use it, to teach OUR children to hate YOU!
Marcharia didn’t care that his son was a violent thug in the making, and is likely in prison by now. And he sure as hell didn’t care about the real victim, who like Carter Strange was probably just another white kid in the wrong place at the wrong time; that is, anywhere near young black men, anytime after the civil rights movement. The lynching, by that or any other name, was more or less exactly what Marcharia had in mind all along: to raise another “black warrior” like himself, a born race rioter waiting for his flash mob, filled with a seething hatred of whites, armed with his angry race-obsessed black father’s limited and almost totally biased (mis)understanding of American history, and protected by the Associated Press, the Christian Science Monitor, the Guardian, FOX6, and the rest of the mainstream media; protected by “politically correct” (i.e., incorrect) language, like “racism,” “discrimination,” “privilege,” and indeed “lynching”; and of course very well protected by Eric “My People” Holder’s Civil Rights (for Everyone but Whites) Division of the (Social) Justice Department of the United States of Post-Racial America.