Outright racism by Latinos against blacks gets little coverage in the liberal press and no outrage from SJWs, and black “civil rights leaders” are scared shitless to confront it with the same merciless, take-no-prisoners attitude they reserve for every perceived “microaggression” from whites.
We all know this.
What I’d prefer to concentrate on is the fact that the Big Hazard story, and the (non)reaction to it from the usual suspects, slightly, just slightly, lays bare one of L.A.’s dirtiest little secrets: Most nonblack Angelenos are probably rooting for what the gang is doing (the goal if not the methods). I’m neither celebrating nor defending that notion; I’m simply presenting it as the learned observation of a guy who was born in L.A. 47 years ago, and who has always kept his primary residence right here in this city. Among L.A.’s white and Asian residents (for the purpose of this piece, Jews, Persians, and Armenians are counted as white), Mexican neighborhoods are seen as preferable to black neighborhoods.
Mexican neighborhoods, while still not the best places to go jogging at 1 a.m., are generally safer and more productive than black neighborhoods. Again, I’m not celebrating that fact. But it is a fact. As formerly all-black neighborhoods like Compton and Watts have become majority Latino, the crime rate has gone down excepting the increase in crime that comes from localized battles between black and Mexican gangs. That problem will dissipate once one group achieves its desired hegemony, and given the choice, most white Angelenos will root for the Mexicans.
There are several reasons for this. The first is a simple desire for self-preservation. Yes, members of both the black and Latino communities bring crime to the city. Burglaries, car thefts, gang activity, etc. But the black community is an exceptionally angry community. There’s a hatred there, specifically against whites, that leads to an entirely different type of crime…unreasonably, unnecessarily violent crimes targeting whites. Now, you can say what you will about black rage. Hell, call it justified if you want (I’m directing that at my leftist pals). But don’t call it fictional. It exists, and I’d rather not have it in my backyard. The black community has been growing more and more irrational each year, and less willing to get along. Damn near every slight seems to lead to a riot, and there’s seemingly nothing whites can do to mollify the rage. If you’re white and you try to help the black community, you’re a patriarchal racist. If you’re white and you don’t try to help the black community, you’re a neglectful racist. Regardless, you’re already a “privileged” racist anyway by virtue of your skin color.
On the other hand, the Mexican community here is not really all that angry at whites, owing in large part to the fact that so many California Hispanics consider themselves white. Sure, you’ll get a bunch of loud young Mexis who’ll go downtown occasionally to protest immigration laws, but Mexicans here are not race rioters like blacks. In fact, I’d argue that Mexicans are L.A.’s buffer against the kind of BLM race riots we’re seeing across the country. You know how easy it used to be to get blacks to riot in L.A.? In February 1992, a group of Holocaust revisionists (at the invitation of a black activist) met at a Masonic hall in L.A. for a “summit.” All it took was for the JDL to “leak” to a few local black leaders that “da Klan” was meeting in L.A., and in practically an instant, 300 angry blacks (and a few red-bandanna-wearing white commies) showed up, beating attendees, hurling bottles, and necessitating the arrival of a legion of foot and mounted police in riot gear to sort everything out.
Two months later, though, black Angelenos learned a harsh lesson, as their beloved “Rodney King riot” was, by day two, hijacked by Latinos who just wanted to steal stuff from the stores that blacks had smashed the previous night. What started out as a race riot was soon robbed of its ideology by apolitical, opportunistic looters. Black rioters had wanted to beat and kill whites and Asians. Mexican looters just wanted some free TVs. Given the choice, which community do you think L.A.’s whites and Asians would prefer to live next door to?
… Hillary’s recent speech denouncing the alt-right has raised eyebrows. It was as if in 1976 progressive-rock titans Emerson, Lake & Palmer had released a double album devoted to excoriating this new band nobody had ever heard of before called the Ramones.
If you can remember back four decades, it might strike you that the alt-right phenomenon of 2016 is basically political punk rock: loud, abrasive, hostile, white, back to basics, and fun.
Johnny Ramone was not as talented a musician as Keith Emerson, but a decade after Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper’s he had some timely ideas about how rock should get on track again. …
But it didn’t seem that way to many at the time. The punk rockers struck most nice people then as barbaric.
Which they sort of were. That was the point of picking up an electric guitar: to make a lot of noise.
Even the most deplorable habit of a few on the alt-right—the use of Nazi imagery—has its punk predecessors. The Ramones’ greatest song was “Blitzkrieg Bop.”
COMMENTS:
* Don’t forget the original first lines to “Today your love tomorrow the world” were “I’m a nazi baby a nazi yes I am”
* The Clash had White Riot. I think they were pretty explicit about being a white identify movement.
* Along those lines, some snips from a 2006 NYT article about the post-punk American hardcore scene:
How Hard Was Their Core? Looking Back at Anger
A new documentary, “American Hardcore,” tells the story of Minor Threat and like-minded bands. And it begins with hardcore veterans talking about the guy Mr. MacKaye wouldn’t sing about. Vic Bondi, from Chicago’s Articles of Faith, talks about the genre as a reaction to Ronald Reagan’s “white man order.”
The film also hints at an underlying anxiety about race. As one former hardcore kid puts it, the genre was one of the few that “felt like it wasn’t totally ripping off black culture,” which might be another way of saying it felt white.
Mr. MacKaye mentions another out-of-step experience — his years as a white kid in a majority-black school — by way of explaining his song “Guilty of Being White.” It’s an anti-racist song, he says, meaning anti-anti-white: “You blame me for slavery/A hundred years before I was born.”
Black Flag had a similar song, “White Minority,” which promised, “Gonna be a white minority.” (It was sung by a Latino singer, Ron Reyes, emphasizing the sarcasm.) Hardcore is, among other things, the sound of whiteness under siege, and in an odd way it’s a joyful noise. In the early 80’s, thanks in part to these bands, even white suburban kids could feel like righteous underdogs.
All those [desecrated] Reagan heads on flyers seem pretty spiteful, but maybe there’s also a hint of envy: tough young white guys paying grudging tribute to a tough old one.
* If Trump wrote the first Ramones album…..
1. Blitzkrieg Bop (No change. You don’t mess with the classics.)
2. Beat on the Blacks
3. Hillary is a Hag
4. I Wanna Be Your God-Emperor
5. Chain Saw (one of the tools I’ll use to build The Wall)
6. Now I Wanna Make America Great Again
7. I Don’t Wanna Start a Land War with Russia
8. Loudmouth (No change, just a dedication to Megyn Kelly, Lyin’ Hillary and that fat-disgusting-pig Rosie O’Donnell in the liner notes.)
9. Havana Affair w/ an Eastern-European Super Model
10. Listen to My 10-Point Plan on Immigration Reform
11. (I own all the property on) 53rd & 3rd
12. Let’s (not) Dance (around the issue of abolishing birthright citizenship)
13. I Don’t Wanna Fight a War for Jews
14. Today The Wall, Tomorrow The World
* I would have considered myself alt-right six or nine months ago, but I’m distancing myself from the label now. Milo, Steve and other sympathetic journalists say that the Nazi stuff is mostly “trolling” for shock value, but I’m starting to doubt that. If you’ve spend any significant amount of time on sites like TRS you know that plenty of the posters there are dead serious about it. Check out the comments under that article by the Jewish guy claiming he was alt-right. The most popular alt-right podcast is Fash the Nation, which recently featured this song. Are they trolling or serious? At a certain point, what difference does it make?
Hello Merchant you old fiend
We have grown tired of your greed
In the darkness always creeping
Looting our nations while we’re sleeping
And though the cattle-cars lie empty on the line
We’ll bide our time
Heating the Ovens of Auschwitz
In restless dreams I walked alone
Munich streets of cobblestone
‘Neath the halo of a streetlamp
I raised my right arm and began Mein Kampf
Then our backs were stabbed by the flames of the Reichstag fire
A funeral pyre
That lit the Ovens of Auschwitz
And in the fire’s light I saw
Six Million Hebrews, maybe more
Lying even when not speaking
Poisoning young minds with false teachings
Commies telling us that we all had to share
Yet no one dared
To send the trains to Auschwitz
“Fools,” said I, “You do not know”
Jewry like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Raise right arms and I might reach you
But the Allied bombs like heavy raindrops fell…
And cooled the Ovens of Auschwitz
And the people bowed and prayed
To the Volcano God enslaved
But one man left us his warning
And in our hearts still lives his yearning
And the man said “The lies of the Rabbi’s can only be stopped by
force
And gas of course (of coursh)
And in the Ovens of Auschwitz”
* It was a lot harder to accuse someone of being a Nazi in the 1970′s because many of my generation had fathers, uncles, or family friends who fought against them. The memory was much more fresh and no one (((ethnic))) group claimed it as their unique experience. In fact, one was constantly reminded that is was Americans (now we would call them whites) who saved the Jews from the ovens. Collecting militaria was not nearly as stigmatized especially if someone you knew brought it back as war booty. reading books on WW2, military board games, soldiers occupying Germany were something that could be reflected upon by living memory (for instance now you could not read a new book on ww2 where anyone other than the most junior officer or enlisted man could be interviewed because every higher up is long since dead).The fact that the US and the USSR won the war meant that there was a more casual attitude towards their vanquished foe. Nazism was not something to be feared. In fact, everything that diminished our enemy diminished our efforts. So something like the Ramone’s video is more of a joke than it is a glorification of the Nazis in it because everyone in it were all long dead. We killed them.
* See Lester Bangs’s “White Noise Supremacists”
I’d point out that turn of the century indie rock was also very much an implicit white identity movement. It was arty white suburban guys moving to the city and creating a kind of cool that had nothing to do with hip-hop.
* White Riot – a response to blacks rioting at the 1976 Notting Hill Carnival, and the Clash getting mugged by a black gang. “They can do it, why can’t we?”
White Man In Hammersmith Palais – Joe Strummer goes to a reggae concert and feels alienated and out of place. All his assumptions about ‘the black struggle’ are proven naive and wrong.
Safe European Home – Strummer gets back home from a holiday in Jamaica and says, “Thank God I don’t live there”. Another song about disillusionment with black culture.
Fun fact – I knew Strummer towards the end of his life, and he told me he voted Ukip in the 1999 European elections.
My friend is having some crazy thoughts. He says that if no woman ever expressed an opinion on politics, the field of Political Science would be undiminished. Ditto economics, law, classical music, architecture, physics, chemistry, math, biology.
Women giving up punditry would be like men giving up knitting.
On the other hand, if every male pundit disappeared, the world would not be diminished.
If no woman had ever taken part in politics in the West, women would be happier today, men would be happier today, and the West would be stronger and not overrun with unsuitable immigrants.
Crazy thinking. And bad. Very wrong.
The article is eviscerated in the comments:
* The question is NOT whether or not immigrants commit more crime.
The telling question is whether or not ILLEGAL immigrants commit more crimes. This question was neither asked nor answered.
* One must consider the fact the legal citizens include young black men, who repeatedly commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. Meanwhile “immigrants” include Asian engineers and doctors who commit almost no crimes at all. When immigrants do commit serious felonies, they are deported, which means they can’t commit another crime in the U.S.
* “Unfortunately, as I tell my white friends, we as black people, we’re never going to be successful, not because of you white people, but because of other black people. When you’re black, you have to deal with so much crap in your life from other black people. It’s a dirty, dark secret; I’m glad it’s coming out.”
– Former NBA player Charles Barkley
* If you look at who is shooting whom in Chicago, Baltimore, St Louis, Oakland, New Orleans, Detroit & elsewhere, you’d know the truth.
Nearly 3000 shot in Chicago 2016, over 500 shot & killed.
* 41 of top 50 most dangerous cities on Earth are in Latin America.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-30/2-worlds-20-most-violent-cities-are-america
Any reason to believe immigrants from there leave those bad habits behind? Not really. Activity in crime gangs is rampant in that group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13
Keep pouring that Kool-Aide, someone must drink it.
* Yes, immigrants from Japan, Norway & Switzerland commit crime at much lower rates than ‘native’ Americans.
The natives in Chicago, New Orleans, Oakland & Baltimore.
Not the pale natives in ND, VT, UT or just about anywhere else in US.
* Statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Government Accountability Office, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and several state and county correctional departments show the estimated 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. account for 13.6 percent of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed in the U.S. Twelve percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnapping sentences and 16 percent of drug trafficking sentences are meted out to illegal immigrants. The figures show that illegal immigrants are three times as likely to be convicted of murder as members of the general population and account for far more crimes than their 3.5-percent share of the U.S. population would suggest.
If our immigration laws were enforced the people who have committed these crimes been incarcerated would not even be here, making all of our communities safer.
Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.
The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These “sanctuary policies” generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.
Such laws testify to the sheer political power of immigrant lobbies, a power so irresistible that police officials shrink from even mentioning the illegal-alien crime wave. “We can’t even talk about it,” says a frustrated LAPD captain. “People are afraid of a backlash from Hispanics.” Another LAPD commander in a predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: “I would get a firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the immigration law against illegals].” Neither captain would speak for attribution.
But however pernicious in themselves, sanctuary rules are a symptom of a much broader disease: the nation’s near-total loss of control over immigration policy. Fifty years ago, immigration policy might have driven immigration numbers, but today the numbers drive policy. The nonstop increase of immigration is reshaping the language and the law to dissolve any distinction between legal and illegal aliens and, ultimately, the very idea of national borders.
It is a measure of how topsy-turvy the immigration environment has become that to ask police officials about the illegal-alien crime problem feels like a gross faux pas, not done in polite company. And a police official asked to violate this powerful taboo will give a strangled response—or, as in the case of a New York deputy commissioner, break off communication altogether. Meanwhile, millions of illegal aliens work, shop, travel, and commit crimes in plain view, utterly secure in their de facto immunity from the immigration law.
I asked the Miami Police Department’s spokesman, Detective Delrish Moss, about his employer’s policy on lawbreaking illegals. In September, the force arrested a Honduran visa violator for seven vicious rapes. The previous year, Miami cops had had the suspect in custody for lewd and lascivious molestation, without checking his immigration status. Had they done so, they would have discovered his visa overstay, a deportable offense, and so could have forestalled the rapes. “We have shied away from unnecessary involvement dealing with immigration issues,” explains Moss, choosing his words carefully, “because of our large immigrant population.”
Police commanders may not want to discuss, much less respond to, the illegal-alien crisis, but its magnitude for law enforcement is startling. Some examples:
• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.
• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.
• The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation.
Good luck finding any reference to such facts in official crime analysis. The LAPD and the L.A. city attorney recently requested an injunction against drug trafficking in Hollywood, targeting the 18th Street Gang and the “non–gang members” who sell drugs in Hollywood for the gang. Those non–gang members are virtually all illegal Mexicans, smuggled into the country by a ring organized by 18th Street bigs. The Mexicans pay off their transportation debts to the gang by selling drugs; many soon realize how lucrative that line of work is and stay in the business.
Cops and prosecutors universally know the immigration status of these non-gang “Hollywood dealers,” as the city attorney calls them, but the gang injunction is assiduously silent on the matter. And if a Hollywood officer were to arrest an illegal dealer (known on the street as a “border brother”) for his immigration status, or even notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service (since early 2003, absorbed into the new Department of Homeland Security), he would face severe discipline for violating Special Order 40, the city’s sanctuary policy.
The ordinarily tough-as-nails former LAPD chief Daryl Gates enacted Special Order 40 in 1979—showing that even the most unapologetic law-and-order cop is no match for immigration advocates. The order prohibits officers from “initiating police action where the objective is to discover the alien status of a person”—in other words, the police may not even ask someone they have arrested about his immigration status until after they have filed criminal charges, nor may they arrest someone for immigration violations. They may not notify immigration authorities about an illegal alien picked up for minor violations. Only if they have already booked an illegal alien for a felony or for multiple misdemeanors may they inquire into his status or report him. The bottom line: a cordon sanitaire between local law enforcement and immigration authorities that creates a safe haven for illegal criminals.
L.A.’s sanctuary law and all others like it contradict a key 1990s policing discovery: the Great Chain of Being in criminal behavior. Pick up a law-violator for a “minor” crime, and you might well prevent a major crime: enforcing graffiti and turnstile-jumping laws nabs you murderers and robbers. Enforcing known immigration violations, such as reentry following deportation, against known felons, would be even more productive. LAPD officers recognize illegal deported gang members all the time—flashing gang signs at court hearings for rival gangbangers, hanging out on the corner, or casing a target. These illegal returnees are, simply by being in the country after deportation, committing a felony (in contrast to garden-variety illegals on their first trip to the U.S., say, who are only committing a misdemeanor). “But if I see a deportee from the Mara Salvatrucha [Salvadoran prison] gang crossing the street, I know I can’t touch him,” laments a Los Angeles gang officer. Only if the deported felon has given the officer some other reason to stop him, such as an observed narcotics sale, can the cop accost him—but not for the immigration felony.
Though such a policy puts the community at risk, the department’s top brass brush off such concerns. No big deal if you see deported gangbangers back on the streets, they say. Just put them under surveillance for “real” crimes and arrest them for those. But surveillance is very manpower-intensive. Where there is an immediate ground for getting a violent felon off the street and for questioning him further, it is absurd to demand that the woefully understaffed LAPD ignore it.
