Monday 1 March 2010

TTB #6: Lawrence Auster at View from the Right

http://amnation.com/vfr

Girls, we all know we're at fault when violent crime happens to us, right? Sure we do. We hear it all the time: ooh, she shouldn't have walking around alone (even to the toilet in her workplace, according to Laura Wood!); she shouldn't have been dressed that way; by looking and acting like that she was asking for it.

Sometimes the world isn't safe even if you've been personally behaving like a nice girl, since all the other girls around you have been behaving badly. "Lady" Lydia's son-in-law, Aiden Humphrey, wrote an enlightening vignette for Ladies Against Feminism about this very phenomenon. The article has sadly now been removed, but I helpfully archived it. It went like this:

"Chumming" for Sharks

Yesterday I spoke with a man who spends a lot of time surfing in the ocean in waters frequented by great white sharks. He said that he did not worry very much about the sharks - except on one occasion.

One day his friend sustained a heavy cut which began to bleed into the ocean waters around them. At that point, they decided to get out of the waters quickly - because sharks can smell blood a long way away.

"We didn't want to chum for sharks," he said.

Women who dress like harlots chum for sharks - with their own bodies.

Women who dress like harlots make the waters unsafe for everyone.

Women who dress like harlots are not the only ones who get attacked - they draw out predators who prey on innocent girls, who just happened to be in nearby waters.

"What did I do wrong?" asks the innocent.

Nothing - it's just that the waters are chummed by your friends.

We should execute all rapists. But the waters won't be safer until we pull the chum out of the water.

Sin makes the waters unsafe for everyone.

-Aiden Humphrey, 2004


So Lawrence Auster's most recent commentary on the disappearance of a 17-year-old girl who disappeared while jogging is no real surprise.

A registered sex offender named John Albert Gardner is being held for questioning in the disappearance of 17 year old Chelsea King in San Diego. The sheriff says that numerous pieces of physical evidence connect Gardner to King, and that there is a “strong possibility” that he is involved in her disappearance. A statement by Chelsea’s parents says, “She is an extraordinary daughter and also someone who is committed to her community. She has huge dreams and wants to change the world.” Maybe she was dreaming her huge dreams about changing the world when she went jogging alone in a place that, according to several VFR readers who are familiar with the area (see comments by Scott H., Ferg, and James P.), abuts on areas populated by lawless people. Perhaps if she were an ordinary girl who just wanted to live in this world instead of an extraordinary girl who wanted to change it, she might have been paying more attention to her actual environment, or, better, not gone there at all. In no story so far have I seen any suggestion that it was not wise for a teenage girl to go running alone in a park, apparently on one of the many trails in the park. The coverage of the story, the sentimental response, and the statement by Chelsea’s parents assure that other extraordinary young women will keep doing what Chelsea did and delivering themselves into the maw of death.
-Suspect Held


Yes, yes, girls. No dreams about changing the world for you. Be ordinary, and for god's sake stay indoors where you cannot be seen. You're delivering yourself into the maw of death otherwise yadda yadda yadda YES WE KNOW THIS LAWRENCE THANK YOU NEXT.

I could spend quite a lot of time talking about "the stroll in the jungle" theory and how people who commit crimes are the people who are responsible for those crimes and all that same old tired old boring old obvious stuff that smart people already know and conservative Christians somehow struggle with.

But no, this is not the time for that. That's because there's something more interesting hiding here in the dirt.

Ladies. Now, ladies, listen closely. Did you know that there is a specific circumstance under which you can be raped or beaten or murdered where it isn't your fault? Can you think of it? Think really hard about what we know about the people I focus on in this blog.

Have you got it yet?

Yes! That's right!

You are not at fault if the person who rapes or beats or murders you . . . is black!

I am the eldest of five. One of my sisters, who was 13 at the time, was raped when she attended a party on our block. One of the blacks repeatedly asked her to go upstairs to see his apartment. After several rejections, he accused my sister of racism. As a well-indoctrinated, guilt-ridden liberal, she had no choice but to go with him. Out of fear and shame, my sister did not share her story with us until she landed in a mental ward a couple of years later.

Another sister was raped by a black open-enrollment "student" at City College in a locker room after she attended a co-ed swim class. The prosecuting attorney told my sister it was an open-and-shut case because she did everything she was supposed to do: She reported the event immediately, gave a detailed description of the accused (including a bizarrely shaped goatee), and then went directly to the hospital. However, after all the evidence was given, when the jury was polled, the whites voted to convict, but the tribe hung together and hung the jury.

Ironically, before her trial even began, another black tried to rape her in the elevator of her own building. He entered the elevator after her, and sent it down to the basement. There he cut her neck and was about to have his way with her, when someone luckily brought the elevator back up.
-Mike Berman

What black savages did physically to Troy Knapp when he made the mistake of bicycling through a black neighborhood in Charleston in 1989, knocking him from his bike and bashing in his head with pipes and trash cans until he was brain damaged for life, the congregrants of Wright's church are doing to whites with words and whoops every Sunday. The low-level blacks avenge themselves on whites physically; the "high-level" blacks do it verbally. But the motive and the emotions and the primitive mob dynamics are the same.
-Lawrence Auster

The minor incident I describe at the restaurant was just the first in a series of a painful course in education on race realism. Like when a white girl Cal student was tortured, raped, and murdered and we all organized a protest march, only for me to see my fellow socialists drop the project when two Oakland black guys were arrested and bragged (bragged!) to the TV news cameras about how much she suffered in their van.
-Kevin V.

. . . I have had a family member raped by a black. I was mugged by a black in Times Square. My father was mugged by a black. A black dragged my mother in between subway cars and tried to throw her off while the train was moving. On another occasion while my mother was waiting on the subway platform blacks threw some metal strips from a moving train in my mothers face cutting her and just missed blinding her by a hair.
-Karl D.
-The ultimate story of a liberal who was mugged by reality


There's so, so much more there if you're capable of reading through it without crying or needing a shower. But let's just have a look at what they're saying.

1. Mike Berman's sister "had no choice" but to accompany her rapist alone to his apartment. His other sister went to a locker room after a co-ed swim class, but his outrage is focused on the rape itself and its failure to meet justice.

2. Troy Knapp cycled through a bad neighborhood. Well, it was a black neighborhood, and to Lawrence Auster that's a bad place in itself--but I think we can say it's a bad neighborhood because people get knocked off their bikes there (kind of like the white neighborhood where a white friend of mine was knocked off her bike by some white kids, badly damaging her knee in the process (but I digress)). How does Lawrence react? Troy Knapp made a mistake, but the people who beat him are responsible for their crime. (He even states explicitly that "of course Knapp didn't do anything to deserve it"--though Chelsea King did, apparently. Of course, Auster's reaction is part racism, part sexism.)

3. A female student was raped, which spurred Kevin V. and others on to take part in a protest march.

4. Karl D. went to Times Square and got mugged. His father was also mugged. His mother stood (alone?) on a subway platform and was the victim of violent crime. Karl calls out none of these people for putting themselves in positions of potential danger--he quite rightly puts the blame for the crimes on the shoulders of the people committing them.

So what can we learn from this?

. . ..I was going to write a tongue-in-cheek list of principles Lawrence Auster and his friends would have us abide by, but I'm sorry--in the process of writing this, I've lost all sense of humor. I'm sure you can see where I was going. I don't want to live in a world where racist feeling trumps sexist ideology. But apparently I do. These people are sickening.

Sigh. You can troll this blog if you want to, but, like so many other right-wing bloggers, Lawrence Auster doesn't do comments like normal people. You have to email him. Honestly, I wouldn't want the Google ads in my sidebar that would inevitably result from his replies, so I probably wouldn't bother.

4 comments:

  1. I grew up in the woods in Michigan, where wild animals abound in winter. My dream of hiking by myself has to be tempered with safety in mind FIRST. WHat good is a dream if you are killed? I had to always be accompanied by someone on my hikes. What kind of sense does it make to provide raw meat for some wild animal..applyy the same to running in a park in skimpy clothing

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, I see you subscribe to the same theory as Muslim cleric Sheik Taj Din al-Hilaly, who said:

    If she hadn’t left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it. If you take a kilo of meat, and you don’t put it in the fridge, or in the pot, or in the kitchen, but you put it on a plate and placed it outside in the yard. Then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats ate the meat. Right or not?

    If one puts uncovered meat out in the street or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn’t have it. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.

    If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn’t have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and temptation.


    Yes, because women are meat and men are wild animals? Er? I do, again, refer you to the Stroll In The Jungle theory, if you think you can handle big words.

    I will, however, use your comment as the first token on my Sexist Bingo Card. Thanks for playing! Four more to go before I win!

    ReplyDelete
  3. You can call it sexist, but it's still true. Sorry that reality is just so unfair.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "people who commit crimes are the people who are responsible for those crimes"

    Do you not understand the difference between moral and causal responsibility? Auster said it is "not wise" for girls to put themselves in danger. Obviously, this is not the same as saying that rape victims are _morally_ responsible for being raped. You accuse conservatives of being obtuse, but it is people like you -- politically correct liberals and feminists -- who are apparently unable to grasp this elementary distinction. So your counter-argument simply fails to address anything that Auster or other conservatives actually say. Again: we conservatives are not saying that rape victims are _morally guilty_ of their own rapes, but merely that in some cases the _foolish_ behaviour of women is a _cause_ of rape.

    "No dreams about changing the world for you"

    The point is: dream all you like, but remember to distinguish between your dreams and reality. In reality, it is not safe for women to go wherever they like, at any time of the day or night, dressed however they choose (or not dressed much at all). That is reality, like it or not. If you're upset that reality is not the same as your feminist "dream", that's fine. Auster simply wants women to remember that reality is not a dream, so that they don't get raped and murdered. This bothers you? This seems to you to be equivalent to saying that rape victims are the ones to blame for their own rapes?

    ReplyDelete

I will probably only delete comments that are spam, but I do ask that you play nice (here and anywhere else).