First, a few notes.
Ferdinand Bardamu makes me proud today. Outstanding young writers like him and Paul Kersey give me hope that dedication to reality is not just the domain of angry middle-aged cranks on the margin of society but also of focused, effective young men who will influence society in the future. John Derbyshire insists we are doomed, and I feel inclined to agree with him, but maybe not.
Easing into my main point, Ryu begs off from the Trayvon Martin incident. He points out that race realism has been “done to death” here, and I will add race realism has been done to death in general. Mainstream conservatives point out that things are fucked up, but can’t and won’t say why. Race realists say why, but in general don’t know how. I am most interested in how things work. If we understand how things work, maybe somebody smarter than me will figure out what to do about it.
Chuck Rudd disappoints me today. I’ve disappointed plenty of people in my life, starting with my parents, and I never really gave a shit, and I’m guessing Chuck doesn’t either. But he’s making a fundamental mistake that most looking at this case have made, and it’s the crux of the matter. If we dont’ want to be circle-jerking over this, as Ryu has observed, then we need to effectively analyze it.
Chuck qualifies his analysis– “I will qualify until I’m blue in the face – Trayvon Martin’s death is a tragedy that should not have occurred.” Was it? A tragedy, as classically defined, is where the hero’s flaw causes his downfall. Here Chuck means that Zimmerman did something he shouldn’t have- “Martin was erroneously pursued by George Zimmerman”. The consensus among even those defending Zimmerman is that he should have stayed in his truck and waited for the police, and that confronting him directly was wrong.
My thesis is that it is the confrontation, and not the shooting was the thing that blacks hate, and want to suppress. It is extremely important to understand this so I want to go into more detail.
First, what is a “chimpout”? I cam across it via my Confederate friend, who refered me to Chimpout, also listed on the links. It’s a site dedicated to bad behavior by blacks. More generally, the term “chimpout”, “chimp out” or the verb “to chimp out” refers to explosive aggressive behavior by blacks.
It would be easy to attribute this solely to the general tendency of blacks to be impulsive and violent, and it would also be wrong. All behavior has a purpose. If you have a dog, you know that when it does something, it does so for a reason. The term “chimpout” comes from the behavior of the primate most closely related to humans. Chimpanzees will engage in displays of aggression, including screaming, baring of the canine teeth, and aggressive body movements. These may include some violence, but the target is not seriously harmed. These displays of aggression are familiar to most people from nature shows on TV, and their resemblance to black outbursts obviously led to the coining of the term “chimpout”.
Chimpanzees are very strong and have huge teeth, including protruding canines, which humans don’t have. They can and do kill each other at high rates, and if a chimp wants you dead, you’re going to be dead or very, very fucked up, like the woman in Connecticut a few years ago. But normally, they don’t do this. Chimps use displays of aggression to establish social dominance. Blacks do exactly the same thing.
If I get one point across, understand this. Blacks are stupid, but they are not irrational. Blacks chimp out on purpose, and over a long period of time it has been a very effective tactic. Blacks are less intelligent but seem to be more socially savvy than most whites, and are masters of manipulation, maybe because they are less intelligent, devote little mental energy to abstract things and thus have a focus on the social environment and the emotions of those around them.
There are actually two chimpouts here. (Style note- I will spell the noun “chimpout” and the verb “chimp out”. If there are professional writers who take issue with this, please leave a comment. Thank you.) The first was the chimpout by Trayvon Martin toward Zimmerman. Martin’s mistake- from being relatively young and inexperienced, and not ghetto enough- was going too far. Had he punched Martin a few times, Martin probably would have backed off, and Martin could have gone home and laid low. The cops would have come, not found him, and left the matter there. Had the cops questioned him, there would have been no witnesses and no way to press charges. Martin could have gone home to Miami and bragged to his friends about how he messed up some cracker. The purpose of the chimpout is to intimidate, not terrify. Intimidated people submit; terrified people may submit or may lash out, as Zimmerman apparently did.
The other chimpout is the organized black reaction to the incident, orchestrated apparently by Martin’s parents’ attorney. It’s political rather than personal but has the same social purpose. To understand this, we need to understand the history of the black chimpout, both the individual/personal/criminal and the social/political. But I’ll go back even farther in social relations.
In times past questioning strangers was quite normal. You knew everybody you saw on a daily or weekly basis, who they were, their job and social standing, and the threat they might represent to you. Seeing a stranger was unusual, and a stranger might be bad, you didn’t know. So you would ask that person who they were, and what their business was. They would answer, and you could judge from what they said and how they acted whether they were telling the truth or not.
I love epic poetry. In “The Iliad” warriors will square off against each other in individual combat. They will demand to know who they are fighting, and among these aristocratic fighters- Greek infantrymen supplied their own armor, weapons, and provisions, and were from the well-off part of society- this was not an insult but an opportunity to announce one’s lineage and status. In one case the opponents find they have friends in common, exchange pleasantries and agree to stay away from one another on the battlefield. In “Beowulf”, when Beowulf and his warriors land in Denmark, the horse-mounted warrior watching the coast demands to know who they are and why they have come. Beowulf gives his genealogy, his feats of war, and says he has come to fight the monster Grendel. The guard responds that judging from his words, appearance, and demeanor, he is who he says he is and permits the party to continue on to the hall of the king.
Even in cities in times past, which were more like moderate-sized towns today, people knew each other and questioned strangers. Questioning and confronting strangers is a tactic for keeping the community safe. In a world of dangerous strangers, every home and business is a fortress, and every trip outside is an armed patrol. Modern urban society has come to prize urban anonymity, often not for good reasons. It allows privacy and solitude even in a crowd but also leads to fear and isolation.
We can see that questioning and confronting strangers was a valuable method of dealing with the threat posed by young black men. In a small town pre-civil rights- usually in the South, but also in the North- everybody knew everybody, their job and business. If you see a young black man downtown at midnight, and you know he is the night janitor at the department store on his way to work, everything is fine. If you don’t know who he is, you might ask him. In a large city, this wouldn’t work. Black people were simply not welcome in areas they had no plausible business being, that is white residential neighborhoods not affluent enough to use black servants, and more affluent commercial areas, unless they were working there. The civil rights propaganda of blacks as innocent victims of lower-class whites is a wicked myth. Norman Podhoretz wrote an article about blacks preying on Italians and Jews in New York in the 30’s and 40’s when he was a child. An Italian or Jewish tough guy would not be happy to see a black in his neighborhood, might reasonably conclude he was there to harm the weaker members of his group, and make it clear he was not welcome.
I could interject here that this is wrong, stereotyping, profiling, cruel and humiliating, but I won’t. We have been beaten over the heads with that for decades. It’s a matter of safety and order.
Of course blacks didn’t like it. As they started to gain political power in the 60’s, they decided they could push back against confrontation by the police- not just social control, but the actual enforcement of criminal law. Paul Kersey has been talking a lot about the Detroit riots of 1967, started when police closed down an unlicensed bar. That’s not exactly racist oppression, is it? Everybody knows you have to have a license to sell liquor. Plenty of black people even object to the licensed sale of alcohol in their neighborhoods- more so now that the stores are owned by foreigners, than in the old days when they were owned by blacks. But it’s the principle of the thing. If you make somebody afraid to confront you, police or civilian, they won’t confront you. The 1965 Watts riots started with a drunk driving arrest.
This is not unique to blacks. I have read of how Moslem immigrants, in places as varied as Sweden and Australia, have done the same thing. A Moslem immigrant is stopped by the police. He quickly makes a call with his cell phone, and a large crowd of angry relatives quickly surrounds the police officers. Now, even if you are a dedicated and conscientious officer- not many, in my estimation- you are going to think twice about stopping a Moslem.
Blacks and their allies quickly established that it was racist for whites, even police officers, to question or confront blacks. Since social control couldn’t extend to the streets, it ended at the front door. People locked themselves up tightly. In “Welcome Back Kotter”, a 70’s sitcom about an idealistic teacher at a New York high school, a visual gag was that a long row of locks on the door of his apartment. New York has been reclaimed somewhat- it’s a special case– but the rest of the country is still under this rule.
What we have is a simple matter of social control maintained by intimidation, only it’s blacks intimidating whites, rather than the other way around. Servants and children speak when spoken to. Whites do not question or confront blacks, anywhere, ever. You may if you are a police officer or a supervisor, but only very respectfully and under restricted conditions. This gives black people a lot of freedom and initiative, and that’s the way they like it. Black people hate being questioned. When I was a lieutenant in the Marines, many times blacks would become upset if I questioned them about their activities and whereabouts. And I’m not talking shitbird privates, I’m talking about sergeants and staff sergeants. In the Marines, for God’s sake.
No black person other than his parents give two shits that Trayvon Martin is dead. Black people just don’t value life like that. What they value above all else is the social intimidation factor- maintained, when challenged, by the chimpout.
A rule in retail is that you deal with potential shoplifters by asking them, “Can I help you?” The idea is that they know they are being watched. You aren’t accusing them of anything, or searching them or telling them to leave, you’re just making them aware you know they are there. White people have been conditioned- down to the level of etiquette to never watch or question blacks. The rule in the city is never make eye contact, because like with an aggressive dog they regard it as a challenge. In the ghetto, you don’t need to do that. In a middle-class white area, make eye contact and smile. Not deferentially, or submissively, but with an attitude of social dominance. If the black is looking at something, or just sitting, you can say “Looking for something? Waiting for somebody?” or other appropriate, helpful question for the situation. If he reacts aggressively, you can break off, looking back to discourage a chase response attack, and call 911 when you get around the corner.
If Zimmerman made a tactical error, it was turning his back on Martin. I speculate that Zimmerman spoke to him, got an angry response and turned to walk away. Rather than believing he had won, which he had, this triggered a chase response in him. Martin wouldn’t have consciously experienced it this way- had you asked him, he would have said Zimmerman “disrespected” him by turning his back and walking away. Never turn your back on a potentially aggressive black, for just this reason. It’s racist and disrespectful to face and speak to a black, and racist to remain silent and walk away. Sheesh.
If only a few whites did this, blacks would lose the ability to move unmolested among us like constantly swimming sharks. The political chimpout seems to be losing momentum. But it will all happen again, so let’s be ready for it.
Question and confront. It’s the right thing to do.