Beliefnet
At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

As the nation remembers Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, it should also note that while the self-appointed guardians of King’s legacy, the “anti-racists,” obsess over Paula Deen and liken Trayvon Martin to Emmet Till, they say nothing about interracial violence when it involves black perpetrators and white victims.

Below is a select list of interracial atrocities committed by blacks against whites.  These forgotten victims are men and women, young and old.

Brad Heyka, Jason Befort, Aaron Sander, Heather Muller, “H.G.”: In December of 2000, in Wichita, Kansas, over the course of hours, two brothers, Reginald and Jonathan Carr, robbed, beat, sexually tormented, and repeatedly raped three men and two women. They eventually shot all five victims, execution-style, in the backs of their heads before driving over their bodies with one of the victim’s pick-up truck.  “H.G.” survived. Wearing nothing but a shirt, shot and battered, she walked a mile until she found help.

Channon Christian, Christopher Newsom: In 2007, this young couple was carjacked in Knoxville, Tennessee by four men and one woman.  Both were raped—Newsom anally, Christian anally, vaginally, and orally.  The former was shot and his body set on fire. The latter was suffocated over a span of hours inside of garbage bags—after she was forced to ingest bleach so as to remove traces of her assailants’ DNA.

Sherry West, Antonio Santiago: On March 21 of this year, this woman and her 13 month-old baby son were both shot while going for a walk in their Brunswick, Georgia neighborhood. The mother survived the bullets to her ear and leg.  Little Antonio, however, died instantly when the bullet entered his face.

Joshua Heath Chellew: At the end of June, this 36 year-old man was attacked by four teenagers at a gas station outside of Atlanta, Georgia. In trying to escape the beating that he was suffering, Chellew was fatally struck by a passing car.

Jonathan Foster: On Christmas Eve, 2010, 12 year-old, Jonathan Foster was abducted from his home in Houston, Texas by a 44 year-old woman, Mona Nelson.  The latter bound Foster and then murdered him with a blowtorch.  She discarded his body in a ditch along the road where it was found four days later.  Foster’s remains were so badly charred that his corpse had to be identified by his dental records.

Delbert “Shorty” Benton:  Just last week, the 89 year-old veteran of World War II was beaten to death by two teenagers armed with flashlights. Benton was making his way through the parking lot of one of the places that he regularly frequented when he was attacked.

Chris Lane: The 23 year-old Australian was in the States visiting his girlfriend. While on a run, some reportedly “bored” teenagers shot him in the back.  Lane died shortly afterward.  The thugs had a history of expressing hostility toward whites, and at least one of them was said by police to have laughed and danced upon being arrested.

Fannie Gumbinger: This 99 year-old Poughkeepsie, New York woman died last week when a 20 year-old burglar murdered her in her home.  Police say she suffered “multiple injuries.”

There is no shortage of people who will defend the deafening silence of the “anti-racists” with respect to these interracial horrors on the grounds that, supposedly, they had nothing to do with color.  Black criminals seek out whites, it is often said, simply because whites are perceived as having more in the way of material goods.

Yet if this is true, then color or race most certainly does have something to do with these attacks: black criminals profile whites.  But if there is nothing illegitimate about black predators (or others) profiling whites as “privileged,” “advantaged,” “racist,” etc., then neither can it be said—as it is always said by “anti-racists”—that there is anything illegitimate about whites profiling blacks.

Only hypocrisy, illogic, or some combination of the two could make one suggest otherwise.

Another common criticism centers on the alleged irrelevance of the race of perpetrators and victims. After all, it is the murder that should be condemned; the color of murderer and murdered of no consequence.

Ah. So, if this is the case, then “racism” should never come under attack at all, for it isn’t, say, the color of the Klansmen and the black victims that they lynched that is blameworthy, but the lynching itself.

There isn’t a single “anti-racist” who would dream to reason thus.

One reason that black-on-white violence should be discussed is that it is both ubiquitous and evil.  The blacks responsible for it constitute but a tiny percentage of the national population, and yet they are several times more likely than their white counterparts to engage in interracial violence.

Another reason that black-on-white cruelty must be brought out into the open is that it is a reality that can only weaken the false narrative of unrelenting White Oppression and perpetual Black Suffering that has been used by demagogues and opportunists to prop up the destructive policies that they’ve promoted in the name of combating “racism.”

 

On this 50th anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech, even the self-avowed apostles of “individualism,” “liberty,” and “limited government”—i.e. “conservatives”—can’t resist lavishing endless praise upon its author, Martin Luther King, Jr.

As uncomfortable as it makes these declared enemies of Big Government to think it, to say nothing of openly admitting it, the stone-cold truth of the matter is that King was nothing if not a man of the hard left.

Michael Eric Dyson, a King admirer and hard leftist himself, makes this point unmistakably clear in his, I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Blasting away at the “the conservative misappropriation” of King, Dyson shows, not that King would have supported much of the left’s agenda, but that he in fact did do so.  For starters, King resoundingly endorsed what is today called “affirmative action.”  King insisted that “the nation must not only radically readjust its attitude toward the Negro in the compelling present, but must incorporate in its planning some compensatory compensation from the handicaps he inherited from the past.”

Moreover, King envisioned a redistributive scheme that he characterized as “massive.”  “I am proposing,” King remarked, “that, just as we granted a GI Bill of Rights to war veterans, America launch a broad-based and gigantic Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged, our veterans of the long siege of denial.”

Interestingly, King eventually came to think that his earlier belief that American institutions could be “reformed” was a mistake.  Rather, because America was “born in genocide,” “racial hatred,” and “racial supremacy,” nothing less than “a reconstruction of the entire society, a revolution of values” was demanded.  After all, “a nation that put as many Japanese in a concentration camp as” America did during World War II will think nothing of putting “black people in a concentration camp” as well.

This “revolution of values” that he desired King called “democratic socialism.”

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, “the plight of the Negro poor” had actually worsened.  What many view as his two signature achievements King viewed as “at best surface changes.”  Only a “redistribution of economic power” could rectify the injustices that King believed were rooted in “the system” of “capitalism” itself.

Today, many Americans still resent Jane Fonda for her activism during the Vietnam War.  But King was as vocal a critic of America’s presence in Southeast Asia as Fonda ever was. The war was “senseless,” “unjust,” and “racist,” he insisted.  Moreover, King, whose voice even at this time was no less influential than that of Fonda’s, described America as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [.]”

There is one final detail concerning this icon that enriches the irony of “Reagan conservatives” doing their best to transform King into a one of their own: King despised Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Rarely did he publicly criticize his opponents—or anyone—by name, but, such was his contempt for Reagan that King made an exception in his case.  “When a Hollywood performer,” King stated, “lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events [.]”

King deserves to be credited for both combating state-ordered segregation as well as his impassioned defense of non-violence.  Yet if conservatives and libertarians are to maintain their credibility, they must resist the temptation to turn King into one of their own.  He was a man of the hard left who called for the fundamental transformation of the United States long before Barack Obama called for the same.

Below is a select list of interracial atrocities committed by black perpetrators and white victims. Many more could be added to it.  The reader should note that the very same “anti-racists” who demanded Paula Deen’s head on a platter have uttered not a peep about these outrages.

The Wichita Massacre: In December of 2000, two brothers, Reginald and Jonathan Carr, robbed, beat with golf clubs, tormented, and repeatedly raped three men and two women. They eventually shot all five victims, execution-style, in the backs of their heads before driving over their bodies with one of the victim’s pick-up truck.  Miraculously, one person survived.  Wearing nothing but a shirt, shot and battered, she walked a mile until she found help.

The “Knoxville Horror:” In 2007, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, were carjacked in Knoxville, Tennessee by four men and one woman.  Newsom was raped and sodomized with an object. Stripped naked, blindfolded, gagged, and shot several times to death, his body was then discarded by railroad tracks and set on fire.

Christian was orally, vaginally, and anally gang raped to the point that she sustained severe injuries.  Bleach was poured down her throat and scrubbed over her body so as to remove her assailants’ DNA—all while she was still alive. Bound and stuffed inside of trash bags, she slowly suffocated to death.

Antonio Santiago: On March 21 of this year, Sherry West and her 13 month-old baby, Antonio Santiago, were both shot while going for a walk in their Brunswick, Georgia neighborhood. While the mother survived the bullets to her ear and leg, her baby died instantly when the bullet entered his face.

Joshua Heath Chellew: At the end of June, this 36 year-old man was attacked by four teenagers at a gas station outside of Atlanta, Georgia. In trying to escape the beating that he was suffering, Chellew was fatally struck by a passing car.

Jonathan Foster: On Christmas Eve, 2010, 12 year-old, Jonathan Foster was abducted from his home in Houston, Texas by a 44 year-old woman, Mona Nelson.  The latter bound Foster and then murdered him with a blowtorch.  She discarded his body in a ditch along the road where it was found four days later.  Foster’s remains were so badly charred that his corpse had to be identified by his dental records.

Delbert “Shorty” Benton:  Just last week, the 89 year-old veteran of World War II was beaten to death by two teenagers armed with flashlights. Benton was making his way through the parking lot of one of the places that he regularly frequented when the guttersnipes attacked him.

Chris Lane: The 23 year-old Australian was in the States visiting his girlfriend. While on a run, some reportedly “bored” teenagers shot him in the back.  Lane died shortly afterward.  The thugs had a history of expressing hostility toward whites, and at least one of them was said by police to have laughed and danced upon being arrested.

Fannie Gumbinger: This 99 year-old woman joined Benton and Lane last week when a 20 year-old burglar murdered her in her home.  Police say she died of “multiple injuries.”

Black-on-white violence is a real problem, as evil as it is ubiquitous.  Relatively few people, including conservative media personalities (to say nothing of Republican politicians), dare to confront it for what it is.  Instead, far too frequently, they are as disposed to search out “root causes” of black dysfunction as are their leftist counterparts.

One commentator who isn’t buying this is former South Africa resident, turned American, Ilana Mercer.

Along with her father, a rabbi, Mercer too opposed apartheid.  Yet as she notes in her book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, and as she has labored tirelessly to establish for years in her World Net Daily column and elsewhere, the abolition of this injustice has lead to even greater evils.

And this is one key lesson for Mercer’s new homeland from her old: when race-obsessed visionaries, politicians and activists, issue utopian promises of a “post-racial” era (sound familiar), it is guaranteed to result in worse racial injustices.   Crime in all categories has skyrocketed in the new South Africa, and racially motivated attacks against whites have increased precipitously.

Mercer’s work on this score is must reading for Americans who are concerned with preventing their country from being consumed by the racial evils that have engulfed South Africa.  It is also priceless for the author’s decimation of the “root causes” offered by both left and right.

While conceding that culture “counts,” Mercer also reminds us that the argument from “culture” is “circular,” not “causal.” It amounts to nothing more enlightening than “people do the things they do because they are who they are and have a history of being that way.”

The theorists can debate “root causes” all day long.  The rest of us need to combat evil.

And the first step toward combating evil is to recognize it for what it is.

Last week, I wrote an article in which I argued that unless the Republican Party begins to take stock of the ever growing discontent among its conservative base, it will, deservedly, be a loser in perpetuity.

Among the overwhelmingly positive responses, I also received some criticisms.

(1)There’s no such thing as “the perfect” candidate. 

And?

Disenchanted conservatives are the last people who need to be reminded of the fact that perfect politicians, like perfect specimens of anything, simply aren’t to be found in this world.  But so what?

The disenchanted don’t seek perfection. What they seek are candidates who are conservative.  Imperfection they expect; gross imperfection they reject.

(2)We must choose “the lesser” of two “evils.”

While I’m unaware of them, perhaps there are some ethical traditions in the world that command their adherents to consciously select evil—even if the evil in question isn’t as evil as the alternative(s).  But the ethical tradition to which most conservatives subscribe is Christianity.  According to the latter, it is never, ever permissible to deliberately commit an act—any act—of evil.

Again, it isn’t “imperfection” per se that repels disenchanted conservatives, but intolerable imperfections that give rise to their repulsion.  The “lesser of two evils,” being still an evil, is, obviously, intolerably imperfect. As such, it should repel decent people everywhere.

(3)By not voting for Republicans, conservatives, in effect, vote for Democrats.

To this criticism, two replies are in the coming.

First of all, when the Republicans raising this criticism are those politicians and pundits who persist in their support of just those policies, like his foreign policy, say, that resulted in our last (Republican) president leaving the office with a 30% approval rating while his nemeses assumed command of both houses of Congress and the White House, it sounds more than a bit hypocritical, for it is they who have provided their opponents with more than enough support.

Yet no one is blinder in this respect than those Republicans who endorse amnesty, a policy that is sure to establish Democrat supremacy from this point onward.

Secondly, the conservative’s decision to refrain from voting may very well result in Democrats winning elections, but he is no more blameworthy for this than is a terminal patient blameworthy for suicide who refrains from availing himself of extra-ordinary measures that will buy him just a few more weeks of life—and suffering.  The patient knows that his decision to “do nothing” will hasten his death, but his intention is not to kill himself. In fact, his intention isn’t even to shorten his suffering but, rather, simply not to add to it.

The conservative who decides not to vote is in a similar situation. His country is sick. As much as some media personalities want for him to believe that there is all of the difference in the world between America’s two national parties, he knows that the only difference that has existed for far too long is that between a poison that will kill—“fundamentally transform”—his country quickly and one that will kill it not so quickly.

This is no hyperbole. Traditionally, America has been a country devoted to liberty, or “limited government,” as Republicans put it.  But Big Government is the antithesis of liberty.   Thus, it is the antithesis of America.  The Republican Party, however, is as much committed to Big Government as is its counterpart—even if the other guys (and gals) may want even (slightly) Bigger Government.

The disenchanted conservative, then, refuses to comply with the killing of his country.

Unlike the terminally ill patient in this example, though, the conservative who sits out elections need not have given up. In fact, he remains hopeful that his decision on this front will provoke his party to reverse course. That is, he aims to restore his country to good health. Moreover, the conservative knows well that countries don’t live by politics alone, that there are many ways in which he can fight the good fight for the well being of his homeland.

Republicans’ rhetoric is of little consequence. If Republicans don’t start governing as conservatives, as the apostles of constitutional liberty that they claim to be, then they will deservedly lose more of their base.

But then it will be these Republicans who would have basically voted for their rivals.