LOOK closely at the photos below of a small sampling of people who have been murdered, or are suspected of having been murdered, by black assailants. (One was not murdered. He was paralyzed from the neck down for life.) They were all but one attacked in “random” and “senseless” acts of violence by strangers.

Do you see anything remarkably similar — not a physical trait, but a quality of character — in all these faces? I don’t ask the question out of idle curiosity. I think the answer tells us something important about black psychology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

— Comments —

Laura writes:

I have gotten a number of excellent comments. But, I am leaving this question up for a while longer so that others might get a chance to think about it on their own.

April 5, 2014

Kimberly writes:

They all look warm, friendly, and loving. Maybe that is viewed as a weakness by the lows within black society.

Paul writes:

I see white people who have been victimized by the blacks that white Southerners knew were going to act in accordance with their awful culture.

Caroline writes:

Sage McLaughlin writes:

The only thing I can put my finger on is that all of the victims in the photos you’ve posted appear … decent.

They were killed for the same reason a savage destroys a stained glass window.  He destroys it not in spite of its beauty, but precisely because it is beautiful, and because it manifests a subtlety in craft and a profundity in vision that he can never know in himself.

 B. writes:

A quote comes to mind, it might be attributable to Ayn Rand:

‘The hatred of the good, for being the good.’

Binthurm writes:

It can be difficult to separate character from appearance when the only evidence is a single photograph.  I have two observations based on the limited evidence.

The first observation is that all of the portraits impress me as being those of childlike individuals, including John Bannon, who at his death was probably my age (I was born in 1954); being childlike they also seem vulnerable.  Andrew Young was what is charitably called simple; but Lee Rigby and Ethan Nichols (I am sorry to say) might be mistaken for simple.

The second observation is that all of the portraits impress me as being those of happy individuals.  This is especially the case with Nathan Trapuzzano, Kevin Neary, and Colleen Ritzer.

In respect of sociopathic aggression, both observations are relevant.  Let me begin with happiness.  When I attended high school between 1969 and 1972, the institution was virtually racially homogeneous, but this did not mean that it was free from violence.  In a student population of 3000 there is bound to be a number of sociopaths.  It occurred to me during my three years of high school that almost nothing so infuriated the sociopaths as evidence of happiness.  A group of kids at a lunch-table having a spirited and laughter-leavened conversation might easily become the target of flung food from one of the maladjusted ones.  To be remarked in any way officially, for academic or athletic performance, invariably made the person a target for sociopathic resentment.  I once had a book grabbed away from me and flung into a trash can when I was reading passages out loud to my buddies during the morning break.

As for the appearance of simplicity, this is equal to the appearance of vulnerability.  Wolves seek the extremely young antelope or the extremely aged antelope precisely because these are vulnerable.  Mobs in search of victims also seek the vulnerable; as do lone criminals.

The motive of those who feel hatred when they see happiness is resentment.  The resentful party sees in the happy party the very being that he feels himself to lack.  The motive of aggression in such a case is either to acquire the victim’s being, perhaps by appropriating his chattels, or the things that in a foolish analysis seem to make him happy; or to destroy the offensive happiness by destroying its bearer, so that he who resents need no longer feel himself as the loser in a comparison.  The Bible calls this covetousness.

Some instances of happiness are untouchable because the resentful party calculates that his target can defend himself, so the resentful party then looks for someone who is both detestably happy and conveniently vulnerable.

Lee Rigby’s death was obviously sacrificial in the most primitive sense, but there are sacrificial elements in all nine cases.

 A reader writes:

They look like Eloi, from “The Time Machine” by H.G. Wells.

B. E. writes:

Looking at these faces, I see a common thread of happiness, and for some, goodness as well. On the down side, there is both a naivete, as well as, in some, a vacantness. Most of them look as though it could be said of them, “Oh, he wouldn’t hurt a fly.”

Although there are two Britons in the mix, I see the kind of person who used to be the common American. These are the people who did not lock their doors as night, who would leave the keys in the ignition. These are the people who lived in a safe and peaceful and prosperous society. They never learned to be wary because they never needed it―because their society at reached a pinnacle of development that is virtually unknown.

Unfortunately, in America 2.0, such people are Eloi. Without knowing it, they are waiting to be devoured by the savage, feral blacks amongst us (and, to a lesser degree, by the other Third Worlders the liberals have imported, or allowed in, by the millions).

Marie E. writes:

No doubt your other correspondents have identified an open, trusting kindness in these faces.  I want to offer objective behavioral proof for this subjective observation. I’d like to take on your two Philadelphia stories – Amber Long and Kevin Neary.

The two Philadelphia victims you cite were both residents of the city’s Northern Liberties neighborhood.  They were attacked in that neighborhood, near their homes.  I posit that it takes a special kind of professional white person even to live in Northern Liberties.  A uniquely trusting and optimistic person.  They are the true “young invincibles,” innocent of their surroundings and of their own vulnerability.  [Laura writes: Actually, Amber lived in South Philadelphia in a less trendy neighborhood. Her boyfriend, however, lived in Northern Liberties, or on the edge of it. So I think Marie’s comments are still relevant.]

I don’t mean to imply that I blame any of these victims for their tragic fates.  I believe they are all wholly innocent.  Their stories fill me with sorrow, sympathy, and abject horror.

But Northern Liberties is a unique place, even by Philadelphia standards.  I never understood its appeal, and I’ve said as much to anyone who would listen.  (See here for another grim Northern Liberties bedtime story: Sabrina Rose O’Donnell murder).

Northern Liberties has a main drag with a handful of trendy nightlife spots, art galleries, community gardens, and other hipster destinations.  But outside of this small strip, and past a certain witching hour, it is a desolate and scary place.  It may be papered over with trendy bars and restaurants but I still consider it unsuitable for me to visit, even for just an evening.  Even with friends.

Living in Philadelphia, I am acquainted with many white urban professionals who chose to live in Northern Liberties.  I always find this puzzling.  The neighborhood is far removed from the core downtown – read: jobs – even by public transit.  The rents are high for Philadelphia –  almost as high as in the convenient downtown neighborhoods.  And it is scary and empty at night and supremely unsafe.  Far from work, costly, dangerous…why do people live there?  I posit that it’s for the bragging rights that one may assume as an urban pioneer.

Sometimes the flip-side of white guilt is white pride.  Pride in being one of the first young professionals to settle in a questionable area.  Pride in being the open-minded young woman who takes the subway alone at night.  Pride in being friendly with neighborhood drug dealers and addicts and indigents.  Maybe you don’t give them your change when they ask for it, but they know your name and sometimes you know theirs.  It’s like Sesame Street or Cheers.  Except you’re the outsider and you don’t even know it.  You’re playing a game that you don’t understand.

And let’s not forget that there are rewards for ignoring reality to live in this neighborhood: access to the best craft brewpubs and brunch cafés in town.  Your corner diner is featured on Food Network every week.  You’re edgy and special and your peers are impressed. Some very good people fall for this. They never imagine any consequences. Good people like Amber Long.  And Kevin Neary.

Marie adds:

I lived in urban Philadelphia from 2002-2011.  All of the neighborhoods I lived in were in some stage of “gentrification”.  Philadelphia has many fine qualities but it is rife with crime.  In 2008, I was mugged and violently assaulted by two black men while walking down the sidewalk in a “safe” Philadelphia neighborhood.  Aside from simple loss of property, I suffered a concussion and broken teeth.  I feared for my life.  I pleaded for it.  I’ve survived other attempted muggings where I kept my property and person intact.  I’ve seen violence and robbery, to say nothing of drug-dealing and prostitution.  So when I argue that Northern Liberties is unsafe, I do not say that as a pampered person, far removed from Philly’s problems.  I say it because I have been to this neighborhood many times and it gives me the creeps.

That said, I recognize that what happened to Kevin Neary could have happened to me, as in the incident I described above.  But his neighborhood does signify something.  He is a uniquely optimistic and open person.  I know this because of where he chose to live.

 A reader, whose initial email inspired this post, writes:

Regarding the Trapuzzano murder, the guy Nathan (judging by his photo) seems to have been ‘nice’ and ‘kind.’ It seems these are the types of people who are almost always the victims in these scenarios. I wonder if it the perceived weakness, or perhaps a gamble on an easy target (for practicing violence), or some unconscious attempt to weed out niceness.

 The reader continues:

I don’t know that Nate Trapuzzano was weak actually, but he did seem kind of smiley, nicey, thin, etc., which can be seen as such in a particularly degraded society. It seems this real or imagined weakness they are finding extremely offensive (how dare you be weak in my presence!!!) where most of us would probably take it in stride, shrug it off or try to help.

Most of the photos of the victims show a smiley faced person. There is so much pressure for white guys in particular, to constantly force a smile for every photo. Just look at guys facebook photos. I am not particularly big or imposing but am noticeably muscular and not generally smiley. I don;t know if it is the cause but I almost never have issues. I also keep to myself. As far as minorities go, they have been rather nice to me overall.

 Laura writes:

Thank you for your interesting observations.

Binthurm is right: one cannot make conclusive judgments about a person based on a single photograph. Let’s recognize there are limits to this type of exercise.

Working with what we have, I also am struck by the lack of guile and fundamental goodness in these faces. These are poignant photographs. Would you hesitate to trust any one of these people if what these photographs suggest is true?

By contrast, here are two photographs from the Internet.

 

The first is Kathy Gannon, the reporter who was shot in Afghanistan this week by an Afghani police officer. Her face doesn’t have anywhere near the same openness and innocence.

Here is a photo chosen randomly. The woman looks happy, but there is an element of artificiality. She is someone who feels comfortable posing. By contrast, the people above are disarmingly sincere. They are not pretending to be warm. It emanates from within.

I don’t think the victimization of people with these qualities is accidental.  Obviously, we can reasonably  assume that blacks choose this type because they are easy targets. But I don’t think that’s the whole of it. This is a theory that could never be scientifically proven precisely because these qualities are subjective and cannot be measured.

But I believe blacks instinctively see this kind of niceness as weakness. They instinctively sense white weakness and despise it, in the same way a child may hate perceived weakness in a parent. They hate it, as others have said, because it carries an expectation of ready goodness in themselves, but also because, in some profound, subconscious way, they perceive it is a betrayal.

The entire egalitarian program rests on a massive miscalculation of black psychology, based as it is on the assertion that if only whites are nicer to blacks, blacks will behave and be nice in return. In fact, something near the opposite is true. I don’t mean that whites should not be nice in every day interactions with blacks, but egalitarianism is niceness that blacks despise. It reeks of weakness. It does not speak to them on some basic, pre-rational level.

Anthony Jacobs makes this point in his 1965 book, White Man, Think Again! Jacobs was a journalist who lived in Africa for many years. In quoting him, I don’t assent to everything he has said on the subject and I disavow his animal terminology, which should not be taken literally here. His recognition of the humanity of blacks is implicit in his psychological analysis and he acknowledges the shocking aspect of it:

In Africa, a land without love, kindness is a weakness. Because there is no charity there is no understanding of mercy, and because there is no altruism there is no gratitude. In Africa, brute strength is everything. If force is not exerted to the utmost, it can only mean there is no force to be exerted. The Negro understands only that the strong live and the weak die. If we recognize him as an animal product of his savage animal environment, one who has lacked the qualities to rise above it, we will not wholly blame him if he instinctively strives to throw off a White rule which, because of its ‘goodness,’ he senses is weak. In Africa, weakness brings death to all it embraces. For this reason, a strong rule is not resented, even if by our standards it should be a crushing and barbarous despotism. It might be recalled that in America as well, on the one occasion when the Negro slaves rose up in murderous revolt against their White masters, it was not where they were being treated the worst but where they were being treated the best. The Negro knows that he is an inferior being who needs a master and should never be led off the lead. Giving him freedom is like giving a cut-throat razor to a baby or a Tommy-gun to a problem child. If instead of being held in subservience, he is treated as a brother and and equal, his own auxiliary Brontosaurus brain will warn him that it is wrong and that his masters are impostors. Being convinced they are no stronger or wiser than he, with every moral justification he will rise up and kill them.

As truthful foreign observers have remarked, it is not in South Africa, where the Negro is held to discipline, that he looks at the white man with hatred in his eyes. It is in the other African territories, where the Negro is the masterof the white man, or where equality has been enforced, that he eyes the white man with hatred. It is where he is free to swear at the white man and not where he is obliged to call him Master or Bwana, that he hates the white man. The matter was best summed up by an Afrikaner who was examining an old-time raw-hide whip. “Hit a Kaffir with that and he will stay with you for life.”

Without doubt, it is all quite revoltingly crude. But that is African reality. Disciplinarian South Africa is going from strength to strength. The whole of Liberal White-governed Africa has exploded into a thousand fragments.

I don’t agree with the commenter who says the people above are Eloi. The H.G. Wells’ characters have a sub-human stupidity. These victims have an elevated quality. I don’t see it as stupidity, but an inborn innocence and goodness. They are decent people who should not be robbed of or cajoled out of their goodness. They shouldn’t be made to be tough and suspicious people. That would be the ultimate destruction of their humanity, a murder in and of itself. I suspect you couldn’t destroy these qualities except by in some way lowering them and making these people brutal themselves. Look at John Bannon, that sensitivity in his face seems so deeply  part of his nature.

But the society they live in has absolutely betrayed them. It has failed to protect them. It has failed them by refusing to recognize racial realities and refusing to let those who are by nature much tougher create a culture that controls black misbehavior and segregates whites from it.

Karl D. writes:

One thing I can say that helped me avoid being the victim of black crime is body language and simple awareness. I can’t stress how important this is. It is something I learned the hard way as a young man navigating the streets, subways and schools of New York City during the late ‘70s and 1980s.

It never ceases to amaze me how some of my fellow whites would walk around as if they were in their own living rooms with no situational awareness at all! And believe me I was the perfect target. I was a skinny pretty boy with green eyes and long curly blond hair.

When I would ride the subways I would usually wear sunglasses to avoid any eye contact and would often feign nodding off. I would also sit with my legs spread quite wide as to look as masculine as possible. If I was in the presence of a large numbers of blacks I would act and walk with a certain swagger or mirror their body language. If they would speak to me and I was out numbered I would lower my IQ, thicken my accent and my face would take on the character of someone who was stoned. I would also let them think they were smarter than me and that they were actually teaching me something. It almost always worked. But not always. I was jumped and stomped on once and mugged when I was 14. Interestingly enough, I was wearing a blazer and tie when I was mugged. Blacks tend to look for two things in white victims in my opinion. Perceived weakness or softness and an attitude of superiority. Even if none exists. I find they are jealous of whites from the get go. And if you are attractive with fine European features and carry yourself with class it enrages them.

Jeanette V. writes:

My daughter used to tell me I walked “mean.” I’ve traveled all over the world and have taken money from ATM’s at night alone and have never had any problems. Of course now that I am older I am well aware that “walking mean” is no longer much of a protection anymore so I am more careful and have looked into getting a permit as I carry a lot of expensive photo equipment or instruments depending what I am doing.

James N. writes:

Readers offered many good comments, but I think there’s more to the picture.

In addition to the inducement that weakness offers to the violent, we are dealing with a backlash of enormous proportions. Most whites (what my mother referred to as “people of good will”) believed, and told blacks that they believed, that once legal segregation was dismantled and once white education was provided to blacks, that they would be as we are – that the enormous differences between us would go away.

This, of course, has not happened. Whites deal with this in a variety of resourceful ways, but blacks, I think, deal with it mainly as a betrayal. Betrayal in the sense that, the whites told us that, by stopping what they were doing to us, that we would be equal, and, since we are obviously not equal, THE WHITES MUST NOT HAVE STOPPED WHAT THEY WERE DOING TO US.

Laura writes:

Whites endlessly fuel this resentment.

Malcolm Pollack writes:

What I noticed right away was that everyone had long faces and prominent, straight noses. This is a very Nordic look, and very different from the round, short-nosed Negro type; I wonder if there is some amplification of race-distance here in the minds of the attackers.

This physiognomy of the nose is sensitively adapted to climate; the long Nordic nose warms and moistens cold, dry air. To use the taxonomy that John Derbyshire borrowed from Leonard Jeffries, it says “Ice People!” loud and clear.

William R. writes:

There are three levels of selection bias at play here.  First is the subjects’ awareness that their photo is being taken.  None of these appear to be truly candid photos.  Second is the selection of photograph(s) by their loved ones for submission to the press.  Third is the selection, by the press, of which photograph (assuming more than one was submitted) to publish.  The face presented by each victim to his assailants could have been completely unlike what we see here.

That said … Warmth and vitality are what I see. Mr. Rigby is perhaps the least vital.  His uniform carries vitality better than he does himself.  Perhaps he has bad teeth and favors a closed-mouth smile.  Mr. Bannon, also with a closed mouth, projects a settled strength, but there’s warmth in his eyes as he looks back at what I imagine is his wife or daughter.

Incidentally, the Horton/Nichols photograph is of the worst quality, taken with either a mobile phone or one of the cheap compact cameras that are equally awful when used with only indoor lighting.

Is innocence what you’re seeing?

 Laura writes:

Selection bias is a problem, but when families select photos for this kind of thing, I suspect they often just grab something recent because they are distraught. During the trial phase, they have had more time to choose.

The Horton/Nichols photo is not great. If I had to do it over again, I would have omitted it or looked for better photos of them.

However, when I looked at it, my instantaneous reaction was that they were both shy.

 Alissa writes: