The White Working Class is Endangered by Racist Black Lynch Mobs on the One Side, and by Bobos/SWPLers, on the Other.
[The phrase “Bobos”—short for “Bohemian Bourgeoisie”—was coined by David Brooks to describe much of today’s white, American, upper-middle class. Bobos combine previously antipodal categories such as bohemian and capitalist, are fond of expensive coffee shops, and embrace Third World peoples—from a safe distance, or as illegal household help (but not as neighbors), or in terms of safely “exotic” vacations.
Though Brooks somehow neglected to mention this, one of Bobos’ favorite endeavors is displacing American workers.
Brooks considers Bobos a praiseworthy, virtuous demographic, albeit one that takes itself a little too seriously and, though he gently mocks it, he also identifies with it. As well he should.
Blogger Christian Lander adopted Brooks’ notions all the way down the line, but renamed the group in question, “SWPL”—“Stuff White People Like” types—while somehow forgetting to attribute said ideas to Brooks. (Bobos/SWPLers=B/Sers, for short.)
“The Goldman Effect” concerns how B/Sers can, through their thoughtlessness, place themselves in dangerous situations that their white social “inferiors” must then rescue them from, whereupon the now ruthless B/Sers leave their rescuers in the lurch, misrepresent and exploit the situations, and never so much as thank their benefactors.
Thus do B/Sers represent a menace to society, particularly to working-class whites.]
If you’re a white, Philadelphia cabbie, who poses the greater danger to you: A Bobo/SWPL passenger, or a racist, black lynch mob? Go ahead, take your time. It’s a tricky question.
Crime scene: Center City, Philadelphia, infamous for three years for racist black mob attacks on whites, Saturday, January 28, 2012.
White Ivy League weenie Brian Goldman rides in a cab, leaving the windows wide open, blissfully unaware of his surroundings, and gets sucker-punched at a traffic light by a member of a black lynch mob that spews racial epithets at him. Instead of closing the window, locking the doors, and telling the cabbie what happened, Goldman gets out of the cab to see what’s going on. And gets hit some more. The white, working-stiff cabbie then gets out and, in the midst of swirling, slugging racists, grabs a tire iron from his trunk, risking his life to save Goldman from the racist mob, while scores of people watch.
While the cabbie takes a beating on Goldman’s behalf, Goldman runs away, and can’t be bothered to call 911. He later wrote, with perfect, non sequitur logic,
The police cannot be everywhere all the time and I did not call 911 to alert them to the situation.
It’s when the police aren’t there, that you call 911!
(Unbeknownst to Goldman, the cabbie did call 911, and reported everything to the police, including the racial epithets. For those suspecting me of hyperbole, due to my use of the phrase “black lynch mob,” the traditional legal meaning of “lynching” refers not to a murder, but to a mob attack. Unfortunately, the public has been unduly influenced by racist blacks such as the NAACP and professors of black studies, and white leftists, so as to have a false notion of what the term entails.)
Goldman continues on to his scheduled date, where he uses the story as an “icebreaker”—“It was a good icebreaker. The date went very well.”—and then quickly types up a column about it in his school paper at the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”), being careful to misrepresent just about everything that happened. He leaves out the racial epithets, the fact that the attackers were all black and the victims both white, instead speaking abstractly of “flash mobs” and “the bystander effect,” condemning “bystanders” who failed to call 911, even though one bystander, the cabbie, risked his life to intervene and did call 911, while Goldman did not, even when he saw the cabbie who had just rescued him getting beaten up.
There was not an officer in sight and all the traffic behind us had stopped. People got out of their cars to watch. The Wendy’s right across from us was filled with spectators eager to catch the bloody battle.
“Flash mobs” are harmless, planned, predominantly white gatherings of people who suddenly engage in collective performance art in public places. Goldman used the MSM’s euphemism for a racist black lynch mob attack against whites and/or Asians. Speaking simultaneously out of both sides of his mouth, Goldman emphasized the attack’s character as a “flash mob,” while explicitly denying its racial character in interviews with local reporters, to whom he also denied having heard any racial epithets.
As for the “bystander effect,” he misused that, too, to the degree that it had any validity to begin with. “The bystander effect” was formulated as a credulous response by social scientists to a journalism hoax that they swallowed whole: The New York Times’ misrepresentation of the Kitty Genovese murder-rape in Kew Gardens, Queens. (By the way, Goldman is from Queens, as is this writer.)
In 1964, racist black serial killer-rapist-necrophiliac Winston Moseley stalked, stabbed, murdered and raped Kitty Genovese, but either New York Times “reporter” Martin Gansberg, or his editor, A.M. Rosenthal lied, in asserting that 38 of Genovese’s neighbors had heard her screams, but did nothing. The truth is, during Moseley’s initial attack, he had stabbed and punctured Genovese’s lung, making it impossible for her to scream, fled when a neighbor shouted at him, and later returned to the back of her apartment building, where he found the disabled Genovese, whom no one else could see or hear, where he finished her off and raped her.
The other reason Goldman’s invocation of “the bystander effect” is dishonest, is because the people watching the attack on him were likely black, thus that they were not apathetic “bystanders” at all, but spectators enjoying the show.
Social scientists claim that the bystander effect—of people not doing anything when they see an injustice being committed—is more likely to occur, the more witnesses there are. (I have to admit to having at least one experience that supports the theory. In 1972, a lone black woman saved my life when she called out from behind her apartment door, “What’s going on out there,” thus interrupting an older kid named Tyrone Huffman, who was busy stomping me to death.)
While the phenomenon of people witnessing evil and doing nothing certainly occurs, we’ll never get a straight answer out of antiversity researchers, who are paid to lie.
And we will never get honest, rigorous research on this topic because the majority of the time when people witness evil acts committed in public in this country, the assailants are black (in urban areas, most of the rest are committed by Hispanics). Although blacks constitute only 12.6 percent of the population of citizen and non-citizen residents in this country, they account for an absolute majority of reported violent crime, including murder. (Not to mention, millions of unreported or “disappeared” violent crimes—see also here, annually.) In every profession responsible for reporting on social pathologies—the media, academia, social work, government agencies, the schools—telling the truth about black evil “is a firing offense.”
When people hear or see someone being victimized and do nothing to help him, the two easiest explanations are not apathy, but that
: • They do not give a damn (which is not the same as apathy); or
Other explanations are that a person has previously gone to others’ aid, and suffered negative consequences, such as
: • Being condemned;
• Being ignored (e.g., calling 911 with no police car responding);
• Seeing someone else who did nothing get praised; and/or
• Being himself victimized.
Since 1988, I have observed a new wrinkle that goes beyond the so-called bystander effect: Whites who see a lone white assaulted by blacks or Hispanics, and who support the attackers, even to the point of lying to the police. While the whites who do this doubtless represent themselves to friends and colleagues as “anti-racists,” they are racist to the bone and, behind their self-righteous posturing, also derive a sadistic enjoyment of the victim’s suffering. (Blacks, of course, routinely lie to the police on behalf of black criminals, particularly those whom they have seen assaulting a white.)
In addition to the problem of racially dishonest researchers, there are the problems of politicization (this sort of issue frequently gets raised in conjunction with loaded phenomena such as the Holocaust), and of ubiquity. The phenomenon of people committing public acts of evil and of witnesses doing nothing is pervasive, occurs daily, and is getting worse.
A Sophist, or Worse?
I don’t mean to suggest that Brian Goldman is merely a sophist. I’m convinced, based on his denial of the racial epithets and the attack’s racist character, that he’s a flat-out liar.
Goldman also surely lied about the duration of the attack, claiming that he had to fight off a violent mob—which he suggested had 15 members—for “10 minutes.” Having been in such situations many times while younger (not to mention, having since reported on many more)—most of which I was able to bluff my way out of, after having protected myself from getting sucker-punched in the first place, and having also taken some horrific but very brief beatings, I can state with certainty that had the mob beaten Goldman for ten minutes that he would not have lived to tell the tale, let alone sloughed it off, and headed off to a fun date. The entire attack was probably over in one minute or less, thanks entirely to the heroism of the taxi driver, whom Goldman apparently stiffed for his fare.
More credibly, Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Allison Steele wrote, “Goldman, who said he never heard [the racial epithets], fled the scene after a minute.”
Goldman probably got hit twice, at most. Unless he is Superman, if he had been repeatedly hit in the head by a mob, he would have gone down, in which case he would not have been able to run away. Once black racist thugs get a white victim down, they start to stomp on his head.
After Goldman’s column ran, the Philly newspapers approached him, and he lied to them about the character of the attack; and when the authorities refused to prosecute the attack as a hate crime, he inexplicably praised them.
As I see it, there are three problems with what happened in Center City that night: A spoiled, worthless, B/Ser phony [hereafter: The Weenie] permitted a preventable incident to arise through his mindlessness; a righteous, middle-aged, white working stiff risked his life for The Weenie (who even quoted David Brooks in his column!); and the mob didn’t hit The Weenie hard enough.
At the end of Goldman’s column, many readers ripped him a new one for his cowardice and hypocrisy. I was especially influenced by the second of the following three related comments.
February 2, 2012, 2:00 pm
“The police cannot be everywhere all the time and I did not call 911 to alert them to the situation.”
Brian, please write a follow-up to clarify. As a native Philadelphian, I’m ashamed that you were victimized in such a way, and hope you are recovering well. A question: did you call the police after you fled the scene of the crime? How can you, in good faith, write an opinion piece lamenting the lack of good citizenship and common decency in Philly, as it appears when given the chance to call 911 yourself (when for all you knew, the cab driver was gravely injured), you chose to run away and write a strongly worded piece for the DP? I see from Philly.com that you came forward on Monday… a full 24 hours at least, and after your words were published here. Unless you can explain otherwise, your piece smacks of hypocrisy.
February 2, 2012, 4:44 pm
I agree completely with Christine’s comment above. Brian took the initiative to write the intial article which has now become news in itself, and should write a follow-up to explain his logic. He probably won’t, so I will speculate what happened:
1. Brian ran from the scene, met his friend for dinner, used the story as an “ice-breaker” as philly.com reported, then went home.
2. Next day, Brian wrote this article perhaps without realizing that some one with a brain (i.e. the cab driver) alerted the police with as to what happened.
3. Brian paniced and called his parents
4. Media outlets began to call asking questions.
5. Brian gave what can only be described as a sad interview to the media, telling them that he “looked back to make sure the cab driver was ok” then went on his date.
6. Brian began to realize that he has to manage this thing in some way because he did something extremely stupid by not calling the police.
7. Brian’s parents advised him that it is best to talk to the police and to stop writing about this.
8. Brian is beginning to realize that he is part of the story in a way that could effect his future because google searches of his name will lead to a series of unflattering stories and articles about his inactions following the event.
9. Brian will not be writing a follow-up piece and will wait for this to die down.
You forgot to add February 2, 2012, 6:08 pm
10. Is going out of his way to avoid acknowledging that race played a part, for fear of being accused of racism. He is happy, however to have the cab driver take that risk by saying things like “Well, gee if the cab driver said they were yelling racist things then I guess they were [so don’t call me racist – if anyone it’s that cab driver]”
By the way, although racist, black Philadelphia DA Seth Williams admitted that the mob spewed racial epithets while beating the two whites, in his own demonstration of non sequitur logic, Williams nevertheless denied that the attack was as a hate crime.
“We have to be able to prove that race was the motivator for the crime,” said Tasha Jamerson, a spokeswoman for the District Attorney’s Office. “Just because epithets were said during the crime doesn’t mean it was the reason for the crime.”
Of course, when whites utter “epithets” during a fight with a black, even if the black confesses that he was about to commit a crime, the cops and prosecutors are always satisfied that the white’s epithet made him guilty of a “hate crime.”
To return to my opening question, although the mob’s members are morally and legally responsible for their crimes, clearly Brian Goldman was the greater danger to the white cabbie than the racist black mob. Had the cabbie never picked up Goldman, he would never have been beaten up. And he still wouldn’t have gotten beaten up, had Goldman exercised some common sense, like not leaving his window wide open and sticking his head out, in the presence of a bunch of racist blacks. (In Center City, Philadelphia, with its history of racist black mob assaults, one must assume that all young blacks are racist, until they prove otherwise). In addition to the cabbie’s wounds, Goldman also cost him a few miles’ gas, the wear and tear on his vehicle and tires, and the time he spent both driving Goldman, and making a police report. And Goldman never even paid his fare!
But Goldman is a danger to the general public, as well. He has a newspaper column at one of the nation’s most exclusive, overpriced, private universities (OPUs). Thus, he already has thousands of readers, and his school is so influential that one dishonest column in a school paper resulted in phone calls from major, metropolitan newspapers. Goldman is likely headed for a career in the media, political consulting, or public relations: The spin zone.
When a writer is a racial socialist (“liberal,” “progressive,” “multiculturalist,” etc.), everyone expects him to lie about racial attacks. The Left decided on race war as its path to power over 50 years ago. Thus, white leftists are loyal to racist blacks, and are waging war with them on the white race. As evil as such conduct is, we expect it, which is why over 100 million white Americans take everything the leftwing MSM say with a grain of salt.
But when a self-declared “conservative,” like Goldman, lies about racial attacks, both in the individual and the general case, the effects are disastrous. First, when people see “conservative,” they expect an alternative, yet Goldman offers none. That’s why some critics call people like him “Vichy cons” or “Quislings.” Second, he takes a spot away from a more honest writer. Third, he discredits the very notion of telling the truth, consigning it to the cyber-netherworld. Fourth, he demoralizes many people from taking a stand against the ongoing race war, who otherwise might have. After all, they will be attacked not only by the racial socialists, but by desperately triangulating “conservatives,” like Goldman, as well. And there is nothing unique about Goldman, who is following in the footsteps of his ever-triangulating role model, David Brooks.
The late “godfather of neoconservatism,” Irving Kristol, famously said that a neoconservative was “a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” If that is so, what does one call a Brian Goldman? Kristol would have called him a “neoliberal.”