America's opportunistic race-hustlers, unsatisfied by their victory in the Trayvon Martin case, won't stop looking for reasons to rile up white people. So now the latest yapping point in our national conversation about race is the murder of Christopher Lane, the white Australian student allegedly killed for kicks by two black teenagers, with a white teenager as their accomplice in the shooting.
In the world of white victimology, this proves that there is a media conspiracy to underplay crime against whites. Where is the outrage over Christopher Lane's killing? Where is it? The outrage? Huh? WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?
If you are one of the angry white dummies asking this question, try a different one: What is the outrage?
Guess what? There isn't any. In this case, as in every other case that the white racial-grievance industry has tried to latch onto after the Martin killing, there is nothing to be scandalized about.
Here's what happened in Oklahoma: a young man was shot to death. The police investigated it as a crime, arrested suspects, and charged them with murder.
No one is on the other side of this case. No one is disputing the principle that people who murder other people should be arrested and tried for it. There may eventually be some disagreement about the application of adult law to juveniles—a genuine point of disagreement in this country at this time—but everyone agrees that the killing of Christopher Lane was a terrible crime and that the perpetrators should be punished.
The reason the killing of Trayvon Martin became a national scandal was that even though an unarmed young man was shot to death, the local authorities decided not to treat it as a crime. That was why it was a major news story. It was not the fact that a person of one particular race killed a person of another particular race; it was how the police and the justice system decided to handle that killing after it happened.
Afterward, when George Zimmerman was finally arrested and put on trial, the white victimology professionals took the opportunity to dust off their old arguments about black-on-black crime and black-on-white crime and why racial profiling is worthwhile. But all of this was in service of making the case that Trayvon Martin deserved to have been shot.
This seems to be confusing people, so let's repeat it: No one is making the case that Christopher Lane deserved to be shot! There is no meaningful analogy to be made to the Martin case, or at least none that is flattering to white people's fear or self-pity. Murder (of white people) remains illegal in America, and it will be punished.
Yet the noise has reached all the way up to Time magazine now. "Don't Ignore Race in Christopher Lane's Murder," writes John McWhorter, who has made a nice career as a writer noticing the things about race that white people want noticed.
But what are white people trying to accomplish, by calling our attention to race here? What does a discussion of supposed black criminality, in general, have to do with the specifics of this case? The individuals who allegedly killed Lane have all been arrested. Should the police in Oklahoma have arrested additional black people (or, you know, black and white people in a 2-to-1 ratio), on principle? It's almost as if the people who want to talk about black criminality don't care about facts.