These kinds of videos have a way of disappearing from the Internet, but if you click on the link, you can see a video of an assault which took place on public transit in France. The video is rather longish; the 'action' comes about halfway through, but you can see a young White male passenger being attacked, apparently after having his pocket picked by the 'youths' on the bus. The video is depressing and dispiriting, as you realize how utterly many people in the West are conditioned not to defend themselves or their fellow Whites.
The website where the video is embedded is that of a French politician of a conservative/nationalist party, and the site notes that the video has been censored from YouTube (typical) and another site.
Why do most of the other passengers not come to the aid of the young man as he is down and being kicked and pummeled? Near the end, when he seems to be seeking help from the driver, the driver appears completely indifferent to the bloodied passenger, and even rather annoyed by him.
What is going on there?
The bus assault video and the indifference or cowardice of the other passengers reminded me somewhat of a movie I've alluded to here in the past. The movie was a 1967 film called 'The Incident', in which two thugs terrorize a subway car of a dozen or so people. In some ways, the movie already adheres to the politically correct conventions, but in some ways it was more honest than such a movie would be today.
The movie's thugs were two young White males, one played by Irish-Spanish Martin Sheen and the Italian-American Tony Musante. Even in 1967, I think it was already frowned upon to have the thugs be black or other minorities.
As in the French real-life bus incident, the passengers mostly try to ignore or avoid the thugs, refusing to take action to stop their reign of terror against the passengers. At long last, one young man, a military man on leave, with his arm in a cast, takes on the thugs, at great cost to himself. (See the movie if you haven't; it's available in segments on YouTube.) I found the ending very cathartic, but I found myself angered at the passivity and cowardice of most of the spineless passengers. I thought of the movie as a metaphor for our disintegrating society, with a passive citizenry who simply choose, too often, to turn a blind eye to what is happening to their neighbors or fellow citizens; they don't want to get involved. The movie characters who refused to act to defend themselves or their fellow passengers rationalized the situation in various ways: when others were attacked, they thought it was not their problem, and saw no need to intervene. Some chose to pretend not to see or hear what was happening. Some made a token effort to object but quickly backed down from the bullies. Some tried to appease and even befriend the thugs, hoping to buy mercy for themselves. Some tried to 'reason', and some simply cowered in fear. This is pretty much the kind of reaction we are seeing from the Western peoples in general as thugs and bullies harass and attack. Few will openly and confidently oppose the bad guys. Everybody seems to want somebody else to take the initiative or to 'do something'. As we've seen, those in authority often appear less than prompt in taking action, if they do so at all.
I like to think that the behavior of Americans might be a little less passive and timorous in such a situation, but it seems we have a similar lack of spine when it comes to aiding our neighbors. The story linked happened in New York City, which, whatever you may say about it, good or bad, is not a typical American city. I lived there; I rode the subways and buses. I walked in bad neighborhoods. I never, thank God, suffered an attack, though such things happened while I was there. But I would have been surprised if strangers would have come to my aid had I been attacked.
To be fair, the young woman who was attacked was taking needless risks, and was careless. But that in no way makes the attack all right, nor does it excuse the unwillingness to 'get involved' on the part of the subway workers. Maybe helping her in some direct way would have caused them to be reprimanded by their bosses, or even to lose their jobs, but I would think it better to lose one's job than to act dishonorably and to ignore the cries for help of the victim.
The bus driver in the French video seems completely callous towards the injured young man; is this what life in our postmodern, post-Christian West does to us? Have we shut down our natural instincts to help others or even to protect ourselves in the name of avoiding trouble?
There have recently been some disturbing murders in liberal Seattle or its environs, such as the fatal assault by 'local youths', (who else?) of a man known as Tuba Man, who was a colorful and friendly character around Seattle. Liberal Seattle has a lot to answer for; there is a superficial friendliness there, but there is also a kind of detached passivity which is part of the culture of that city.
I like to think that things would be different in, say, Texas, or other places in the South, but I suspect that in the big cities particularly, there would be the same kind of indifference or utter passivity towards aggressors and attackers. This is what happens after decades of liberal indoctrination and the atomization of our society.
Are we in America as far gone as those in the video? Are we still possessed of enough fellow-feeling and Good Samaritan impulses to help someone who is being harmed? I like to think we are not as passive and resigned here; I like to think we still care enough about our brother (and sister) to come to their aid or defense if need be. After all, civilization depends on that kind of fellow-feeling; without it, we have descended into barbarity.
Though the left thinks it barbaric to use 'violence', believing that more evolved people avoid it at all costs, it is only the controlled and benevolent use of force that makes civilization possible. When we cede the use of force to our enemies exclusively, they have won.