For the last several years, the media have been ignoring the racially motivated attacks by blacks against whites. But now that Jews are being targeted in Brooklyn, it's time to take the matter seriously (e.g., this article).
Clueless conservatives might try to find a silver lining here:
"Well, at least some good is coming from the never-ending paranoia and obsession that Jews have about anti-Semitism -- it gives the mainstream media a politically correct veneer to finally get out the message about dark thugs knocking out random whities."
Guess again -- the fact that only Jewish victims get press is a symptom of the underlying disease, whereby white victims of black crime get no sympathy, and the race of the attackers is scrupulously kept secret by the media. Only if it's another minority group do we hear anything, and even then it has to be a verbally combative minority group.
Although violent crime has been falling for the past 20 years, there has been a rise in a certain qualitative type of violence, namely where the victim is a stand-in for the entire group that they come from, and the attacker is bitter at and lashing out against that group -- any representative of the group will serve as a target for their anger. It's part of the broader trend toward polarization and political instability; see Peter Turchin's series of posts under the heading of "Indiscriminate Mass Murder as a Form of Political Violence" in this review post.
He's talking more about spree shootings, but blacks punching out randomly chosen whites is an equally good example of the general pattern.
Based on the rise-and-fall pattern of such violence over the past 200 years, he predicts that a peak or spike is headed our way sometime during the 2020s. (Looking historically at homicide rates, I predict a rise in violent crime around the same time. The two cycles are separate, so sometimes they'll be in phase and sometimes out of phase.)
Blacks are therefore already getting a running start, antagonizing whites as long as they feel they can get away with a slap on the wrist. Tempting fate like that will make it hard to feel sorry for them when whites eventually start fighting back, perhaps igniting a wave of lynchings and race riots not seen since the explosion of the late 1910s and early '20s.
Aside from predicting what time things will get out of control, can we also predict what geographical regions will be hit hardest? Definitely -- look at where all of these "knockout" games are taking place. They're mostly in a band from the Midwest eastward through the Bos-Wash corridor. Not in the Deep South, not in the Mountain West, and as far as I know not yet on the West Coast (though it wouldn't be hard for them to spread there).
Those are the areas that have the strongest roots in the culture of settled farmers, primarily the culture of law. Some punk knocks out a perfect stranger in a hate crime -- how do you respond there? Feel sorry for the legacy of slavery, the culture of poverty, and the absence of parents that led this wayward black to indiscriminate assault. Send him to juvie for awhile, then let him out when he promises that he's really sorry.
Blacks aren't stupid, they know they can get away with so much more disrespect and confrontation in those places. Those were also the main places in the 1960s and '70s that were shaken by race riots (i.e. by blacks).
In an earlier post, I showed that what keeps blacks in line is not the Saxon-Scandinavians and their culture of law (which only encourages blacks to fuck around with strangers), but hell-raisin' Celts and their culture of honor. When you're surrounded by hawk-nosed hillbillies who aren't afraid to go to jail in order to defend the community, it makes you think twice about starting shit with strangers in the first place.
And after the whole thing blows over, the namby-pambys will say, "Welp, guess that's the occasional price we have to pay in order to enjoy a civilized law-abiding culture, and not end up like those poor hicks in Kentucky and West Virginia." Right, there's too much atomization in the legalistic areas for anyone to feel an altruistic drive to break the silly little law if it means keeping or restoring harmony in the broader community.
As Turchin's writings on these topics show, political / indiscriminate violence is linked to rising inequality. So for the long term, it's better to keep inequality from rising. But that is mostly a function of a change in the mindset and behavior of the elites, not of those at the grassroots. The elites are the ones over-producing themselves, socializing costs while privatizing benefits, and locked in internecine status contests. What can the hicks in Kentucky do about that?
In the short term, the correct response is not to wring our hands about "addressing the root causes that lie in economic inequality," but to strike back at those who are spreading disorder. Reducing inequality, while desirable and helpful over the long term, won't be achieved overnight. Meanwhile the legacy of slavery is at your door -- tonight -- trying to break in and "rightfully take back what the white man stole from my ancestors."
I wouldn't stress the importance of being armed in the unlikely event of self-defense either. It's too late by the time you face that choice. The hordes are already roaming your neighborhood at that point, and you're shivering alone in your cocoon. You want to make sure they don't even think about setting foot in your community. That requires social organization with your fellow community members, and sending clear warning symbols that would-be hate criminals will be overwhelmed by a bloodthirsty mob before they can escape back to wherever they came from.
It's the same thing that keeps skinheads from going into the Bronx if they felt like messing around with blacks. "Shit, if those honky-ass skinheads came in here, we'd woop they ass all the way back to the suburbs."
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.