Yes, these are people, but they are behaving as animals. Their basic social structure (in this subset of a larger population, not all blacks, whites, or others for that matter) involves submission to a powerful individual within their social circle and following the orders or behavioural lead of that individual: An 'alpha' personality, whatever you call it.
It certainly is not universally so, nor was it so much so in my experience in the past, but most children go through a phase of learning NOT to behave this way some time between grade school and adulthood, even though alpha personalities still will end up in leadership roles. We decide those on different criteria, but they still apply.
During those formative years, adults teach their children a moral code to follow, by which they can judge whether the behaviour of the dominant people in their associations is compliant, and whether they will follow that lead. You see that code applied from the playground to the boardroom, and either people have and follow that moral compass or they do not.
The breakdown we are seeing is in the fundamental teaching of those morals, which was the provenance of parents, family, community, and the Church--whatever denomination was involved. Those are the foundational institutions upon which the character of the individual is built.
Or, at least, they were.
Since the 1960s (and before, I just happened to become aware of it then) I have noticed the increased push by communists (socialists, whatever you want to call the godless totalitarians in the ranks) to have the State (their cronies) raise the children.
When we look at these feral environments and microcultures, we see the fruit of that social experiment, which we are assured has not produced positive results only because the 'right' people were not doing it, and they did not have sufficient funding and or authority.
In effect, these people spent a childhood bereft of the moral education (not ethics, which concern themselves with legalities, but morals, which deal with right and wrong regardless of the criminal code) they should have received from parents, grand parents, aunts, uncles, pastors, teachers, and others in their community.
I personally observed the breakdown in social structure of the 1960s, in black communities (done by militants who were associated with the New Left) and the white communities (done with drugs, the hippie movement, peace movement, anti-war, anti-establishment communists, etc) which effectively separated a subset of the youth from their moral roots.
For those of us whose parents fought tooth and nail to remain a dominant influence, the results were different. For those who suffered the neglect brought about in some cases by economic changes which increasingly required a two-income family, the 'latchkey kids', some, but not all feel prey to the predatory influences of disruptive forces which were at the time attacking the foundations of civilization, especially the family.
In many cases, the parents would not relinquish that control over their children.
Prior to that, the blacks I knew attended church,prized education as the way to better their lot and achieve economic success, and were businessmen, members of the parish council, and respected members of the overall community (respected, that is, by blacks and whites as well). They did not view themselves as 'victims' but sought instead to capitalize on growing opportunity. Whites had a similar thing going on.
But let a group of calves wander the draws far from human contact, they grow up wild. (please pardon the animal comparison, but it IS relevant). One bull will be dominant, and the leader.
Someone, likewise will become the leader in a group of children without adult supervision.
That doesn't mean the most moral individual will lead, only that the dominant one will, and without the moral education from their elders and the recombinant effect of that standard imposed by the community (progressively decreased by state intervention), the standard breaks down, immoral behaviour becomes more prominent as personal gratification becomes the standard with no thought for anything but the immediate future or short term goals. Parents, and the community in general, become neutered by the threat of criminal charges for 'abuse' and discipline breaks down. Throw in allegations of "racism" and the threat of career loss, and teachers and others in the community had their hands tied.
All the while that these changes were occurring, the entire mentality of 'victimhood' was being established, partly to obscure a moral compass while masquerading as a moral cause, partly to establish the control of the State and State entities over the children by forcing those previously influential in children's lives to abdicate for fear of prosecution because they were "abusing" the children by disciplining them, being "Uncle Toms and 'race traitors', or 'racists', and subjecting them to prosecution or economic destruction because they were being 'unfair' or 'prejudiced'. Proof fell on the accused, and it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, so none wanted to be so much as accused of racial bias, justified or not.
Almost all of the social and governmental mechanisms which were used to perpetrate these changes were presented as positive programs. Power was seized "for the children", in the name of doing "good" and "helping", but the effect was that people who at best were involved in the lives of their "clients" from 9 to 5, Monday through Friday, with holidays off and two weeks vacation a year, no matter how much they were true believers were no substitute for those who were close 24/7/365, and could not replace the very institutions they supplanted. The result was part-time parenting for the first generation, and less for subsequent generations because the morality not instilled in earlier generations was not passed to those who follwoed by the traditional means of child rearing. There have been three generations since then, so the moral decay is more evident than ever.
This isn't limited to any race in America, with the exception of being able to invoke 'victimhood' and 'racism', but where those invocations are present the level of moral decay is most prominent.
With each successive generation of people who are inserted in a supervisory capacity, the level of thinking which reduces their profession to a paycheck rather than a vocation increases, and attitudes become progressively more jaded, with the exception of the genuine clergy whose moral compass keeps them doing what they do for the Love of Almighty God, a cause which no amount of Liberalism can replace.
That this man could not endure in that environment is no surprise. How can one instill morality when their very lifestyle choices belie that?
Despite the politically correct tolerance or even agreement he might receive from those in his circle of acquaintances, those he confronted outside that have a different and fundamentally more honest outlook and are quick to condemn behaviours that are unnatural, regardless of PC. Even though their morals may in other senses seem distorted, homosexuality is not acceptable, and derided as such.
In the remainder of the animal kingdom, those creatures we regard as non-sentinent (lesser animals), there can be no dominance by a homosexual because dominance is (in that case) all about progeny, and homosexuals don't produce any. They will make no genetic contribution to the group.
While we may or may not approve of the way they said it, his students recognized a fundamental and natural truth, and called him on it.
I very much agree with a lot of what you say. You bring up a lot of good points.
But on the matter of “feral,” that’s not exactly how that word is being used here.
You really could, even in any discussion of human evil that’s guided by God’s Word, use the word “feral.” But any Christian discussion of the evil of other people, when we’re talking about others, has to come from humility, remembering our own sin. “Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.” (Habakkuk 2)