Mr. Mays, Mr. Edmonds

By Nicholas Stix

With a man on first and two out in the fourth against the Cubs in Houston's Minute Maid Park, the Astros’ Hunter Pence hits a drive over 400 feet to dead center. The Astros are losing 3-1, but this should make it 3-2. Gimpy Jimmy Edmonds takes off on a bum ankle, and on a dead run hits the moronic center field hill that almost ended the Mets’ Carlos Beltran’s career, a season or two back. The ball starts tailing off to Edmonds’ right, and with his back to the diamond, he looks over his right shoulder, reaches out and over, and … catches the ball!

As ESPN announcer Gary Thorne reports in his classic baritone, the Cubs “Signed [Edmonds] on Wednesday, and he played on Thursday.” The legendary center fielder has eight Gold Gloves, but as Thorne’s colleague Steve Phillips asks, “Are they getting the old Jim Edmonds, or is he just old?”

ESPN shows a 1997 highlight film of Edmonds making an even more spectacular catch for the Angels against the Royals, in which he laid out his entire body, and couldn't look over his shoulder, yet somehow came down with the ball, and held on to it.

In Houston, as Edmonds runs back to the dugout, his opponent Carlos Lee gives him the warmest congratulations of all.

In the bottom of the fifth, the Astros cut the Cubs’ lead to one run. Through six, it's still 3-2, Cubs.

Hunting Fugitives is No Job for Tommy Lee Jones

By Nicholas Stix
July 7, 2007

Remember the big set piece in the movie The Fugitive (1993), when in a fiery crash in Illinois, convicted wife-killer Dr. Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) escapes from the bus meant to take him and other convicted killers to death row? Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal Samuel Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones, in his Academy Award-winning role) shows up, immediately sizes up the local sheriff as an incompetent, country bumpkin, and takes control of the fugitive apprehension, giving his famous speech:

Alright, listen up, people. Our fugitive has been on the run for ninety minutes. Average foot speed over uneven ground barring injuries is 4 miles-per-hour. That gives us a radius of six miles. What I want from each and every one of you is a hard-target search of every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in that area. Checkpoints go up at fifteen miles. Your fugitive's name is Dr. Richard Kimble. Go get him.

The federales are in charge! Hip, hip, hurray!

In reality, such ignorant showboating would just about guarantee the suspect’s escape. (The fictional suspect got away, anyway, but that was because he was played by the then invincible Harrison Ford.) What does Marshal Gerard know about the lay of the land, escape routes, etc.? Nichts, nada, zilch.

What does the local sheriff know about those things? Just about everything, and what he doesn’t know, his men know.

Back in early January, a fugitive apprehension was undertaken that few people outside of Knoxville, TN and Lebanon, KY heard about at the time, in arresting suspects in what may end up known as the most gruesome crime of the year.

In the wee hours of January 7, a white Knoxville couple, both of whom attended the University of Tennessee, Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23, was carjacked and kidnapped outside of the home of friends.

Christian and Newsom were bound, and taken to the house at 2316 Chipman Street in black East Knoxville, where their captors engaged in an orgy of rape and violence. They anally gang-raped Newsom in front of his girlfriend, and orally, anally, and vaginally raped Christian in front of her boyfriend. They beat both victims. They sprayed cleaning fluid into Christian’s mouth. After anywhere from 6-12 hours, they shot and killed Newsom, and desecrated his corpse, setting it on fire near some railroad tracks, dumping Christian’s 2005 Toyota 4-Runner nearby. (So much for the carjacking motive.)

The 4-Runner and Newsom’s desecrated corpse were found separately on January 7 by Christian’s father, Gary, and a railroad worker, respectively.

A fingerprint belonging to convicted carjacker Lemaricus Davidson, 25, who had been released in August from West Tennessee State Penitentiary, was found in the 4-Runner. Davidson and his brother, convicted felon (attempted robbery) Letalvis Cobbins, 24, were then renting the house at 2316 Chipman Street, where on January 9 police, acting with a search warrant, found Christian’s “battered” corpse stuffed in a large garbage can in the kitchen.

On January 11, Lemaricus Davidson was arrested in an abandoned house on Knoxville’s Reynolds St. According to Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal Rich Knighten, Davidson put up no struggle, and “cried” upon being led out of the house by lawmen. Ex-con Eric DeWayne Boyd, 34, was also arrested. Boyd allegedly was harboring Davidson, and had gone out for groceries at the time law enforcement officers nabbed Davidson. (Boyd’s specialty is armed robbery.)

Letalvis Cobbins and ex-con (crime not known) George Geovonni Thomas were arrested in Lebanon, KY, on January 12. Cobbins’ girlfriend, Vanessa Coleman, 18, no previous adult convictions, who had cooperated with authorities in Knoxville in the days just after the victims were found, was also arrested in Lebanon, KY, on February 1.

(For a fuller telling of the Knoxville Horror, please see my May 14 American Renaissance Web story; “Shame on You, Michelle Malkin! A Republican Diva, Journalistic Ethics, and the Knoxville Horror” from May 17; “Knoxville Horror: Trial Dates Set; MSM ‘Discovers’ Case; Bloggers Continue Spreading Rumors,” from May 21; “Credbility SUNsets: Dave Lucas, the New York Sun, and the Knoxville Horror,” from May 25; and the revised, expanded article that is the cover story of the July issue of American Renaissance.)

On April 2, Louisville-based, Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal Rich Knighten of the Western District of Kentucky, who is responsible for the Lebanon area, and who led the interagency task force that apprehended Letalvis Cobbins and George Thomas on January 12, was kind enough to give me an interview in which he explained how the Cobbins-Thomas fugitive apprehension went, and how fugitive apprehension in general works, this side of Hollywood.

* * *

RK (Marshal Rich Knighten): We led a great big huge roundup of officers who arrested them. They were then taken to the Police Department, where they were interviewed by the detectives from the Knoxville Police who were doing the investigation.

NS (Nicholas Stix): How many officers were involved in that roundup, sir?

RK: Oh, my God [laughs]. There was probably 25-30 law enforcement officers there.

NS: Twenty-five-to-thirty. Now, you’re talking state, federal, local, everything.

RK: Yes, oh, yes. ‘Cause we had probably a dozen that came up from Knoxville, that were from the [Knox County] Sheriff’s Office and the [Knoxville] Police Department. And then we deputized them, because they were outside their jurisdiction.

NS: Okay, so that they could function.

RK: Yes.

NS: O.k. And the rest of them, I’m taking it, are, were Kentucky…

RK: Yeah, Kentucky State Police, Sheriff’s Department there, the local city police, and then, the entire, our whole Task Force here, that we have in Louisville.

NS: Now, what sort of a task force is that?

RK: It’s a joint law enforcement task force made up of feds, and state and locals. We’ve got about a dozen people on it – U.S. Marshals, Kentucky State Police, Louisville Metro Police, Jefferson County Sheriffs, Oldham County Sheriff, University of Louisville Police, New Albany, Indiana Police across the river, Jeez (chuckles).

NS: So, you had people from all these different organizations working together on this roundup.

RK: Yes. Huh.

NS: And it went smoothly?

RK: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

NS: Now, how long – from when you first were notified of these fugitives – how long did it take from then until you actually got them in custody?

RK: Oh, as I remember, it was all in the same day.

NS: Uh huh!

RK: We got notified somewhere around oh, I guess, mid, mid-morning, that if I remember correctly, the Marshal’s Office in Knoxville contacted us and said we think these guys have run to Kentucky, and they’re in this little town, and, you know, they’re armed and dangerous and bad guys and all that stuff, and they sent us all the info within, we took the whole task force and went straight down there, met up with all the locals and came up with a plan on how we were going to surround the building, surround this house that they were in, in the meantime, the locals from Knoxville, and the county, I can’t remember if it’s Knox County, or…

NS: Yes, yes.

RK: They all came up and met us, and we swarm in, and surround the house, and … got ‘em.

NS: And there was no resistance, right?

RK: Oh, no, uh uh.

NS: So, this is a very rapid response force we’re talking about.

RK: Oh, sure, yeah.

NS: I mean, in terms not just at the house itself, but in terms of your getting the information from the folks in Knoxville, and then putting together, mustering this force. I mean, how long did it take you, if you don’t mind me asking, to get all the people involved – the 25-30 officers – who then, you know, did the roundup?

RK: Well, it was quick, because half of ‘em work right here in our office. Yeah, we have a big task force room where they all work out of.

NS: O.k…. So, it’s kind of like the fire department.

RK: All they do is get in their cars and drive down there and, you know, when they got down there, and they sort of looked over the situation. They started calling in the locals, the Sheriff’s Department, the local police, the Kentucky State Police, of course, came and brought some troops. Then … then … the locals from Knoxville showed up.

NS: Ahh.

RK: We thought they might send one or two detectives, and they sent, they must have sent 10 or 12 officers.

NS: Wow.

RK: Yeah.

NS: So, this was like a fire …

RK: Oh, yeah.

NS: … like a fire bell going off.

RK: Yeah, buddy (laughs).

NS: Oh, wow!

RK: Yeah. They wanted to be involved in the apprehension, and of course, we totally supported ‘em.

NS: Sure, sure. Now, do your folks from the task force get special supplementary training?

RK: Oh, well, yeah. There, first off, deputy U.S. marshals are trained in tracking down fugitives, but the local police agencies that work with us, we send them to training, our training academy, we send them to various, you know, training around the country, there’s the National Association of Fugitive Investigators, there’s the International Association of Fugitives … people, and they all go to these different classes that they put on and stuff. So, we send them out to training and things and it helps sharpen their skills to catch the bad guys.

NS: And do you have any idea how much time one of these local guys would spend in the course of a year training to be a fugitive investigator in order to work with you?

RK: Well, we find at least a week, at least 40 hours of training. And then we do sort of in-house training here and there and stuff right here in the office.

NS: Like continuing, like continuing education?

RK: Yes, yeah, you have to, cause it’s, you know, they absorb so much from each other just working every day. You know, they work here with us a year or two at a time, and all you hear, they’re really good at it.

NS: So, they send you crack people, then.

RK: Oh, yes. Oh, yeah. They have their own agency, each agency has their own little system, that they screen their applicants that want to come to the task force, they interview them, and they pick the best of the best, and they send them to us and then all we do is just work with them and sharpen them a little better, and then when they go back to their agency, their agency rotates ‘em. Some rotate ‘em once a year, every year, and some rotate ‘em every two years, but you know, they go back with a lot of skills and experience, to really do a good job for their police agency there.

See, now they come and they bring their own cases. So they don’t just come work federal cases. Each agency’s representative brings eight cases from their agency. Kentucky State Police comes, he brings murderers and rapists and robbers and thieves, and Louisville Metro, and Jefferson County sheriffs, they all bring their own cases to the table, and we sort of work through them and prioritize them, and no case gets shoved to the back, you know, and forgotten. We all try to catch ‘em. So, that’s the advantage of them putting someone on the task force is, you have a team now, that with lots of resources and knowledge, that can work up the case, and try to identify and locate your bad guy.

NS: Right, right. Well, you obviously in this case you had um, you had some information from somebody, I guess Vanessa Coleman, who was listed as a witness at first, but has since been indicted in the state case on all these crimes.

RK: Yeah, I don’t know who they got the information from.

NS: Well, I mean, I’m guessing she was the source initially because, because she was the only one who was listed in the initial reports. She was listed as a witness, and then, once you got all your suspects rounded up, she suddenly became a, um, an accomplice.

RK: I don’t, I don’t …

NS: No, I’m just guessin’; I’m not tryin’; I’m not fishin’ with you, because this is a Tennessee thing, anyway.

RK: Yeah.

NS: She was on the other end, over in, in Knoxville.

RK: Yeah.

NS: But I’m just guessing that that would be where they probably found out about the house in Lebanon, so.

RK: Probably. I have no idea.

NS: Yeah, yeah.

RK: They [unclear] that said they ran to this location.

NS: Right, right.

RK: They never, I mean they never told us how they got it, though.

NS: Right, right, sure, sure. They kept it close to the vest.

NS: Well, that’s fascinating. I want to thank you for your time, Marshal Knighten.

RK: You’re welcome, sir.

* * *

So, there you have it. No Hollywood theatrics, no Academy Awards … and no bloodshed. Just good, old-fashioned, new-fashioned police work, a model of local-state-federal cooperation, and two suspects in custody.

* * *

On February 1, a Knox County grand jury in Knoxville (which is also the county seat) handed down 46-count state felony indictments against Letalvis Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson, and George Geovonni Thomas, including but not limited to theft, aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, and felony murder and premeditated murder.

In Cobbins,’ Davidson’s, and Thomas’ respective cases, the U.S. Attorney’s office asked for and got the federal carjacking and weapons charges dismissed without prejudice (meaning that they may later be reinstated), so that the state trials may proceed first.

On May 17, Knox County Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner announced the trial dates in the case. Letalvis Cobbins’ trial is scheduled to commence on May 12, 2008.

Cobbins’ girlfriend, Vanessa Coleman, 18, was indicted on 40 state felony counts, including aggravated rape, felony murder, and premeditated murder. Her trial is set to begin on June 16, 2008.

Lemaricus Davidson is scheduled to go on trial on July 14, 2008.

George Thomas is scheduled to go to trial on August 11, 2008. Among other crimes, Thomas is charged with having shot Christopher Newsom to death.

In addition to the initial 46-count indictment handed down against Davidson, on May 18 he was indicted on six additional state felony counts in the January 8 armed robbery of an employee in a local Pizza Hut, the attempted armed robbery of a female customer in the restaurant, and weapons possession charges. (Not noticing that Davidson allegedly had a gun trained on her when he allegedly tried to grab the customer’s purse, she resisted, and the “bewildered” robber was left holding the ripped strap.) Davidson’s next court date in the Pizza Hut case is September 27, 2007.

Knox County District Attorney General Randy Nichols has yet to declare whether he will seek the death penalty against Davidson, Cobbins, Thomas or Coleman.

Eric Dewayne Boyd, 34, has not been charged by the State of Tennessee, but has been charged federally with “being an accessory after the fact to carjacking.” His trial date has not yet been set.

All of the defendants are black.

And Now, Headlining, An-n-i-e Coulter!

By Nicholas Stix

I’ve often said that in a previous life, Annie Coulter was a borscht belt comic. I’ve heard it said that a characteristic of Jewish humor is the double punch line—an initial punch line, and then a bigger one on top of it. Well, in her new column, Coulter does a triple punch.

“At one rally, Dohrn famously praised the Manson family for murdering Sharon Tate and others, shouting: ‘Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!’

”In a better country, just saying ‘Dig it!’ in public would get you 20 years in the slammer.

”Dohrn has recently tried to clarify her Manson remarks by saying it was some sort of ‘statement’ about violence in society and, furthermore, that she said it while under sniper fire in Bosnia. Also recently, the members of the Manson family have distanced themselves from Ayers and Dohrn.”

With the “20 years" line, I chuckled; with “sniper fire,” I choked with laughter; and when I read “members of the Manson family have distanced themselves,” tears came to my eyes.

Lorena Ochoa, AOL, and PC Gone Wild

By Nicholas Stix

People differ as to who the world’s greatest athlete is. Some say it’s David Wright, some pick Carlos Beltran, still others prefer Johan Santana, and some are still carrying a torch for Jose Reyes. But not AOL’s Kevin Blackistone. In “Ochoa Hottest Athlete in Sports,” he says it’s female golfer, Lorena Ochoa, who just won four consecutive tournaments. Though Valentine’s Day was two months ago, Blackistone even wrote a valentine to Ochoa:

“Dear Ms. Ochoa,

“Please accept my congratulations on the continuation of your magnificent run in the LPGA last weekend in Reunion, Fla., at the Ginn Open. Even Tiger Woods hasn’t done what you just did, win a fourth title in four consecutive weekends. And we all marvel at his stranglehold on the PGA. Some among us have even said he’s the most-dominant athlete out there. Well, what does that make you?”

Tiger Woods! Oh, I forgot all about him, what with it being baseball season, and me preparing to have my heart broken all over again, by those overpaid bums in Flushing. Back to the valentine.

“It’s just a shame the nearly unprecedented body of work you’ve put together as a golfer in general and woman sports standout in particular was overshadowed coming out of last weekend by novelty.”

Blackistone is mad because race car driver Danica Patrick finally won a race, the Indy Racing League’s Japan 300. He doesn’t like Patrick because she’s pretty, and she does awful things like wearing slinky skirts when she appears on late night talk shows that accentuate her, um, “personality.” Boo! Hiss! And men race car fans like the way she looks. Double boo/hiss!!

“Indeed, the best thing about Patrick’s victory in the Indy Racing League’s Japan 300 was that it put her in the sports news for the right reasons finally rather than sexist reasons, which she not only perpetuated but exploited….

“As much as Patrick, 26 like you, appeared to be daring to advance the cause of women in sports by challenging the guys on the Indy circuit, she was stalling the women’s movement, if not setting it back.”

This mook isn’t a sportswriter; he doesn’t like sports at all. He’s a feminist! All he cares about is the so-called woman’s movement (i.e., feminism). He’s just trying to pass himself off as a sportswriter, in order to peddle his propaganda.

Ochoa and Patrick aren’t advancing causes, they’re seeking glory, which is as it should be.

Yeah, I know, I’m a political writer, too, but I don’t pose as a sportswriter. (And I can write on sports.)

Now, if Blackistone merely wanted to celebrate Ochoa as the best female golfer, that would be unobjectionable. But that’s not enough for him.

“If you pull of [sic] the Lorena Slam [Blackistone’s coinage], capturing the LPGA Championship and U.S. Women’s Open, you would match what Tiger did at the turn of the millennium by owning all four majors in your game at the same time.

“I read that like Sorenstam, and the one-time girl golf prodigy Michelle Wie, you’ve been invited to play in PGA Tour events but you’ve declined. You are to be applauded for not feeling the need to prove your excellence by playing against men….

“Ms. Ochoa, you are the best at your sport – if not any sport – and by a long shot right now. That’s saying a lot more than winning a single event.”

Lorena Ochoa’s sport is golf; “women’s golf” is not a sport. If Ochoa is “the best at [her] sport,” it means she is better than Tiger Woods. But of course, she isn’t, so she isn’t the best at her sport. She’s the best female golfer right now. And I’m not slighting that. If I sound pedantic, it’s because I have to be, in order to root out Blackistone’s sophistry.

There is no equality in sports (or much else, for that matter), no matter what Kevin Blackistone may fantasize and try through word games to bring about, assuming he doesn’t engage in such silliness just to impress his wife or girlfriend.

That was one aspect of pc in Blackistone’s propaganda op. Another was the question to an AOL poll on the same page. “Which athlete is more dominate [sic] in their sport?” with Lorena Ochoa and Tiger Woods as possible answers. As if they played different sports. Sixty-five percent of respondents chose Woods.

“More dominate”?! Blackistone’s screed was itself an exercise in affirmative action propaganda, and that question was AA in action. It sounds like something a Hispanic who wasn’t fluent in English might say. And whatever the ethnicity of the individual who wrote that question, neither he nor the editor who proofread it has any business working in journalism. Hell, I never made mistakes like that when I wrote in German.

Actually, there was yet a fourth exercise in pc on the page, a poll question, “Which tour is more competitive?” with LPGA and PGA as possible answers. Eighty-three percent of respondents chose PGA.

In a bygone era, George S. Schuyler (1895-1977) referred to stuff equivalent to what AOL posts for its customers to read as “moron fodder.” AOL is a poorly run business, and promotes not only political correctness, but stupidity, and has contributed to the general impoverishment of American culture. Bad business practices, “diversity,” and general stupidity all together? Can such a divergence be mere coincidence?

George S. Schuyler, All-American

By Nicholas Stix
March 15, 2004

Well, here it is the third Black History Month, and I'll bet you haven't heard one thing about George S. Schuyler (1895-1977). What's that, you say, there's only ONE Black History Month? Where have you been?

Nowadays, New Year's Day signals the beginning of Black History Month I (or is it Martin Luther King Month?), and last summer in New York, for several weeks, some Harlem institutions held celebrations that certainly made it sound like we were in BHM. And on March 8, Newsday published a typical BHM puff piece, by Associated Press reporter William Kates, on the call, by descendants of “underground railroad” heroine Harriet Tubman (1822-1913), “the Moses of her people,” for a national holiday in her honor in March.

About 12 years ago, pc director Jonathan Demme (Silence of the Lambs) said that every month should be Black History Month, and we're well on our way towards realizing that dubious goal. Note, too, that while for years, racist black activists and second-rate comics have complained, “You see that they give us the shortest month!,” the celebration was founded in 1926 by black nationalist scholar-activist Carter G. Woodson (1875-1950) as Negro History Week in February, to coincide with the Great Emancipator's birthday. That all that time devoted to celebration and alleged learning has led to racist myths rather than enlightenment, is typical of contemporary racial “progress.”

George S. Schuyler was, simply, the greatest black journalist this country has ever produced. From 1924-1966, he bestrode the negro press like a colossus. Working for Robert Lee Vann's (1879-1940) Pittsburgh Courier weekly newspaper, under his own name, Schuyler penned a column, “Views and Reviews,” of which H.L. Mencken remarked, “I am more and more convinced that he is the most competent editorial writer now in practice in this great free republic.” Schuyler was in turn known as “the Negro's Mencken.” Schuyler wrote the Courier's weekly unsigned, house editorial. He traveled the world, investigating stories, which he wired back to the Courier, such as his world scoop on the return of slavery to Liberia, which had been founded in 1847 by American freedmen. (He was also the first black journalist to write, as a freelancer, for leading white publications, such as the New York Evening Post (now the New York Post), Washington Post, The Nation and The American Mercury). And under no less than seven pseudonyms, in addition to occasional work under his own name, he wrote the serial pulp fiction that proved to be the Courier's most popular feature (Samuel I. Brooks, Rachel Call, Edgecombe Wright, John Kitchen, William Stockton, Verne Caldwell and D. Johnson).

Schuyler was also the greatest racial satirist this country has ever seen; his classic, 1931 novel, Black No More, has twice been reprinted in the past 15 years.

In the same year that Black No More appeared, Schuyler's novel, Slaves Today: A Story of Liberia, was published, in which he presented, in fictional form, his discovery of the very real Liberian slave trade.

As a journalist, I can't carry Schuyler's jock strap. And yet, on some days, this giant has fewer google entries than even I do! Usually, the only time he gets noticed during one of the Black History Months, is when I write about him. And when Schuyler does get mentioned by what journalist Tony Brown calls, in The Truth According to Tony Brown, the “Black Unaccountable Machine” (B.U.M.), it is to slight him, to insult him, to misrepresent him.

George Schuyler's problem was that he was (gasp) … a conservative!

In 1994, the New York Times hired Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr. to do a hit piece on Schuyler in the Book Review, in which Gates, who fancies himself the second coming of W.E.B. DuBois (1868-1963), derided Schuyler as a self-hating black, a “fragmented” man.

And so, when the alleged newspaper of record commissioned Phyllis Rose to review Kathryn Talalay's 1995 biography of Schuyler's daughter, Philippa, Composition in Black and White, the reviewer devoted only one sentence to the father, whom she reduced to a crank. But when Philippa Schuyler died in 1967 in a helicopter crash, during a humanitarian mission in Vietnam, she was working as a journalist, following in her father’s footsteps, both professionally and politically. How, then, could Rose deride the father as a crank, while praising the daughter?

In 1998, when Long Island University gave a special George Polk Award to the Pittsburgh Courier (not the black newspaper that currently uses its name), and feted its few living former staffers, LIU, the New York Times, and the Daily News (and Daily News columnist E.R. Shipp) celebrated aged mediocrities, while assiduously refusing to so much as mention the one person responsible for the award: George Schuyler. (The newspapers both refused, as well, to publish my letters mentioning Schuyler.)

And in 1999, the PBS “documentary,” The Black Press: Soldiers Without Swords, written by Jill and Stanley Nelson, Lou Potter and Marcia A. Smith, and directed by Stanley Nelson, reduced Schuyler's connection to the Courier to the phrase, “conservative columnist George Schuyler.” Note that Stanley Nelson is an officially accredited “genius,” as per the MacArthur Foundation.

Given that black journalism and black studies are today dominated by privileged incompetents, political hacks, and other “geniuses” who write and teach – in one of Schuyler’s favorite words -- hokum, I suppose it is fitting that they either disparage or ignore George S. Schuyler. After all, they hold the greatest of all black Americans, Booker T. Washington, in contempt, so why should Schuyler fare any better?

George Samuel Schuyler was born in 1895 in Providence, Rhode Island, the son of a chef, and grew up in Syracuse, New York. He served six years in the U.S. Army (1912-1918), eventually attaining the rank of First Lieutenant. However, Schuyler went AWOL when a Greek immigrant shoeshine man in Philadelphia refused to shine his shoes, calling him the “n”-word, even as Schuyler wore the nation’s uniform. “I’m a son-of-a-bitch if I’ll serve this country any longer!”

Later, after Schuyler turned himself in, he was convicted by a military court, and sentenced to five years in prison, but released after serving nine months for being a model prisoner. He never talked or wrote about his time in prison. Until recently, people were ashamed of having spent in jail, failing to see it as an opportunity to cash in.

Schuyler came to New York City, where he did menial jobs for a few years, while studying on his own. He began associating with socialists, less out of conviction than because they gave him a social circle in which he could discuss ideas. Such circles brought him to the magazine, The Messenger, which was published by A. Philip Randolph (1889-1979) and Chandler Owen (1889-1967), to Randolph and Owen’s intellectual salon, the Friends of Negro Freedom, and from there, in 1924, to the New York office of the Pittsburgh Courier, an office Schuyler would eventually run.

A. Philip Randolph would in 1925 found the nation’s first successful black labor union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, in 1941 get FDR to integrate the defense industry and the federal bureaucracy, and in 1948, succeed in getting Pres. Truman to integrate the armed forces. In 1963, Randolph led the Poor People’s March on Washington, where Martin Luther King Jr. would give his “I Have a Dream” speech. According to Randolph’s biographer, Jervis Anderson, he said “Schuyler was a socialist when I met him. But he never took it seriously. He made fun of everything – including socialism. But he had an attractive writing style.”

Schuyler hobnobbed with blacks of every rank. Jeffrey Leak, the editor of a recent collection of Schuyler’s essays, Rac[e]ing to the Right, cites scholar Arthur P. Davis, who said of Schuyler, “With the possible exception of Langston Hughes, he knew more about the Negro lower and working classes than any other major writer of the twenties and thirties.”

Though Schuyler joined the Socialist Party, and would experiment with some allied ideas, such as cooperatives, he would never be a true believer, and would always be an anti-communist. In the late 1930s he finally broke with socialism altogether. As time went on, and black Americans became less and less hostile towards socialism in general, and leading communists, in particular, as attested to by the acceptance of the circle around the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., anti-communism would become more and more influential in Schuyler’s thinking.

Writing for The Nation magazine in 1926, Schuyler attacked the New Negro Movement’s (which would come to be known as the Harlem Renaissance) claim that there could be such a thing as a “black” aesthetics. In “The Negro-Art Hokum,” Schuyler famously (or notoriously, if you’re an academic or a mainstream journalist) wrote, “the Aframerican is merely a lampblacked Anglo-Saxon.”

Negro art “made in America” is as non-existent as the widely advertised profundity of Cal Coolidge, the “seven years of progress” of [New York] Mayor Hylan, or the reported sophistication of New Yorkers. Negro art there has been, is, and will be among the numerous black nations of Africa; but to suggest the possibility of any such development among the ten million colored people in this republic is self-evident foolishness.

Schuyler was denying that blacks and whites lived in fundamentally different cultures and would produce fundamentally different art. He pointed out that leading black American intellectuals and artists (e.g., scholar-activist W.E.B. DuBois and sculptor Meta Warwick Fuller) were predominantly influenced by European thinkers and artists.

Unfortunately, Schuyler’s hyperbole got the better of him, when he denied the differences between the negro and white cultures of the time. And yet, in denying that there could be a black American “aesthetics,” Schuyler was right.

The magazine’s editors then showed Schuyler’s broadside to Langston Hughes (1902-1967), who had gained early fame as a “poet” for some racial scribblings (his most famous such scribbling, the essay pawned off as a poem, “Theme for English B,” would be published in 1949). Hughes’ response to Schuyler, ““The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain,” has been forced on students ever since by racially correct professors and teachers, most of whom never even read Schuyler’s essay.

Hughes makes no argument. He simply insists that every black artist be provincial, and browbeats any black who disagrees with him with ad hominem attacks, implicitly charging him with being an Uncle Tom.

So I am ashamed for the black poet who says, “I want to be a poet, not a Negro poet,” as though his own racial world were not as interesting as any other world. I am ashamed, too, for the colored artist who runs from the painting of Negro faces to the painting of sunsets after the manner of the academicians because he fears the strange unwhiteness of his own features.

After telling black artists that they must be slaves to the race, Hughes engages in shameless sophistry, saying “An artist must be free to choose what he does, certainly, but he must also never be afraid to do what he must choose.”

(Hughes’ pompous style may have influenced novelist James Baldwin, who in 1979 wrote a similarly incoherent piece of self-righteous bombast for the New York Times, “If Black English isn’t a Language, Then Tell me, What is?” In Baldwin’s essay, the novelist, who had gained fame as an “integrationist” and civil rights advocate, insisted on racial educational segregation. Just as Hughes, while insisting on black artistic segregation, failed to offer any arguments supporting a uniquely black aesthetics, Baldwin, while insisting that only blacks may teach black students, offered no arguments supporting his title’s implicit claim.)

Writing in the Courier in 1936, Schuyler gave, I think, a more sober appraisal of the issue of race and aesthetics, while again slapping down Hughes:

As the mountain labored and brought forth a mouse, so all of this hullabaloo about the Negro Renaissance in art and literature did stimulate the writing of literature of importance which will live. The amount, however, is very small, but such as it is, it is meritorious because it is literature and not Negro literature. It is judged by literary and not by racial standards, which is as it should be.

In 1929, Schuyler’s pamphlet, Racial Intermarriage in the United States, called for solving America’s race problem through miscegenation, which was then illegal in most states. (Note that Schuyler and his wife, the former Josephine Cogdell, were the nation’s most famous interracial couple. Cogdell, a lily-white, blonde, Texas heiress, and Schuyler believed in eugenics, albeit of a kind diametrically opposed to the regnant white supremacist type promoted by the likes of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. The Schuylers believed that the hybrid created by racial intermarriage would be a stronger type than a “pure” race. And their brilliant daughter, Philippa Duke Schuyler (1931-1967), “Harlem’s Mozart,” was Exhibit A in their defense.)

In 1931, Schuyler, who was America’s first and greatest black science fiction writer, published Black No More, a satire heavily influenced by H.G. Wells. In Black No More, Dr. Junius Crookman invents a machine for turning black folks white. Schuyler mocked blacks’ obsession with wanting to be white, whites’ obsession with blacks, and the way black leaders such as DuBois and Marcus Garvey (1887-1940) exploited the black masses. To appreciate how times have changed since then, in his magazine, The Crisis, W.E.B. DuBois wrote a review praising the book!

The book is extremely significant in Negro American literature, and it will be – indeed it already has been – abundantly misunderstood…. But Mr. Schuyler’s satire is frank, straight forward and universal. It carries not only scathing criticism of Negro leaders, but of the mass of Negroes, and then it passes over and slaps the white people just as hard and unflinchingly straight in the face…. At any rate, read the book. You are bound to enjoy it and to follow with joyous laughter the adventures of Max Disher and Bunny, Dr. Crookman and -- we say it with all reservations -- Dr. Agamemnon Shakespeare Beard.

If only DuBois’ wannabe heir, Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr., had such generosity of spirit, and the ability to poke fun at his own pretensions.

I believe that Black No Moreis the source for the Nation of Islam's “Myth of Yacub,” which insists that the white race was created by an evil black scientist 6,000 years ago.

In the early 1930s, Schuyler denounced the communists who had taken over the movement to free the “Scottsboro Boys.” The Scottsboro Boys were nine black boys and young men who in 1931 had been falsely accused of rape by two white prostitutes, Victoria Price and Ruby Bates, and who were initially being sentenced to die by racist, Alabama juries. It was not until 1950, after years of trials and retrials, unjust prison sentences, and in one case, a daring jail break, that all of the Scottsboro Boys had regained their freedom. (The Scottsboro Boys were Haywood Patterson, Clarence Norris, Andy Wright, Roy Wright, Willie Roberson, Charles Weems, Ozie Powell, Olen Montgomery and Eugene Williams.)

In 1933, Schuyler’s expose of conditions in Liberia, including slavery, “Uncle Sam’s Black Step-Child,” was published by H.L. Mencken in the latter’s The American Mercury, based on Schuyler’s 1931 investigation.

The expose, which is republished in Rac[e]ing to the Right, is a cautionary tale on the folly of most aid to “developing countries,” that in 71 years has lost none of its relevance.

In 1936, Schuyler called for a black expeditionary force to free Ethiopia from the grip of the Italian Fascists, who under Mussolini had attacked the country in October, 1935, and successfully invaded and annexed it in May, 1936.

From 1936-38, Schuyler penned the serialized novellas, The Black Internationale and Black Empire, under the pseudonym Samuel I. Brooks. The novels helped double the Courier’s circulation to 250,000. In 1991, the novellas were published in book form for the first time, by Northeastern University Press, under the title, Black Empire.

(The Courier was distributed throughout the South by a network of black Pullman car porters, who would smuggle the paper, which was the scourge of racist white sheriffs, hidden in the floors of railroad cars, and drop off a total of 100,000 issues each week in bundles on the outskirts of every major southern city. The newspaper gained the cooperation of union leader A. Philip Randolph.)

The novels both centered on the work of ruthless, evil genius Dr. Henry Belsidus, successful abortionist to and lover (and sometimes, murderer) of wealthy, white socialites, whom he uses to build his empire of criminal enterprises, legitimate businesses, black Church of Love, and secret, black expeditionary force, which he would use to win back Africa from white colonialists, and eventually to cast whites asunder in a racial Armageddon.

… all great schemes appear mad in the beginning. Christians, Communists, Fascists, and Nazis were at first called scary. Success made them sane…. My ideal and objective is very frankly to cast down the Caucasians and elevate the colored people in their places….

I use their women to aid in their destruction. As long as they succeed in carrying out my mission, I spare them. When they fail, I destroy them….

In Belsidus' Church of Love, his front man, the Rev. Samson Binks sermonizes,

Leave your so-called Christian churches. Force them to close their doors. Christianity is a religion for slaves. You are no longer slaves. You are free men. You are warriors. You are rulers…. You longer bow down to the white man…. You no longer turn the other cheek when smitten. You no longer forgive your enemies.

In the case of the Black Internationale, Schuyler was clearly influenced by the Black Muslims (now known as the Nation of Islam), just as surely as he influenced them in Black No More.

Although Schuyler (almost) always mocked black nationalists such as Marcus Garvey, and referred to his pulp novels in a letter to P.L. Prattis as “hokum,” he easily moved in and out of the nationalist mindset. Recall that at the time, the terms “journalist,” “publicist,” and “propagandist” were often interchangeable, and though the latter term may have fallen into disrepute since World War II, the underlying reality of someone who can enter into the mind of his audience, in order to manipulate it, remains unchanged.

From March, 1993-July, 1939, writing under seven pseudonyms, in addition to his own name, Schuyler published 63 short stories and 19 serialized novellas in the pages of the Pittsburgh Courier. Schuyler’s favorite noms de plume were Samuel I. Brooks and Rachel Call. And so, Schuyler was not only America’s greatest black journalist and science fiction writer, but also -- for what it’s worth -- her greatest black pulp fiction writer.

Schuyler frequently crisscrossed the country, investigating stories, giving public lectures, and promoting the Courier, in black communities large and small. No journalist knew negro America as Schuyler did, a world in which he was a celebrity.

Later in Schuyler’s career, with the rise of the civil rights movement, American Negroes (as they were known in elite – media and political -- discourse and by the upper classes, black and white, until well into the 1970s; during the same period, the word “colored” was perfectly proper and typically used by most blacks and whites) became less tolerant of intellectual diversity; Schuyler had no patience for such lockstep “discipline.” Or rather, America’s negro elite became less tolerant, and passed their intolerance on down the line.

In 1964, when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Schuyler wrote, in “King: No Help to Peace,”

Neither directly nor indirectly has Dr. King made any contribution to world (or even domestic) peace. Methinks the Lenin Prize would have been more appropriate, since it is no mean feat for one so young to acquire 60 communist front citations…. Dr. King's principle contribution to world peace has been to roam the country like some sable Typhoid Mary, infecting the mentally disturbed with perversions of Christian doctrine, and grabbing fat lecture fees from the shallow-pated.

In what was surely the beginning of the end for Schuyler at the Courier, and thus in the Negro press, the Courier refused to publish the editorial; instead, white publisher William Loeb ran it in the conservative Manchester Union-Leader newspaper. Note, however, that just as the negro press rejected Schuyler, the black press itself, in part through its own civil rights agitations, became irrelevant, as blacks began reading white-owned newspapers, and talented and not-so-talented young black journalists began working for white organizations.

After King’s 1968 assassination, Schuyler wrote, “The assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., tragically emphasizes again the fact that non-violence always ends violently.”

Schuyler submitted the preceding essay, “Dr. King: Non-Violence Always Ends Violently,” to the North American Newspaper Alliance, which would not publish it. In his last years, Schuyler increasingly had difficulty selling his work, and when he did sell it, it was often to conservative white publications, particularly those published -- American Opinion and the Review of the News -- by the John Birch Society. Hence, did he go from being read almost exclusively by blacks to a virtually lily-white readership. The essay is, however, published – as are most of the essays I’ve quoted in this article, along with a wealth of biographical information – in the 2001 collection, Rac[e]ing to the Right: Selected Essays of George S. Schuyler.

Schuyler felt even less sympathy for Malcolm X (1926-1965), than he did for Martin Luther King Jr. In 1973, in his last published piece, “Malcolm X: Better to Memorialize Benedict Arnold,” Schuyler was his old, acerbic self:

It is not hard to imagine the ultimate fate of a society in which a pixilated criminal like Malcolm X is almost universally praised, and has hospitals, schools, and highways named in his memory!… We might as well call out the schoolchildren to celebrate the birthday of Benedict Arnold. Or to raise a monument to Alger Hiss. We would do well to remember that all societies are destroyed from within — through weakness, immorality, crime, debauchery, and failing mentality.

Schuyler’s career at the Courier ended in 1966, with the purchase of the newspaper by John H. Sengstacke, the biggest owner of negro newspapers, who also owned the Chicago Defender. That year, Schuyler published his autobiography, Black and Conservative.

In recent years, several of George S. Schuyler’s works have been republished or published for the first time in book form: Ethiopian Stories, Black Empire, Black No More, Rac[e]ing to the Right. Hopefully, Black and Conservative will be reprinted, and some of Schuyler’s thousands of newspaper columns and editorials will be published in book form, and/or perhaps posted to an Internet library of Schuyleriana. At least one unpublished Schuyler biography has been written in dissertation form, and a history professor contacted me a year or so ago, asking about a Schuyler essay I’d promised my readers (but had failed to produce), as a possible source for a Schuyler-biography he is writing.

We live in a time in which pygmies are celebrated as giants, and giants are either blacked out of history or their stories revised beyond recognition. But if we are to honestly understand black history, and thus, American history, we must understand the life and work of George S. Schuyler. And so, we must toss out the dogmas we have been taught, and continue to be taught about American history. And we must understand Schuyler - he was that important.

Postscript: Named one of the
Best Essays of 2004
by The Brothers Judd.

Invisible Drivers, Real Crimes

“Hit-and-run” just got a whole new meaning.

Newspaper readers see stories all the time of accidents caused by drunken, Mexican, illegal immigrants who ran away, after crashing their cars. Like many readers, I have often wondered: 1. How can someone who was driving so blind drunk that he just maimed and/or killed people and totaled his own car, be in any shape to run?; and 2. What’s the point? In the past, police would identify the vehicle’s owner, and the drunken killer would be rounded up in no time at all.

Apparently, such incidents also gave pause to some of the finest minds in state government in Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia. And they came up with a solution: Those states no longer require applicants for car registration and title to furnish proof of identity, just proof of address.

Those government bureaucrats must have been upset by the stereotyping that non-undocumented workers (i.e., the demographic group formerly known as “Americans”) would engage in, saying things like, “Look at that dumb undocumented worker, running from the scene of an accident. Law’s just gonna chase him down, anyway.” Now, they can say, “Look at that smart undocumented worker, running from the scene of an accident. He just might get away with murder.”

These reflections were prompted by the April 12 article, “Police struggle to find drivers ‘that don't exist,’” by reporter Carol Vaughn, in Virginia’s Dellmarva Daily Times, a Gannett paper.

Vaughn reports on an accident that demolished the front porch of Darryl Hopkins’ house on Fisher Road, outside of Parksley, Virginia, and almost killed Hopkins. Hopkins was sleeping in a recliner in his living room, just a few feet from the front door, whose splintered glass landed in his lap. The car lay outside his door on its side, its lights on, but with no driver to be found. It was registered to a ghost named “Fidel Chavez Escalante,” according to the license left behind in Sr. Escalante’s wallet.

It was the second crash on Hopkins’ property by a ghost driver in the past year.

More progress: Not only did the non-existent driver escape, but the car had Mississippi plates front and back, unlike a previous crash Hopkins recounts that occurred across the road, in which a ghost driver’s car had Mississippi plates on one end, and Tennessee plates on the other. Either the newest crash is an isolated case, or Fisher Road is now getting a higher quality type of criminal.
Vaughn interviewed Virginia State Police First Sgt. J.P. Koushel, who is seeing more “hit-and-run cases involving falsified vehicle registrations.” Koushel said,
“We can't solve these (cases) because in Mississippi, this car is registered to a person who doesn't exist.”
“These cars are untraceable; they all come back to a fictitious person. If you don't have to prove who you are, what's the use of registering and titling a car? If migrant workers can do it, criminals can do it.”
Vaughn reports, “A search of General District court records this week turned up three cases involving a person with the name on the license found in the car with a Parksley address -- one for speeding, one for not having a Virginia driver's license and one for no license. The man was found guilty in all three cases and paid fines ranging from $75 to $100.”

She quotes Hopkins as saying, “It's a zoo back here. This is a major corridor for drugs, alcohol and illegal immigrants.”

This writer was surprised to see Gannett permitting one of its reporters to be so frank about illegal immigration.

(E-mail Carol Vaughn, to thank her for doing such a bang-up job.)

A tip ‘o the hat to faxdc.com’s Minuteman Steve, who sent me Carol Vaughn’s article.

Obama’s Terrorist Connection

By Nicholas Stix

Some of Barack Hussein Obama’s best friends are terrorists.

At The Autonomist, Rocco DiPippo has published the most succinct exposé you’re ever likely to see, about the connection between the “black” man who would be president and “a guy who lives in [Barack Hussein Obama’s] neighborhood.” The “guy who lives in [Obama’s] neighborhood,” and whom Obama erroneously describes as “an English professor” (he’s actually a professor of education), is 1960s terrorist Bill Ayers, one of the leaders of the Communist, bomb-throwing Weathermen.

As the saying goes, “Follow the money.”

Ayers is still married to his terrorist wife, Weathermen leader Bernadine Dohrn; both are close Obama allies. During a 1969 Chicago riot, the group maimed Chicago prosecutor Richard Elrod, and during the early 1970s, it bombed New York City police headquarters, the Capitol building, and the Pentagon. Ayers participated in over 30 bombings, but regrets that he did not commit more terrorist acts. Dorhn celebrated not only the maiming of Elrod, but the gruesome serial murders by Charles Manson and his followers, of actress Sharon Tate and several others. Ayers said, “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.”

Dohrn served a token jail sentence of less than one year; Ayers does not appear to have served any jail time. The only proper punishment for their terrorism would have been execution.

Rather than being punished for their crimes, Ayers and Dorhn were rewarded. Ayers was made a “professor of education and a Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois,” and Dohrn was made a professor of law at Northwestern University and, as if that weren’t bad enough, was given her own politburo, Northwestern’s “Children and Family Justice Center,” where she is the commissar. She also “sits on important committees and boards of the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union,” and is a popular college commencement speaker.

And who said, “Crime doesn’t pay”?

As reported previously, “In 1999 Ayers joined the Woods Fund of Chicago, where he served as a director alongside Barak Obama until the latter left the Woods board in December 2002. Ayers went on to become Woods' Chairman of the Board. In 2002 the Woods Fund made a grant to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was employed.”

In the day-to-day world, we would say that Ayers was guilt of a flagrant conflict of interest, but what’s a little conflict of interest among terrorists!

(I don’t want to give anyone the wrong impression: I am not calling Barack Hussein Obama a terrorist; he is a beneficiary of terrorists, and a benefactor of genocidal black supremacists. I don’t want a former law school lecturer who misrepresented himself to be a professor of law to be able to charge me with being unscrupulous in my choice of words.)

Obama says he has “not received some official endorsement from” Ayers, which, given that Ayers threw a fundraiser for Obama at the latter’s home in 2001, is nonsense on stilts. I suppose the lawyer in Obama is looking to fall back on “not during this election.” In Ayers’ case, Obama also tried the denial he used to cover for his relationship to his pastor, the genocidal black supremacist, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, about whom he initially claimed never to have been present, when Wright was spewing his anti-American and anti-white venom. “And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense.”

In any event, this is no mere SPLC-type “tie” or “link”; Ayers, Dohrn, and Obama have been close associates over the years. To find out just how close, read DiPippo: "Woods Fund gave $6000 grant to Reverend Wright's church in Obama's name."

Jewish IQ and the Jewish-Controlled Media

Is the title of a tremendous blog essay by Guy White on Kevin McDonald. McDonald is a psychology professor at Cal State University, Long Beach, who fancies himself a practicioner of “evolutionary psychology,” and an expert on Jews. Hey, isn’t everybody? An expert on Jews, that is, not a practicioner of “evolutionary psychology,” which doesn’t exist, in the foist place. (Why am I writing like Cindy Adams? Beats me.) “Evolutionary psychology” is a euphemism that sociobiologists coined, when sociobiology became unpopular.

When a sociobiologist is on his game, he considers biological expalanations for social behaviors. When his game is off, he constructs scientific-sounding fairy tales to justify his knee-jerk responses.

Circa 1979, I converted from sociology to philosophy, because I realized that most so-called social science is just watered-down politics, metaphysics, and theology. I decided I’d take mine straight. Bad sociobiology has the aforementioned vices, in spades.

(My dream of becoming a millionaire philosopher met with a reality in which editors were more interested in publiushing my doggerel than my philosophical disquisitions on secularization.)

* * *

McDonald’s thesis is that the Jews are a cancer on any society in which they live, which they act as a monolith to destroy from within.

I haven’t dealt with this guy previously, because first of all, when I first read about him in 2000, I think it was, his trilogy, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about the Jews, but were Afraid to Ask (I made that up), was overpriced. A year or so ago, I saw a listing for a cheaper edition. Second, I considered America to have much bigger problems than anti-Semitism. Black supremacy, for instance. And with time, I saw that reconquista—Hispanic supremacy—loomed as a problem of equal and potentially even greater magnitude than black supremacy. And feminism still hasn’t gone away. Just ask Larry Summers, or the millions of men who must bite their tongue on the job, because of harridans who have the sexual harassment officer on speed dial.

Every now and then, however, McDonald publishes one of his pseudo-scientific articles, and I think, I gotta deal with this guy. However, with White beating me to it, I might have to settle for plagiarizing him.

White’s basic point: Maybe the Jews have been more successful than other groups, because they’re smarter. He adds, for good measure, against McDonald’s charge of Jewish clannishness, that most leading Jews you hear about in this country are anti-Zionists. White gives a great many examples, in support of each of his points.
I would add two points: 1. Regarding Jewish control of the media, one of McDonald’s bete noires: The Jews founded the big three networks and all of the Big Five Hollywood studios. And why did they do that? Because the opportunities were there, and because they were closed out of traditional corporations, due to anti-Semitism. Howard M. Sachar talks about this, in his monumental and immensely readable, A History of the Jews in America. It would do McDonald so much good to read a little history!

2. No group has diluted its numbers more through intermarriage than American Jews.
I have a hunch that McDonald will have a metaphsycial retort to the preceding point.

By Nicholas Stix

Soros, Europeans: Die Juden sind Unser Unglück! Holocaust II?

On November 9, 1938, and on through the following day and night across Germany and Austria, Nazi storm troopers smashed Jewish shop windows, looted the stores, and beat Jews in their homes and on the streets, murdering at least 91 Jews, arresting 26,000 Jewish men and boys, all of whom were sent to concentration camps, destroying over 7,000 Jewish businesses, and burning down 101 synagogues.

The storm troopers (Stürmer), also known as “brown shirts” for the uniforms they wore, hung posters in Jewish stores with the phrase, coined in 1880 by the famed German historian, Heinrich von Treitschke, “Die Juden sind unser Unglück!” (“The Jews are our misfortune!”), and the warning to German Christians, “Deutsche, kauft nicht bei Juden!” (“Germans, don’t buy from Jews!”) The state-ordered, “spontaneous” pogrom, which the Nazis mockingly called “Reichskristallnacht” (Imperial Night of Glass), and Jews have translated as the “night of broken glass” (“Kristallnacht”) was, for Germany’s 500,000 Jews, the beginning of the end. (With the “Anschluss” (annexation) of Austria on March 12 of that year, Austrians suddenly also became “Germans.”)

On November 5, 2003, billionaire financier George Soros arose at a function to say, in so many words, “Die Juden sind unser Unglück!” He blamed the Jews, Israel, and the policies of Pres. George W. Bush, for the rise in world anti-Semitism in recent years, most dramatically, since 911.

“There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that. It’s not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I’m critical of those policies.

“If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish. I can’t see how one could confront it directly.”

Soros also responded to recent remarks by powerful anti-Semites, such as Mahathir Mohammad, who just stepped down as Malaysia’s prime minister, that the Jews, particularly, Jewish financiers like Soros, rule the world.

Mohammad: “The Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”

Soros: “I’m also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world. As an unintended consequence of my actions, I also contribute to that image.”

There are, of course, huge differences between Kristallnacht and Sorosnacht. First and foremost, Hungarian-born George Soros, whose family fled the Nazis, is a Jew! During the Nazi era of 1933-1945, it was unheard of for Jews to blame Jews for anti-Semitism. There were Jews who aided the Nazis in the killing of Jews, but that involved the extraordinary case of the “Kapos,” Jews in the death camps who bought themselves a little time, by leading other Jews to the “showers,” where they were gassed to death.

There is, however, precedent for Jews letting other Jews die, through deferring to murderous anti-Semitism. Once Hitler began carrying out his “Final Solution” in early 1943, Rabbi Stephen Wise and other American Jewish leaders found out about the genocide, but out of deference to Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt, refused to publicize it. FDR was in a position to bomb the death camps, or at the very least, the rail lines leading to them, but instead did nothing, costing millions of Jews their lives.

But this is a different time, a time of wealthy Jewish prostitutes, Jewish anti-Semites, and even Jewish Nazis.

And George Soros was not speaking before an audience of genocidal anti-Semites, a la Yassir Arafat, UN Human Rights Commissar Mary Robinson, or the al Qaeda leadership. Rather, he was speaking before the Jewish Funders Network, a group of multimillionaire Jewish philanthropists and their bureaucrats, in Manhattan’s Harvard Club.

Rather than vilify Soros, the prostitutes, er, philanthropists, were polite to a fault. Event organizers Michael Steinhardt and Mark Charendoff said nice things, and even saved Soros from further embarrassing himself. According to Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) reporter Uriel Heilman, Steinhardt interrupted Soros’ defense of anti-Semitism. “‘George Soros does not think Jews should be hated any more than they deserve to be,’ Steinhardt said by way of clarification, eliciting chuckles from the audience.”

The interruption gave Soros a chance to catch his breath. He said he had more observations on the subject, but asked first if any journalists were in the room. When he found out journalists were present (surprise, surprise), he held his tongue.

George Soros presents one of the greatest dangers to world Jewry. Unlike genocidal Jewish anti-Semites such as Israel’s “post-Zionists” or Adam Shapiro, the co-founder of the PLO front, the International Solidarity Movement, Soros does not wake up in the morning thinking, “How may I help kill Jews?” For Soros, rather, the Jews are an inconvenience.

One of the ironies of George Soros, is that he is one Jew who really does seek to rule the world. Not the way anti-Semites from central casting like Mahathir Mohammad claim, through rigging currency markets, but rather through non-governmental organizations like his Soros Foundation and Open Society Institute, which are allied with anti-American organizations like the U.N., Red Cross/Red Crescent, and the New York Times, in trying to destroy America. Soros seeks to institute a humanitarian, socialist, world government.
As to why Soros should make nice with genocidal anti-Semites, I believe he is following the rule, “My enemy’s enemy is my friend.” Genocidal Muslims are America’s greatest enemy. Strange bedfellows, and all that.

But, you ask, Isn’t Soros a Jew?! Tell him that.

The prostitutes who heard Soros speak, want his money. They refuse to understand that they would be making a deal with the Devil. Soros would only give money to Jewish philanthropies and organizations, in order to gain control over and subvert them. If there are any real Jewish leaders worthy of the name, they will vilify and marginalize Soros.

Most gentiles are unaware of how pervasive Jewish anti-Semitism is, particularly in America. Of course, Jews’ internecine disagreements are so legendary, that there is a tradition of jokes on the subject: “Two Jews, three opinions.” “If there were only two Jews in a town, they’d need three synagogues. One for each, and a third where they could worship together.”

In America, conflicts that are simply the stuff of human nature and social interaction (conflicting interests, preferences, principles, etc.) are exacerbated by a reality in which Jews, unlike their European ancestors, may enter all professions and own land. The good news is that American Jews are no longer desperately dependent on the Jewish community. The bad news is that the splintering of Jewish communities has meant that wealthy Jews no longer feel bound by any religious obligations to their brethren, and instead feel solidarity with other wealthy folks, Jewish and gentile alike. And while wealthy Jews feel that irrational hatred for those less well off that is typical of so many wealthy people, since it is socially unacceptable to show hatred for poor blacks and Hispanics, and wealthy Jews have business alliances with white gentiles, they focus their class hatred on Jews from the lower tax brackets. Poor, working-class, and lower-middle-class Jews often seem to be the only groups that well-to-do Jews are unafraid to “stand up to.” And so, while during the immigrant generations, wealthy Jews gave overwhelmingly to Jewish philanthropies, and helped some gifted but poor Jews, today, in order to make friends, many wealthy Jews are more likely to help gentiles than Jews.

(An academic expression of the break up of the Jewish community was the alchemy whereby social scientists, many of them Jews, dishonestly redefined Judaism into an “ethnicity.” Ethnicity refers to the nation of one’s forebears, or in the case of an immigrant, one’s nation of birth. Imagine categorizing Christians or members of any other religious group as an ethnic group. My ethnicity, for instance, is Hungarian-Russian-German-Canadian-Irish.)

Some will disagree with my calling such class hatred “anti-Semitism,” but if it were merely class hatred, it would express itself equally towards Jews and gentiles alike. (I realize that some wealthy Jews are openly contemptuous towards poor white Christians, but this contempt is not as widespread as is commonly assumed.) When I told an Evangelical friend about class-based, Jewish anti-Semitism, he argued that perhaps the well-to-do Jews simply looked down on poor and working-class Jews whom they considered inferior types, independent of the latter’s class origin. But since the well-to-do Jews ONLY feel that way about Jews whose parents made less money than their parents did, and are accepting of incredibly obnoxious but well-to-do Jews, there is no factor independent of being Jewish and poor that could explain their behavior. Indeed, while I have encountered well-to-do Jews (socialist and neo-conservative alike) who actively sought to derail me professionally, those who have supported me professionally have, with rare exception, been Christians.

Discussions of class-based Jewish anti-Semitism are suppressed by the mainstream media. One exception I’m aware of is David Mamet’s 1991 movie, Homicide. In Homicide, working-class, Jewish Det. Bobby Gold (Joe Mantegna) investigates the murder of the matriarch of a wealthy Jewish family. The victim’s son, a doctor, pulls strings to get “the Jewish detective” assigned to the case. And yet, the doctor pulls social rank on Gold, as well, demanding of him, “Do you have the pride to do the job?” Gold responds in kind, “I’m not impressed by your money, or who you are.”

And then there is the anti-Semitism of Jews who suffer from WASP-envy.

About 15 years ago, at a holiday dinner combining Jewish and gentile anti-Semites from my family, a Jewish relative remarked at how “civilized” things were. Translation: The dinner table conversation was dull as dishwater. That relative, who is unmistakably Jewish, wanted to pass for a WASP. The stereotypical Jewish family dinner is a series of quips and arguments; lacking the proverbial Jewish wit, and feeling hostility towards those who have it, my relative opted instead to be “civilized.” (Note that being “civilized” included for this relative trashing the First Amendment in favor of campus speech codes and workplace repression.)

Due to circumstances abroad, American Jewish anti-Semitism today has a significance that goes beyond social slights, ethnic envy, and comedies of social manners that will not be produced on Broadway.

Sorosnacht came only days after it was revealed that 59% of those polled in European Union countries declared Israel (read: the Jews) to be the greatest threat to world peace, worse even than gulag-state and rogue nuclear power, North Korea. Die Juden sind unser Unglück!

Some will no doubt be confused. Haven’t millions of Europeans since World War II told of how sad they were about the poor Jews? Didn’t postwar movie Germans from central casting all say, “Wir haben nichts gewusst!” “We didn’t know!” (E.g., in the big-budget, 1964 Hollywood film, The Cardinal, by Otto Preminger, himself a Viennese Jew!)

I even heard that exact line from real Germans, such as an attractive business lady of a certain age, whose shop I was visiting in Garmisch-Partenkirchen in the Bavarian Alps, in 1984. (I didn’t have to tell her I was a Jew; she just knew.)
Most people under a certain age are unaware of the de-Nazification re-education programs our army of occupation imposed on the West German populace after World War II, or that for at least 25 years after the occupation officially ended in 1950, West German school children were forced to endure films shot by the American servicemen who liberated the Nazi death camps in 1945. The films showed the starving, surviving Jews (some of whom died in the days to come) and mountains of skeletons of murdered Jews.

The films caused sensitive souls to vomit. I was repelled by them, seeing them as a bullying way of torturing the children for the sins of the fathers and grandfathers. That was before I encountered Holocaust-deniers.

I believe that the occupation authorities anticipated that a day would come, when German parents would tell their children that the Holocaust was just another lie manufactured by those wily Jews who run the world. It was imperative that young West Germans know, “that it did happen here.”

Likewise, across Europe, in the face of American power, and a tacit understanding that the Europeans could blame everything on the Nazis, Europeans paid lip-service to “the horror.” I grew up on the myth, for example, of the French resistance. A fraud named Jean-Paul Sartre, who had all the physical courage of a church mouse, made a career out of claiming to have been a resistance fighter. Had half as many Frenchmen fought in the resistance as claimed to, the Germans would have endured a worse slaughter in France than they did in Russia.

The French killed the Nazis with kindness. Anyone who doubts me, need only visit Paris. Rotterdam resisted the German Wehrmacht; it was leveled. Paris surrendered without a peep; after the war, it looked as beautiful as it had in the 1920s.

The hatred that Europeans now routinely express towards Jews, the tacit support they give to the murderous Moslems in their midst, could be expressed in the form of a t-shirt: My Grandfather Got to Kill Jews, but All I Got was This Lousy T-Shirt.
Hundreds of millions of Europeans have a sentimental attachment to the notion that they may determine whether the Jews live or die.

In “The European Solution,” Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick argues that Europeans seek the destruction of Israel as part of a package deal, which includes the subordination of the U.S. to Europe. The Europeans, so Glick, see this as a golden opportunity to recapture their lost glory. The Americans would have to sacrifice the Jews, as a gesture of good faith, on the way to instituting a humanitarian, world government. (Sound familiar?) So, we’ll kill the Jews, as part of a filthy, lousy operation to help Europe.

Is the idea delusional? Sure, but it’s the Europeans’ (and Soros’) delusion, not Glick’s. She cites French “policy wonk” Dominique Moissy as having explicitly articulated the delusion, in terms of Israel relinquishing her sovereignty, which is a lace curtain way of saying, “We’ll kill the Jews.”

It doesn’t occur to the power-crazed Europeans, as Steve Sailer recently noted, that Europe’s fall from greatness owes much to the slaughter of its most creative group, the Jews. But then, the Europeans have given up on greatness in the arts and sciences, and care only about naked political power, albeit power derived through bureaucratic jockeying, and sucking up to terrorists.

In the classic, 1964 John LeCarre (aka David John Moore Cornwell) novel, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, British counterintelligence spy Alec Leamas must “defect” to communist East Germany, where he accuses a Nazi butcher, Mundt, now atop the East German spy service, who is already under suspicion of being a traitor, of being a double agent.

And in fact, he is. But the ruse involves a double switch. Leamas’ charges against Mundt are designed to fall apart at trial, exonerating and thus saving the truly guilty man, and pointing instead to Fiedler, an innocent colleague and rival of Mundt’s, a humane, worldly, charming, bon vivant who actually believes in communism, but lacks the system’s brutality (I know, he’s too good to be true)- and who is a Jew.

(LeCarre notes repeatedly, by the way, how well Nazis did in postwar East Germany, as many others have noted how well they did in postwar West Germany. That was before LeCarre “evolved,” regarding the Jews.)

With the deed done, Leamas confesses to his civilian lover, “We are witnessing the lousy end to a filthy, lousy operation to save Mundt’s skin. To save him from a clever little Jew in his own Department who had begun to suspect the truth. They made us kill him, do you see, kill the Jew. Now you know, and God help us both.”

Leamas’ speech was LeCarre’s metaphor for the Jews always being sacrificed for the sake of some grubby, political expediency.

I say, not this time.