PayPal

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Fox News’ Carl Cameron Lies About U.S. Immigration Law

The San Antonio Express-News Publishes a Ridiculous Reportorial Asserting that It’s “Near Impossible” to Build a Border Wall, then Blocks and/or Deletes Every Single Reader Comment!


http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/articleComments/Sorry-Donald-Trump-Building-a-border-wall-would-9180752.php#photo-8479088

When Will Ann Coulter Finally Get Off the Fence, and Say What She Really Thinks About Donald Trump?!


 


 

Excerpted by Nicholas Stix



http://www.vdare.com/articles/ann-coulters-in-trump-we-trust-immigration-not-charisma-explains-trumps-appeal

In Civil War I, the Saying was that Brother Fought Brother; in Civil War II, Half-Brother Kills Half-Sister: Blackish Savon Schmus Has Confessed to Murdering White McKenna Hilton

 

War crime victim McKenna Hilton
 

Re:
“A Racist, Fake Reporting Tease from NBC Nightly News’ Lester Holt, Who Doesn’t Do Real Reporting on Race.”
]
 

By Grand Rapids Anonymous

Update on this: According to court records, black thug, Savon Schmus, completely admitted to strangling his white half-sister, McKenna Hilton, in his father’s apartment. He then took the body and dumped it elsewhere.

I wonder if they go through with a trial—so we can all find out the racial, sexual reason he killed her, and give a lesson to other white women concerning the black mindset. Or if he pleas, as it appears—no trial and no facts.

Tomorrow: The Arraignment.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 5:31:00 P.M. EDT
 



War criminal Savon Schmus

An Austin, Texas Reader Reports on Donald Trump’s Rally Last Night

 
[Re: “‘New Trump’ is Reminiscent of New Coke: New Co-Campaign Chief, Pollster Kellyanne Conway: Donald Trump was Just Kidding, When He Talked About Deporting All Illegal Aliens!”]
 

By jeigheff

I got to hear Donald Trump talk last night, August 24, along with several warm-up speakers.

Much of what Trump said were things mentioned in this article. He spoke at length about creating new jobs, and better jobs with better wages. He also said many things that were addressed to black Americans, such as getting them better education, jobs, and safer neighborhoods. Trump addressed the issues of crime and law enforcement.

Trump spoke about banning immigration from the Middle East, but didn't mention Islam, as far as I remember. [N.S.: That’s also the way I remember it.] He talked about creating “safe spaces” (!) there for refugees, rather than have them come here.

He did mention building a wall between the US and Mexico. He invited several members of a group called The Remembrance Project on stage, all of whom were mothers of children who were murdered by illegal immigrants; they all spoke. Some agents of the Border Patrol also joined him on stage; one spoke about how poorly our southern border was defended.

I am sorry to say that I left a little early, and did not hear the end of Trump's speech. My car was parked a mile away from the Expo Center in the grass along Decker Lane, along with the vehicles of hundreds of other people. (The event was well-attended and the Expo Center seemed full.) I was starting to get worried about finding my car in the dark along a busy road, so off I went.

I didn't hear Trump mention anything about deporting illegals who were already here. (In fairness, I could have missed him saying that.) If he had, he would have gotten the biggest cheers of the evening.

I kind of like Trump, but most of what he said concerned what he was going deliver, versus saying anything about what might be required of America and Americans themselves. For instance, you just can't give someone a good education: they have to earn it. It was something that I just couldn't help but notice. I still think Trump is a better candidate than Hillary.

Since good ol' Austin, Texas is so damn proud of being weird and liberal, I was curious about how many of the crowd came from Austin itself. I'll probably never know. The crowd was mostly white, with a few blacks and fewer Hispanics. Much of the crowd seemed pretty young, which gives me hope.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 8:39:00 A.M. EDT

Zion, Illinois: A Racist Hate Crime the MSM “Disappeared”

 

War crime victim Shannon Vincel
 

By Reader-Researcher A.L.

With almost 100% instantaneous and correct metaphysical certitude, when reading of this incident you know the race of the perpetrator. NOWHERE does the media dare say what the race of the villain is, but the police release does tell you. Crimes of this sort normally would call for the death penalty. Especially, because it is an egregious case committed on hospital grounds.

Illinois no longer has the death penalty.

Again, the race of the perp is not given in the media articles, and only by reading the comments can you get the news release from the Zion police.
 

Edited news release from Zion Police Department:

On Monday, Aug. 15, 2016, at 9:48 p.m., the Zion Dispatch Center received a call of a battery in the area of 27th Street and Gabriel Avenue. Responding officers located the victim, Shannon Vincel, 46, of Springfield, Mo., who sustained severe head trauma. She was transported by Zion Fire/Rescue to a hospital with life-threatening injuries; she died shortly after 11 p.m. on Aug. 16.

A witness reported the attacker is black [emphasis by N.S.] and was wearing dark clothing. He approached Vincel and the witness on the sidewalk from the west while the two were seated outside in the 1900 block of 27th Street. The offender struck Vincel in the head with an unknown object.
 

“Cancer patient from STL beaten to death outside hospital” (KSDK).

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

A Liar's Chutzpah: Open Borders Media Operative Asserts that the American-Mexican Border is Just Like Any Built-Up Neighborhood, Making Building a Border Wall "Near Impossible"

By A Texas Reader

Not true.

An acquaintance of mine took a long road trip this time last summer.

Drove from Dallas down to Terlingua, and thence over to Arizona. Camped one night near Fort Huachua, Arizona.

He said that he was the only camper in an area with over 140 campsites. Park rangers told him not to move around at night unless he was armed. He said that the "border" was marked with nothing but a few strands of barbed area. Dotting the area near the border were 1-gallon milk jugs filled with potable water, I guess for migrants (sic) to drink.

"Sorry, Donald Trump: Building a border wall would be near impossible because of this

"While Donald Trump and other like-minded politicians like to paint the picture of the U.S.-Mexican border as a pre-militarized zone waiting for a wall and a soldier to keep it safe, there's at least one problem with sticking the world's...

At the San Antonio Express-News.

Blackish, Homosexual, Broadway Dancer Allegedly Murders Boyfriend and Posts About It on Facebook: "I Give Life and Can Take it Away"

 



By A Texas Reader

"Broadway Dancer Allegedly Murders Boyfriend and Posts About It on Facebook: 'I Give Life and Can Take it Away'

"Marcus Bellamy, 32, has been charged with murder in connection with the death of his 27-year-old boyfriend Bernardo Almonte, who was found by police suffering from head trauma at about 4 p.m., a New York Police Department spokesperson tells PEOPLE. “Someone who lives in the building saw [Bellamy] walking..."

A Negro, homosexual "dancer"?

Isn't this three strikes?

At Yahoo! News.

A Racist, Fake Reporting Tease from NBC Nightly News’ Lester Holt, Who Doesn’t Do Real Reporting on Race

 

Was McKenna Hilton a war crime victim?
 

By Grand Rapids Anonymous

Lesta Holt interrupted my dinner tonight with a tease for his Negro Nightly News, in about 30 minutes from now.

His headline? “Why Donald Trump’s bid to win black votes, may be falling flat.”

Two thoughts: How would Holt know anything at this point? It’s only been a week of concerted effort by Trump to get the blacks to hear him out.

Secondly, and probably the truth: I can see why the blacks would want to stick with crooked, lying Hillary. Those are qualities blacks can relate to. She’s probably their hero.

Other minor update on the 16-year-old, half-brother nig, who killed his white half-sister. He was charged with murder, as an adult. Savon Schmus will be formally charged Thursday. No details yet of a motive or cause of death.

I’ll say... the cause of death was the girl had to live in a human zoo. Wish I could download the pics I saw of this messed up family. Big, fat blacks posing with this girl. It would turn your stomach, just like mine did.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 6:25:00 P.M. EDT
 

N.S. (Wednesday, August 24, 2016, 5:29 a.m.): “Why Donald Trump’s bid to win black votes, may be falling flat.”

Lester Holt and every other sentient being in America above the age of 18 knows that the answer is that in presidential (and most other) elections, blacks always vote over 90% Democrat. It’s the height of dishonesty for Holt or anyone else to act as if Trump is doing something wrong. Ninety-percent of blacks are racist to the bone, and the Democrat Party is the vehicle of their political racism.

Trump’s only hope with blacks is to give them reasons for staying home on Election Day. Blacks are not excited about voting for a white woman, any white woman, unless she’s married to a black man.

The two closest elections in New York City history pitted Rudy Giuliani against racist socialist David Dinkins, in 1989 and 1993. Dinkins won in 1989, thanks to the black and cemetery voting blocs. I thought Giuliani’s political career was still-born, but he somehow managed to eke out a victory against Dinkins in 1993, for which blacks never forgave him, through white Democrats crossing the aisle to vote for him. Giuliani thanked whites by doing nothing for them.

When Giuliani ran for re-election in 1997, blacks still voted 90% Democrat, but tens of thousands of blacks who had voted for Dinkins stayed home, and Giuliani beat socialist, Jewish Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messenger in a landslide.




Murder suspect and possible war criminal, Savon Schmus

Break Up the Mets! Flushing Flubs Win Third Straight Game, with 7-4 Victory Over the Cardinals, in Spite of Jon Niese Leaving Game with One Out in the First Inning (Bad Knee), in the First Game of Their Three-Game Series in St. Louis!

By Nicholas Stix

After their first three-game winning streak since Independence Day, the Mets are now over .500, with a 63-62 record!

Rookie call-up righty Robert Gsellman got the win in his first big-league game, coming in in emergency relief with one out in the first for Jonathan Niese, and Jeurys Familia got his 42nd save. The Mets bullpen gave them 8 1/3 scoreless innings. Wilmer Flores hit a three-run homer in the first inning, and Justin Ruggiano hit a solo shot in the fourth.

Jose Reyes and Asrubal Cabrera got three hits each for the Mets, and Joenis Cespedes got two knocks. Cespedes, who has been gimpy with an assortment of ailments most of the season (most recently, a quad), ran well on the bases and in the field, and stole a home run from young Cardinals slugger, Stephen Piscotty, in left field, in the sixth.

P.S. I just learned from postgame announcer and former Mets pitcher, Nelson Figeuroa, regarding Jose Reyes’ belief that, as a base stealer, he owns third base, “It’s a much shorter distance to get to third.”

And here, all these years, I’d thought that all the bases were set 90 feet apart. Live and learn!

“New Trump” is Reminiscent of New Coke: New Co-Campaign Chief, Pollster Kellyanne Conway: Donald Trump was Just Kidding, When He Talked About Deporting All Illegal Aliens!

 

In: New Trump Campaign Manager Kellyanne Conway and Donald Trump
 

In: Trump Campaign CEO Stephen Bannon, late of Breitbart News
 

By Nicholas Stix

In 1985, Coca-Cola tried to foist New Coke on the country. Millions of Americans hated the taste, and revolted, whereupon the soft drink maker pulled the product. New Coke was the biggest American market failure since Ford’s Edsel (1958). The Republican presidential nominee is currently test-marketing New Trump, which trades in tough immigration enforcement for virtually no enforcement. Will Trump’s supporters drink the, er, Coke?

He’s not going to deport anyone!

On August 17, CNN’s Manu Raju reported that Kellyanne Conway had written an article in 2014 supporting mass amnesty for illegal aliens for Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us amnesty front.
Megyn, what he's saying is first secure the borders and actually apply and enforce the law... if we actually enforce immigration laws, a lot of this starts to change. Secondly, you have to deport those who have committed crimes. [Donald Trump to Megyn Kelly, The Kelly File, Fox News, Monday, August 22, 2016.]
 


 

The same night, CNN reported that Trump had flip-flopped on deportation, after reconquista groups had vetoed the idea.
It's still undecided whether Donald Trump will continue to support forced deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants living in the US, his campaign manager said Sunday. But Trump himself insisted Monday, "I'm not flip-flopping."
 

Out: Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski
 

"I'm not flip flopping," the Republican presidential nominee told Fox News on the issue Monday.

"We want to come up with a fair but firm process. Fair but firm." He did not, however, provide any specifics or elaborate on his position further.

When asked by repeated questioning by CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union" on Sunday whether Trump stood behind the idea of a deportation task force, Kellyanne Conway, Trump's new campaign manager, responded, "to be determined."

Conway was responding to reports about what was said in a meeting Trump held on Saturday with a Hispanic advisory council. Sources in the room told BuzzFeed that Trump spoke about a "humane and efficient" way to work with undocumented immigrants in the country currently, which was characterized by BuzzFeed as a way to legalize some and let them stay.
[“Donald Trump: 'I'm not flip-flopping' on immigration,” by Tal Kopan, CNN, Updated 4:38 P.M. ET, Monday, August 22, 2016.]
As I recounted at the top, on Monday night, Conway told Fox News host Megyn Kelly that Trump is going to deport “Those [illegals] who have committed crimes.”

Taken at her word, that would include virtually every illegal human being in America. But Trump is singing dulcet tones about illegals these days. My brain is melting down from the cognitive dissonance.

Here’s how politicians have played that particular word game for years. “Committed crimes” is spun to mean non-immigration crimes.

But why stop there? Indeed, the authorities never do.

On Anderson Cooper360 last night, deposed Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who is now a CNN talking head, maintained that Trump’s “position has never changed.”

In an earlier draft, I tried to come up with a possible universe in which Lewandowski was telling the truth. I thought I’d found one such universe, but eventually concluded was wrong.

Taken literally, “Those who have committed crimes” is the biggest possible pool, because it isn’t limited to convicted criminals, or even those convicted of misdemeanors and/or felonies. However, no politician has ever included those not convicted, even though we’re talking about illegals, who can be guilty of felonies without benefit of trial. But this is New Trump, so we would do well to dispense with literal interpretations.

 

Out: Trump Campaign CEO Paul Manafort was brought in to replace Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski, while Lewandowski was still on the job. Manafort was then replaced by Stephen Manning, while Manafort was still on the job. Politics doesn’t usually work that way, but I’ve seen that sort of behavior in the business world.
 

Keep in mind that the number of illegals being used by the MSM is “11 million.” That fakestat has been around for 10 years or more, and was phony from the get-go. The reality is closer to 50 million.

Is Trump going to deport 50 million illegal human beings? Now even Old Trump proposed doing that. He used the ancient fakestat of 11 million.

What about illegals convicted of misdemeanors?

If a politician is going to qualify his position on deportations, as opposed to saying, “We’re going to deport them all,” he’s already well on his way down the slippery slope. No such pol will deport an illegal convicted of a misdemeanor, even if the record of the conviction still exists.

Now, let’s look at that number for “convicted felons,” the next group down the slippery slope. It’s probably something on the order of .1%, say, 50,000.

Illegal aliens are virtually all criminals—as the late Sonny Bono used to point out—they’re illegal! However, most of them are “colored,” even though the authorities routinely lie in their fakestats, and identify them as “white,” in order to increase the white crime rate, so as to make the black rate look less bad. However, the felon rate is kept dishonestly low, through various practices of affirmative action policing and criminal justice.

When a member of an affirmative action group commits a crime, the offense charged is many degrees below the actual crime. For example, when a colored criminal commits a violent felony (aggravated assault, attempted murder, first-degree rape, grand larceny), he is often initially charged with a misdemeanor: Simple assault, trespassing, petty larceny, etc., or not charged at all.

“Trespassing,” you ask? Yes, trespassing.

As I wrote in 2014 VDARE, in one of my many reports on “disappearing” crime/Fakestats,
[Thus,] serial rapist Daryl Thomas, could have been caught much earlier had the NYPD not covered up his first-degree, forcible felony rapes by describing them as “trespassing.”

You can Google here under “Daryl Thomas” and “rape.” Be forewarned, however, that there are a number of black rapists of the same name in different states. You’re looking for the New York City black serial rapist named Daryl Thomas.

The two largest groups of illegal alien felons who would not be deported under the new, flip-flop Trump immigration non-enforcement plan would be:

1. Illegal human beings who were caught on American soil, and deported, only to be later caught again on American soil.

The mere presence on American soil of a previously deported illegal alien is a felony. Now, we’re talking immigration law here, which is unique. Under U.S. immigration law, there is no presumption of innocence. If you’re a foreign national caught on American soil without a valid U.S. passport, green card, or some sort of visa or work authorization, according to U.S. immigration law, you’re supposed to get immediately deported. And if you return illegally, and get caught a second (or more than a second) time, you’re guilty of a felony, and again subject to immediate imprisonment, and immediate deportation, once you’ve served your time.

You’re not “allegedly” guilty of a felony, and you’re not subject to a trial. That’s how simple immigration law is—on paper.

However, ever since the 1986 Reagan Amnesty, the feds, scores of “sanctuary” cities, and a few such states, have refused to enforce U.S. immigration law altogether, or have done so in a rare and capricious fashion.

There are millions of illegal human beings who have been deported, and then again been caught illegally on American soil. ICE has typically responded by either deporting them again, or doing nothing at all. Immigration officials virtually never prosecute previously deported illegal alien felons for returning here. Thus, one reads of illegal human beings who have been caught here and deported up to nine times. (I’m being very conservative here; by now, there are probably previously deported illegal human beings who have been caught on American soil 20 times.)

2. Identity thieves. Identity theft is also a felony, even the first time, and while probably tens of millions of illegal human beings routinely engage in it, all levels of government have unofficially retired from enforcing these laws against illegals, as well as against those who sell stolen identity documents (social security cards, driver’s licenses, etc.).

Thus, there are tens of millions of illegal alien felons who have never been convicted of felonies, and thus will not be deported, under the Trump-Conway flip-flop.

If Trump will wimp out on deporting illegal aliens in general, and now only claims that he will deport “those who have committed crimes,” you can bet he’ll wimp out on many convicted felons, as well. ‘Oh, it’ll break up his family!’

It seems that Hispanic organizations complained about Trump’s deportation plan, and so he scrapped it. These are reconquista groups that want to destroy America, and which will vilify Trump, no matter how much he bends over for them. Smart move, Mr. Trump!

You what’s another name for Donald Trump’s current “deportation” plan? “Mass illegal alien amnesty.”

There are at least two Donald Trumps. One is a tough guy, and one is a wimp.

Kellyanne Conway ‏@KellyannePolls Aug 21
Best. Week. Ever. on @ThisWeekABC "This was the best week...in the Trump campaign...he's been able to be himself the authentic Donald Trump"

That’s all, until the sightings of the next “authentic Donald Trump.”

Monday, August 22, 2016

Another “Conservative” Republican Shows His True Colors: Former President George W. Bush’s Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy is the Latest High-Ranking GOPe to Announce His Support for Hillary Clinton’s White House Bid

By Reader-Researcher RC

Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.

“Bush Institute founding director endorses Clinton

“She has the experience. She’s got the character. She has the values,” Glassman says.

At Politico.

This reminds me of "conservative" David Brooks who, in 2008, adjudged the John Doe calling himself "Barack Obama" to have a "splendid temperament" to be president.

Delicious, Diverse, Detroit! Prostitutes Dancing on the Sidewalk, Fires in the Street and a Man being Run Down by a Car: Joyous Video Shows What it is Like Driving Through Detroit at Night

By Prince George's County Ex-Pat

"Chilling video shows what it is like driving through Detroit at night

"The clip, called Driving through Detroit at night, was filmed by a woman who was a passenger in a car going around the Motor City and was posted to Twitter at the weekend."

At The Daily Mail.


Black Genius in Ohio

 


Wise Intelligent Supreme God Allah
 

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

I thank the old buddy who sent me this article, who writes,
Check out this winner's name (first line in the article).

I strongly suspect that Wise Intelligent Supreme God Allah is a member of the “Five Percenter Nation of Gods [males] and Earths [females],” because that is the way Five Percenters name themselves.

I have been respectfully criticized by Five Percenters for reporting that the cult has taken over organized crime in numerous prisons. They insist that the Nation is non-violent, but that claim is belied by the facts.

The Five Percenters were founded by former member of the Nation of Islam, Clarence Smith (February 22, 1928 – June 13, 1969), who renamed himself Clarence 13X after joining the NOI, and then Allah, after leaving the NOI and founding the Five Percenters. Smith/13X/Allah was murdered by NOI assassins.

I was also mentioned in a book on the Five Percenters, but just searched in vain for it in the library here at the Stix Family compound of Xanadu.
 

Ohioan, 18, Nabbed on Gun Charges Does Not Appear to be Wise or Intelligent
August 22, 2016
The Smoking Gun

Meet Wise Intelligent Supreme God Allah.

Belying his name, the 18-year-old Ohioan made the imprudent choice Thursday night to be carrying a loaded handgun while a passenger in a car traveling in Akron.

During a police traffic stop, Allah was found with a Hi-Point .380 caliber handgun in the waistband of his pants. The Canton resident was arrested on felony weapons charges, according to Akron Municipal Court records.

None of the four other occupants of the 2014 Kia were arrested during the stop, which occurred in front of a Taco Bell. An Akron Police Department report states that Allah and two women in the vehicle "has history of drugs and weapons."

The accused pistolero--whose rap sheet includes a felony burglary conviction--was booked into the Summit County jail, where he remains locked up on $20,000 bond.

According to court records, Allah’s residence is adjacent to a multi-county juvenile detention facility.

Sharyl Attkisson Reports: The Dark Side of Wikipedia

 

When you see this symbol, think, “Danger ahead!”
 

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales has long been the face of intellectual fraud
 

[The greatest exposé ever written about The Pretend Encyclopedia:

“‘Wikipedia on Race’: My American Renaissance Exposé.”

A list of other articles on The Pretend Encylopedia follows the transcript below.]
 

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
 

Dark Side of Wikipedia [Wikipedia Exposé Runs First 10:52)
 


 

[N.S.: Oh, well. To view the video, hit the link in its title. Sorry.]
 

By Full Measure Staff

April 17/August 21, 2016 — Right now, this very second, people are busily editing away on the website Wikipedia, at a rate of more than ten edits per second. There are over five million articles written in English on Wikipedia, with a thousand being added every day.

But there's a dark side to Wikipedia you probably don't know about. The promise of accurate, neutral articles and privacy for contributors is often just a mirage, according to two insiders. They say they've been left battle-scarred after troubling personal encounters with the world's most popular encyclopedia.

It's billed as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." But for many, it's the opposite.

Greg Kohs is among the blocked. Banned, he says, for challenging Wikipedia policies.

Kohs: Just in the past four hours, 500 IP addresses and users have been blocked from editing Wikipedia.

In 2012, Kohs helped start an opposing website called, "Wikipediocracy," to expose what he calls Wikipedia's "misinformation, defamation and general nonsense."

Sharyl: So Wikipedia does censor users?

Kohs: Absolutely. In a given day, Wikipedia administrators typically are blocking about 1,000 different IP addresses.

Sharyl: 1,000 a day?

Kohs: 1,000 a day. Yes.

When Kohs ran afoul of Wikipedia, he was drawn into an unseen cyberworld. One where he says volunteer editors dole out punishment and retaliation, privacy is violated and special interests control information.

Sharyl: Most people don't know what?

Kohs: Wikipedia is often edited by people who have an agenda.

To understand how, it helps to start with the Wikipedia most know and love.

Co-founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, Wikipedia boasts 37 million-plus articles in 291 languages.

Research experts, like Mary Frances Forcier, count on Wikipedia.

Forcier: I think it's user-friendly. I think it's easy to use. It has a very appealing visual interface, and I do think that having the sources at the bottom of the page is really important.

Wikipedia's promise to volunteer editors: anonymity and privacy. Its promise to readers: unbiased articles.

But there were conflicts in this encyc-utopia from the start. Co-founder Sanger quickly broke away. He later told a reporter, "People that I would say are trolls sort of took over. The inmates started running the asylum."

Kohs says Wikipedia's "inmates" include some volunteer editors with an ax to grind or serious conflicts of interest.

Kohs: Sometimes editors will have very aggressive attitudes about what they want to appear in a Wikipedia article.

Sharyl: They can stop opposing opinions?

Kohs: Exactly, exactly.

Sharyl: Even opposing facts?

Kohs: Often times, yes.

When volunteer editors disagree, and they often do, it leads to "edit wars" fought out on Wikipedia's "talk" and "discussion" pages.

Kohs: There's drama on Wikipedia just about everyday. You just need to know where to go and look for it.

Edit wars fill thousands of pages deep inside Wikipedia with dialogue that ranges from civil to childish and hostile, like this argument that Kohs read us.

Kohs (reading from Wikipedia): He has violated NPA, which means no personal attacks by telling someone they are 'inferior' and to 'accept their station in life.' He wrote, 'I refuse to be blocked. I am not blocked. You can pretend that you block me all you like, but someone who is right can never be blocked. It is impossible.'

In Wikipedia's world, the ruling authorities are the hundreds of volunteer editors who've reached the most powerful editing status.
They're called "administrators," known only by their pseudonyms or user names. They always win the edit wars.

Sharyl: The more edits you make, the longer you've been making them, the more power you're going to have?

Kohs: Yes.

But what happens when powerful editors improperly control content?

Kohs: You'll have different people with a particular scientific point of view and they'll edit and modify Wikipedia, so that its articles kind of reflect that point of view.

Wikipedia has given names to bad behavior: malicious editing is "vandalism" and editing for personal or financial gain is paid or "covert editing." Wikipedia discourages both, but they happen all the time.

Two trusted Wikipedia officials were exposed running businesses that covertly edited Wikipedia for PR clients.

Interests for Sony, the CIA, the Vatican, Barack Obama and John McCain all reportedly have been caught secretly editing their own Wikipedia pages to their advantage.

And anonymous Wikipedia editors maintain a stranglehold on selected topics. Kohs demonstrates with the case of Morgellons. The Mayo Clinic calls it "an unexplained skin disorder characterized by sores." But the Wikipedia page dismisses Morgellons as a "delusional belief."

Kohs: So I'm just going to make a little comment here.

Let's see what happens when Kohs adds a research footnote that differs with that narrative.

Kohs: They can just go to this link and you get the abstract of the study right there.

In less than an hour, Kohs' edit disappears.

Kohs: I see that our edit to Morgellons was reverted after about 38 minutes or so.

It was reverted by an administrator who is anonymous, but for his user name. If you know where to look, it's possible to see the many Wikipedia topics the same editor worked hard to control.

Kohs: It seems to me that this is someone who is either involved with the medical profession or the pharmaceutical profession. They probably have an agenda to discredit or to suppress alternative medicines, things of that nature.

One study found mistakes in nine out of ten Wikipedia medical entries.

Millions of dollars can depend on how an idea or product is portrayed within the computer pages.

That may be why Wikipedia editors reportedly linked to the pharmaceutical company, AstraZeneca, got caught posting negative material on competitors' pages and adding promotional material to their own.

Kohs sees himself as an equalizer. His business helps clients, including supposed victims of unfair edits, navigate Wikipedia's unbridled landscape. Wikipedia banned him for violating the policy against paid editing and when Kohs criticized the policy and continued under a borrowed account, Wikipedia editors targeted him.

They went to great lengths to track him, using inside information and computer addresses. They researched where Kohs grew up, and traced his movements all the way to Orlando, Florida, where he was making edits while on vacation.

Sharyl: Wikipedia editors that you didn't know at the time were tracking your movements, speculating that you went home for Thanksgiving?

Kohs: That's absolutely correct.

He only discovered that he was being tracked because somebody leaked internal Wikipedia discussions about him.

Kohs: And then somebody chimed in, 'looks like someone went home for Thanksgiving to visit mom and dad,' so you think you're editing with some degree of privacy, but if they want to they can really start to investigate.

Wales has publicly feuded with Kohs over the paid editing policy, but declined our interview requests. Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia editors we asked also offered no comment for this report.

Another paid editor, Mike Wood, says his confrontation with Wikipedia was life-changing. Like Kohs, Wood publicly criticized Wikipedia's policies on editing for pay, which he did while on breaks as a casino inspector, until one day when his boss called him in for a meeting.

Wood: He says, 'We received an email and a phone call from the Wikimedia Foundation, telling us that you are using our servers to edit Wikipedia.' He said, 'Wikipedia,' meaning the Wikimedia Foundation, 'put a hard block on our servers, so now no one is allowed to access Wikipedia from our job site.'

That was enough to get Wood fired.

Wood: It was a huge violation of privacy. They put so much pressure on my employer by blocking access to Wikipedia, by telling them what was going on, just the embarrassment, the potential embarrassment alone of what the Wikimedia Foundation pressured my employer with was enough for the employer to terminate me.

Despite the controversies, Wikipedia has many devoted followers.

Mary Frances Forcier is with the Loudoun County Public Library in Virginia. She says Wikipedia is a valuable research tool, when used properly.

Forcier: It's accessible. It's in language everyone understands, and it does provide you the kind of source information that can lead you to scholarly works, encyclopedias, reference works and primary sources that can really help you out.

But the next time you visit the world's most popular encyclopedia, you may want to consider some advice you won't find within its pages.

Kohs: When you read Wikipedia, you have to be aware that the people who are writing it, who don't identify themselves, who don't necessarily have any credentials to be writing in the subject matter that they've chosen to write in, are very often pushing an agenda.

Wood: There is no privacy. If they want to know who you are, where you are editing from, they have that, and they can check it and they will. Do not step in front of the train, because they will run you over.

Kohs and Wood still edit Wikipedia for paid clients. And here's an inside tip: on any Wikipedia page, if you want to see what an editor has removed, you can click the tab that says, "view history" and see for yourself. Sometimes, the most interesting material is what's been deleted by those who are guarding the page. Wikimedia has said it makes an effort to prevent biased articles and, when a page is disputed, sometimes editors flag it with a warning notice.
 

[More on The Pretend Encyclopedia, at WEJB/NSU:

Wikipedia: Openness Through Lockdown”;

“Wikipedia and the Importance of being Ignorant”;

“Race Hustler Alert at Wikipedia! Someone Has been Making Mischief Regarding Maurice Clemmons’ Lakewood Massacre”;

“Baloo: Wikipedia Nation”;

“Wikipedia’s Censors are Hard at Work, Ensuring That Readers Do Not Learn about Crimes Committed by Members of ‘Protected Classes’ Against Members of ‘Non-Protected’ Classes”;

“Yet Another Wikipedia Cover-Up!”;

“Editor Laments: Anonymous Ideological Thugs Rule Wikipedia Now”;

“Nadine Gordimer’s Racism, and Wikipedia’s Attempt to Cover It Up”;

“What is Wrong with Wikipedia?”;

“Guaranteed Dishonesty: The Wikipedia Method”;

“Wikipedia Turns Racist, Premeditated, First-Degree Murder of a San Francisco PD Sergeant into a Case of ‘Alleged Attempted Murder’”;

“Dangerous, Racist Organization Seeks to Fill Its Moneybags at the Expense of Deluded, Deceived Saps”;

The Pretend Encyclopedia (aka Wikipedia) Turns 15, but the Racial Socialist Goons Who Have Taken It Over Have Caused the Number of Editors to Dwindle Since 2007”;

“Another Former Wikipedia Editor Chimes in on The Pretend Encyclopedia;

“Black Activists: Wikipedia Racially Discriminates Against Blacks!”; and

“Wikipedia Co-Founder: Fake Encyclopedia was Almost Immediately Taken Over by ‘Trolls’ at Its Inception in 2001, with the ‘Inmates Running the Asylum’ Since at Least 2002.”]

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Hillary Clinton Has Long been in Bed with the Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood: Clinton’s Top Campaign Aide, Huma Abedin, and the Woman Who Might be the Future White House Chief of Staff to the First Female US President, for a Decade Edited a Radical Muslim Publication that Opposed Women’s Rights and Blamed the US for 9/11

 

 

"Huma Abedin worked at a radical Muslim journal for a dozen years

"Hillary Clinton’s top campaign aide, and the woman who might be the future White House chief of staff to the first female US president, for a decade edited a radical Muslim publication that…"

Radical Islam.

Promiscuous homosexual.

Nice tautologies.

At the New York Post.

National Review on How Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement Led Inexorably to the Cop-Killing Black Power and Black Lives Matter Movements

 

William F. Buckley
 

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
 

The Decline of National Review
NR was once a voice for whites.
By James P. Lubinskas
September 2000
American Renaissance

The October 11, 1999, cover story of National Review was a piece by Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru called “A Conservative No More,” which argued that Patrick Buchanan has abandoned conservative principles. The article complained about Mr. Buchanan’s isolationism, opposition to free trade, and support for certain government programs, but the most serious charge appeared in the subtitle: “The tribal politics of Pat Buchanan.” According to Mr. Ponnuru, “Buchananism is a form of identity politics for white people — and becomes more worrisome as it is married to collectivism.” Any expression of white identity is now apparently a betrayal of conservatism. It was not always so.

National Review is considered the flagship publication of post-World War II conservatism. William F. Buckley started it in 1955, declaring that it “stands athwart history yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” Mr. Buckley was yelling “stop” to the spread of communism abroad and liberalism at home. That it should now attack Mr. Buchanan for supporting protectionism and market intervention is consistent with founding principles and no surprise. But few would have thought that after 44 years of publication, a senior editor with an Indian surname would condemn a popular white conservative for speaking up for whites.


Passages from some back issues could have been lifted right out of American Renaissance.

In fact, the National Review of the 1950s, 60s and even 70s spoke up for white people far more vigorously than Pat Buchanan would ever dare to today. The early National Review heaped criticism on the civil rights movement, Brown v. Board of Education, and people like Adam Clayton Powell and Martin Luther King, whom it considered race hustlers. Some of the greatest names in American conservatism — Russell Kirk, Willmore Kendall, James Kilpatrick, Richard Weaver, and a young Bill Buckley — wrote articles defending the white South and white South Africans in the days of segregation and apartheid. NR attacked the 1965 immigration bill that opened America up to Third-World immigration, and wrote frankly about racial differences in IQ. There were always hints of compromise, but passages from some back issues could have been lifted right out of American Renaissance. Not so today. NR still supports immigration reform and is not afraid of the IQ debate, but Mr. Ponnuru’s article is just one example of its complete abandonment of the interests of whites as a group. What used to be an important part of the NR message it now dismissed as illegitimate “white identity politics.”
 

"Why the South Must Prevail"

A famous example of the early NR stance on race was an unsigned editorial of August 24, 1957, titled “Why the South Must Prevail.” It was almost certainly written by Mr. Buckley, since he uses similar language in his book Up From Liberalism. The editorial argued against giving blacks the vote because it would undermine civilization in the South:

“The central question that emerges ... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.”

National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct... It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.”

“The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class... Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.”

The final passage about “genuine cultural equality between the races” can be read either as a last-minute loss of will or as a description of a criterion for the black franchise that could never be met. In any case, the editorial recognizes a principle NR would never articulate today: the right of a civilized minority — racial or otherwise — to impose its will upon an uncivilized majority. NR Contributing Editor L. Brent Bozell dissented from the editorial on constitutional grounds but still admitted, “It is understandable that White Southerners should try to have it both ways — they can’t know what would happen should Negroes begin to vote, and they naturally want to cover their bet.”

Needless to say, even in the 1950s, when the interests of whites were more openly recognized, the editorial called down the wrath of the liberals. Prof. William Muehl of the Yale Divinity School wrote: [I]n that vicious and wholly amoral thesis you exposed again the basic savagery of the reactionary mentality at bay.” Would anything NR publishes today evoke such fury from established liberals?

But Mr. Buckley’s magazine stood firm. A book review from the July 13th issue of the same year — 1957 — by Richard Weaver was called, “Integration is Communization.” Mr. Weaver found Carl Rowan’s Go South to Sorrow “a sorry specimen of Negro intellectual leadership,” and went on to express deep suspicion about the whole integrationist enterprise:

” ‘Integration’ and ‘Communization’ are, after all, pretty closely synonymous. In light of what is happening today, the first may be little more than a euphemism for the second. It does not take many steps to get from the ‘integrating’ of facilities to the ‘communizing’ of facilities, if the impulse is there.”

He concluded with a restatement of the principles of voluntary association. “In a free society, associations for educational, cultural, social, and business purposes have a right to protect their integrity against political fanaticism. The alternative to this is the destruction of free society and the replacement of its functions by government, which is the Marxist dream.” Government’s current “civil rights” powers to limit freedom of association have, indeed, brought virtually every corner of our lives under bureaucratic control, but would NR dare say so today?

Likewise in 1957, Sam M. Jones interviewed segregationist Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. In a Q&A format, Mr. Jones asked, “Do the people of the South fear political domination by the Negro or miscegenation or both?”

Senator Russell replied, “Both. As you know, Mr. Jones, there are some communities and some states where the Negro’s voting potential is very great. We wish at all costs to avoid a repetition of the Reconstruction period when newly freed slaves made the laws and undertook their enforcement. We feel even more strongly about miscegenation or racial amalgamation.

“The experience of other countries and civilizations has demonstrated that the separation of the races biologically is highly preferable to amalgamation.

“I know of nothing in human history that would lead us to conclude that miscegenation is desirable.”

Sam M. Jones wrote another article that year criticizing integration in the Washington, D.C., public schools. Titled “Caution: Integration at Work,” he accurately predicted that “the problem of school integration in the nation’s capital may be eventually solved by the steady migration of the white population out of the District of Columbia.” Jones criticized school integration on the grounds of IQ differences, citing “a white average ranging from 105 to 111 and a Negro average of 87 to 89. (An intelligent quotient of 85 is generally considered the minimum for receiving education.)” He went on to note:

“Data on juvenile delinquency ... revealed a marked increase in truancy, theft, vandalism and sex-offenses in integrated schools. Dances and dramatic presentations have been quietly given up by most high schools. Senior and junior class plays have been discontinued. Inter-racial fights are frequent and constant vigilance is required to prevent molestation or attempted molestation of white girls by Negro boys or girls. In contrast, the schools outside the integrated neighborhoods have no more such problems than they had four years ago.” Mr. Jones concluded that “the record shows ... that the problems of integration are extremely serious and that no solution is in sight.”

“Brown ... was bad law and bad sociology. We are now tasting its bitter fruits. Race relations in the country are ten times worse than in 1954.”

The September 28, 1957 issue contained a piece by James Kilpatrick called “Right and Power in Arkansas,” in which he endorsed Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus’ call-up of the National Guard to prevent forced integration at Little Rock’s Central High School. Defending a community’s right to keep the peace, he wrote that “the State of Arkansas and Orval Faubus are wholly in the right; they have acted lawfully; they are entitled to those great presumptions of the law which underlie the whole of our judicial tradition.” Predicting a “storm” of white resistance he wrote, “Conceding, for the sake of discussion, that the Negro pupil has these new rights, what of the white community? Has it none?

An unsigned editorial in the September 21, 1957, issue put the blame for the whole incident squarely on the Supreme Court:

“Under the disintegrating effects of Brown v. Board of Education, the units of our society are forced into absolute dilemmas for which there is literally no solution within the traditional American structure.

“Violence and the threat of violence; base emotions; the cynical exploitation of members of both races by ruthless ideologues; the shameful spectacle of heavily armed troops patrolling the lawns and schoolyards of once tranquil towns and villages; the turgid dregs of hatred, envy, resentment, and sorrow — all these are part of the swelling harvest of Brown v. Board of Education.”

On the tenth anniversary of Brown, NR offered this June 2, 1964, editorial:

“But whatever the exact net result in the restricted field of school desegregation, what a price we are paying for Brown! It would be ridiculous to hold the Supreme Court solely to blame for the ludicrously named ‘civil rights movement’ — that is, the Negro revolt ... But the Court carries its share of the blame. Its decrees, beginning with Brown, have on the one hand encouraged the least responsible of the Negro leaders in the course of extra-legal and illegal struggle that we now witness around us...

Brown, as National Review declared many years ago, was bad law and bad sociology. We are now tasting its bitter fruits. Race relations in the country are ten times worse than in 1954.”

In the 1960s NR continued to oppose the civil rights movement and the assumption that race could somehow be reduced to irrelevance. A July 2, 1963, editorial declared: “The Negro people have been encouraged to ask for, and to believe they can get, nothing less than the evanescence of color, and they are doomed to founder on the shoals of existing human attitudes — their own included.” Race, as AR continues to point out, cannot be made not to matter, and NR once understood that.

An article by James Kilpatrick in the September 24, 1963, issue argued that the Civil Rights Bill (eventually passed in 1964) should be voted down. He wrote, “I believe this bill is a very bad bill. In my view, the means here proposed are the wrong means... In the name of achieving certain ‘rights’ for one group of citizens this bill would impose some fateful compulsions on another group of citizens.” After it passed, an editorial declared: “The Civil Rights Act has been law for only a little over two months, yet it already promises to be the source of much legalistic confusion, civic chaos and bureaucratic malpractice.”

Mr. Kilpatrick also took aim at the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the April 20, 1965 issue. “Must We Repeal the Constitution to Give the Negro the Vote?” he asked, accusing the bill’s supporters of “perverting the Constitution.” He thought certain blacks should be given the right to vote but notes, “Over most of this century, the great bulk of Southern Negroes have been genuinely unqualified for the franchise.” He also defended segregation as rational for Southerners. “Segregation is a fact, and more than a fact; it is a state of mind. It lies in the Southern subconscious next to man’s most elementary instincts, for self-preservation, for survival, for the untroubled continuation of a not intolerable way of life.”

Mr. Buckley softened his position on civil rights in the 1960s but to a point that would still be intolerable for conservatives today. In a column written five months before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and called “The Issue at Selma,” he called for giving blacks the vote but perhaps restricting the franchise to high school graduates. He sympathized with the Southern position writing, “In much of the South, what is so greatly feared is irresponsible, mobocratic rule, and it is a fear not easily dissipated, because it is well-grounded that if the entire Negro population in the South were suddenly given the vote, and were to use it as a bloc, and pursuant to directives handed down by some of the more demagogic leaders, chaos would ensue.” He also warned of “a suddenly enfranchised, violently embittered Negro population which will take the vote and wield it as an instrument of vengeance, shaking down the walls of Jericho even to their foundations, and reawakening the terrible genocidal antagonisms that scarred the Southern psyche during the days of Reconstruction.”

Mr. Buckley expressed similar doubts about multiracial democracy in his 1959 Up From Liberalism: “Democracy’s finest bloom is seen only in its natural habitat, the culturally homogenous community. There, democracy induces harmony. Harmony (not freedom) is demo-cracy’s finest flower. Even a politically unstable society of limited personal freedom can be harmonious if governed democratically, if only because the majority understand themselves to be living in the house that they themselves built.”
 


Cartoon from the issue of June 13, 1957. Would we see its like today? 


NR loathed the “Black Power” movement, which it described in a July 19, 1966, editorial as a natural outgrowth of the civil rights movement:

“It isn’t surprising when you come to think of it, that the militants in the civil rights movement should move to a new concept — they call it Black Power — at this stage, the movement having come into doldrums. What made it inevitable was the ravenous rhetoric of the past few years, whose motto ‘Freedom Now’ called for nothing less, when analyzed, than the evanescence of color. Since no such thing could be brought about, can be brought about, there is a sense of disappointment among those civil rights workers who somehow permitted themselves to believe that the passage of a few bits and pieces of legislation would transform the life of the American Negro ... It never followed that Negroes would suddenly cease to be poor, that whites would cease to prefer the company of whites, that the overwhelming majority of the American population would not continue to concentrate on individual and family concerns.”

The February 12, 1963, issue attacked another element of the movement: “the Black Muslims — who have no connection with real Mohammedanism — are ferociously anti-white and anti-Christian ... believe in violence, and train actively for the War of Armageddon, in which the blacks will kill all the whites.”

White rule is a prudent way “to govern tolerably a society composed of several races, among which only a minority is civilized.”

An October 8, 1968 article called “Black Power and the Campus” by David Brudnoy observes: “Black power today means a total striving by embittered groups of Negroes for everything their fancies demand. In its path lie the crumpled remains of the Constitution, the tattered sleeves of law, the punctured corpse of Reason, and literally the bodies of those Negroes and whites who oppose it.”

In the July 15, 1969 issue we find an editorial about the Black Panthers: “Under a portrait of Che Guevara they installed in a church auditorium, they distribute free food and comic books to kids at breakfasts. The food is contributed by local merchants, who risk having their stores burned down (one case so far — enough to make the point) if they refuse. The comics are crude, nasty affairs depicting heroic black kids killing and intimidating pigs in police uniforms.”

NR used to be forthright about dressing down prominent blacks. A June 7, 1958, editorial on Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. stated, “That Powell is a racist has been clear for years. Last June, in National Review, Miss Maureen Buckley covered the subject neatly: ‘Adam Clayton Powell’s championing of the Negro cause has led him to a strange racist extremism... In 1946 he pronounced in the Congressional Record his fixed conclusion that, ‘the best thing that could happen would be the passing of the white man’s world [which] has stood for nationalism, oppression, and barbarism.’”

In the same manner, a September 7, 1965, article by Will Herberg blames Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement for the 1965 Los Angeles riots:

“For years now, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates have been deliberately undermining the foundations of internal order in this country. With their rabble-rousing demagoguery, they have been cracking the ‘cake of custom’ that holds us together. With their doctrine of ‘civil disobedience’ they have been teaching hundreds of thousands of Negroes ... that it is perfectly all right to break the law and defy constituted authority if you are a Negro-with-a-grievance... And they have done more than talk. They have on occasion after occasion, in almost every part of the country, called out their mobs on the streets, promoted ‘school strikes’ sit-ins, lie-ins, in explicit violation of the law and in explicit violation of the public authority. They have taught anarchy and chaos by word and deed ...

In 1979 Mr. Buckley was still criticizing Martin Luther King saying, “When it was black men persecuting white or black men — in the Congo, for instance — he was strangely silent on the issue of human rights. The human rights of Chinese, or of Caucasians living behind the Iron Curtain never appeared to move him.” This is pretty mild criticism but it would not appear in today’s NR, which fawns over King as much as the liberals do.

A Reliable Voice

Criticism of the American Civil Rights movement was not the only way in which NR used to promote “identity politics for white people.” It wrote articles about South Africa clearly endorsing apartheid as the only workable system for the country. In the March 9, 1965, issue Russell Kirk decried court-enforced black voting rights as “theoretical folly” that the US would nevertheless survive, but declared prophetically that the same dogma in South Africa, “if applied, would bring anarchy and the collapse of civilization.” For Kirk, civilization required apartheid: “In a time of virulent ‘African nationalism,’ ... how is South Africa’s ‘European’ population ... to keep the peace and preserve a prosperity unique in the Dark Continent?” White rule, he answered, is a prudent way, “to govern tolerably a society composed of several races, among which only a minority is civilized.” He called for humane treatment of South African blacks but dismissed their leaders as “witch doctors” and “reckless demagogues.” He wrote frankly about the “‘European’ element which makes South Africa the only modern and prosperous African country.”

NR also used to understand immigration. A September 21, 1965, article by Ernest van den Haag called “More Immigration?” took on the impending reform [signed into law on October 3, 1965, by Lyndon Johnson] that would open up America to the Third World. Mr. van den Haag, who is still listed as a contributing editor to NR, argued that our then-sound immigration laws should be made even stricter, not looser. Rejecting the charge that the laws were “racist,” he wrote: “one need not believe that one’s own ethnic group, or any ethnic group, is superior to others ... in order to wish one’s country to continue to be made up of the same ethnic strains in the same proportions as before. And, conversely, the wish not to see one’s country overrun by groups one regards as alien need not be based on feelings of superiority or ‘racism’.” He goes on to say, “the wish to preserve one’s identity and the identity of one’s nation requires no justification ... any more than the wish to have one’s own children, and to continue one’s family through them need be justified or rationalized by a belief that they are superior to the children of others.”

A September 26, 1975, review of Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints makes much the same point. Prof. Jeffrey Hart, who is currently listed as a senior editor, called the book a “sensation” that rocked liberal sensibilities. He wrote: “Most people ... are able to perceive that the ‘other group’ looks rather different and lives rather differently from their own. Such ‘racist’ or ‘ethnocentric’ feelings are undoubtedly healthy, and involve merely a preference for one’s own kind. Indeed — and Raspail hammers away at this point throughout his novel — no group can long survive unless it does ‘prefer itself.’ ... The liberal rote anathema on ‘racism’ is in effect a poisonous assault upon Western self-preference.”

Mr. van den Haag took a thoroughly sound position on IQ differences. In the December 1, 1964, issue — a full thirty years before The Bell Curve and five years before Arthur Jensen’s celebrated article in the Harvard Educational Review — he interviewed an unnamed “eminent sociologist” (who happened to be himself). Under the title “Intelligence or Prejudice?” and the subtitle, “An eminent sociologist discusses Negro intelligence and accuses certain of his colleagues of prejudice against logic and discrimination against facts,” the article took on the ever-trendy nonsense that intelligence cannot be tested and that the concept of IQ is meaningless.

In a 1969 column called “On Negro Inferiority,” Mr. Buckley wrote about the furor over race and IQ, and bragged that NR had “brilliantly anticipated the findings of Dr. Jensen and brilliantly coped with their implications.”

The “eminent sociologist” defended IQ testing by citing the work of Hans Eysenck and research on identical twins. He claimed intelligence is largely heritable and that environmental factors cannot improve it by much. Mr. van den Haag wrote that integrated education impairs whites and “demoralizes” blacks, and advocated separation: “I am all in favor of improving the quality of education for all. But this can be done only if pupils are separated according to ability (whatever determines it). And this means very largely according to race.”

In an April 8, 1969 column called “On Negro Inferiority” Mr. Buckley wrote about the furor caused by Arthur Jensen’s research about race and IQ, calling it “massive, apparently authoritative.” Mr. Buckley even bragged that “Professor Ernest van den Haag, writing in National Review (Dec. 1, 1964) ... brilliantly anticipated the findings of Dr. Jensen and brilliantly coped with their implications.”

The late Revilo Oliver, classicist and outspoken racialist, made regular appearances in the early NR. Mr. Buckley thought so highly of him he put his name on the masthead and invited him to his wedding. Oliver, who refused to compromise and was eventually banished from the magazine, also knew something about race and IQ before Arthur Jensen did. This is from his November 2, 1957, review of Ashley Montagu’s Man: His First Million Years:

“Dr. Montagu, who composed the UNESCO Statement on Race, has again skillfully trimmed the facts of anthropology to fit the Liberal propaganda line. Every anthropologist knows, for example, that aborigines in Australia propagated their species for a hundred thousand years without ever suspecting that pregnancy might be a consequence of sexual intercourse. Equally striking evidence of intellectual capacity is provided by the many peoples that never discovered how to kindle a fire or plant a seed. But Dr. Montagu, after making a great show of cautious objectivity, proclaims that ‘anthropologists are unable to find any evidence’ of ‘significant differences in mental capacity’ between ‘ethnic groups.’ If you can tell such whoppers with a straight face, you too can ask the ‘United Nations’ to recognize your right to largesse from the pockets of American taxpayers.”

No Longer Yelling ‘Stop’

Clearly, the early National Review was often a voice for white Americans. It not only defended their culture, it defended their race. White Southerners had a right — both constitutionally and morally — to protect themselves from black rule and black incivility. White South Africans had the same right. The nation as a whole had a right to defend its European heritage and racial identity by closing its borders to non-whites. As Mr. van den Haag wrote, this policy needed no justification. And if low black intelligence and high crime rates hindered white students from learning, that was sufficient reason for separate education.

Today’s NR has not yet abandoned every subject of interest to whites qua whites. It is solidly against affirmative action and multicultural education. It defended The Bell Curve and has published reviews of J. Philippe Rushton’s work. It still advocates immigration reform, though its position now is that a pause in immigration will make it easier for the non-whites who are already here to assimilate. Even that stance could crumble. In 1998 Mr. Buckley demoted the two men most responsible for the magazines anti-immigration tone, editor John O’Sullivan and senior editor Peter Brimelow. Filling their places are people like Mr. Ponnuru and John Miller, who like immigration and are afraid of “identity politics for white people.” Today’s NR is no longer the brave journal that fought integration and tried to keep America European. It is not yelling “stop” to multiracialism and the displacement of the country’s founding stock by aliens. That, as Mr. Ponnuru explains, would be to play “tribal politics.”AR


 

SIDEBAR

Buckley is Silent

After reading James Lubinskas’ article about the firm positions NR used to take on racial matters, I was curious to know how Mr. Buckley would explain the change, and inquired about an interview. His secretary asked that I fax her an outline of the subjects I wanted to cover, so I sent several past and present quotations from NR, explaining that I wanted to know why the magazine had shifted its ground. A few days later, I telephoned her again to ask about the interview and she told me Mr. Buckley is writing a book and giving no interviews. I asked why I had been asked to summarize what I wanted to talk about if he is giving no interviews, and she told me to fax the same material again.

The next day, August 5, Mr. Buckley’s syndicated newspaper column was about the very questions I had raised in my faxed message. It was a meandering piece about the Republican convention’s celebration of diversity, but added that Jared Taylor, “a white separatist of sorts,” had wondered whether whites are allowed to have racial interests as a group. He then quoted several sentences from the passage from Ernest van den Haag’s 1965 article that Mr. Lubinskas cites on page six, and which I had included as part of my letter to Mr. Buckley. The column, which avoids reaching a conclusion about the legitimacy of white racial consciousness, can be read on our web page, AmRen.com.

I telephoned Mr. Buckley’s secretary again, pointed out that Mr. Buckley had used my letter for a column, and asked once again for an interview. No, she said, Mr. Buckley is writing a book and must not be disturbed.

Jared Taylor

The Two Kingpins Responsible for All of Houston’s Crime Named

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

The Two Men Responsible for All Crime in Houston
December 5, 2009

…when I went to Rice in Texas in the 1970s, I heard that the Houston cops would say that if they could just arrest a white guy named ‘Wayne’ and a black guy named ‘Charles Williams,’ there would be no more crime in Houston. That was because every white guy they arrested said, ‘No, man, it wasn’t me, it was Wayne,’ and every black guy they arrested said, ‘No, man, it wasn’t me, it was that Charles Williams.’”

Steve Sailer today, at VDARE.com.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Another Black Mass Murder: See Smiling Mug Shot of Black Man Who Allegedly Slaughtered Negro Army Vet and Her Three Young Daughters (Two of Whom He’d Fathered!) with Hammer

 

Victims Garlette Howard and her three daughters
 

By Reader-Researcher RC
 

"Cops: Army vet and her 3 young daughters were killed with hammer

"A North Carolina man is accused of fatally beating the woman and her three young daughters, two of which were also his daughters"

At CBS News.

 


Suspect Diboon Toone

Totalitarian Humanism and its Discontents: Attack the System: A New Anarchist Perspective for the 21st Century

Paperback – October 18, 2013
By Keith Preston

5.0 out of 5 stars The Best Libertarian Book of 2013
Reviewed by Dr. S. I. Gabb [Sean Gabb]
February 5, 2014
Amazon

I first came across Keith Preston in October 2008. In those days, the Libertarian Alliance was able to put up £1,000 every year for a prize essay. The title I had set for that year was “To what extent can a libertarian utopia be described as Tesco minus the State?” I wanted someone to analyse the frequent identification of libertarianism with the defence of big business. Though I had my own view of the question, the conclusions reached were less important than the quality of the analysis. Sadly, my question brought me a flood of autopilot defences of big business, all in the house style of the Adam Smith Institute. One of them began something like: “I’ve never heard of Tesco, so I’ll write about Wal-Mart.” It continued with a love letter so gushing, even Madsen Pirie might have given it a funny look.

One morning, while brooding over which of these submissions was least undeserving of our £1,000, another big envelope arrived from America. It was by Keith Preston, and its title was “Free Enterprise: The Antidote to Corporate Plutocracy.” I read it with astonishment and delight. I set aside that I agreed with it, and read it as I would an undergraduate essay. Even so, long before the final page, I knew that this had to be the winning entry. It had a clarity and force of analysis that placed it and its writer in the highest class. Indeed, if there had been no other payback for the six years that we ran the prize essay, being able to give £1,000 to Keith would in itself have justified the enterprise.

Obviously, then, I commend this book, which is a long selection of Keith’s writings on politics and philosophy. They range from Nietzsche to Ernst Junger, from attacks on Marxism and mainstream libertarianism to calls for the overthrow of the American Empire. It is hard to say which essay is the best. All of them are excellent. This is the first review book I have had in several years that I wish I could put on my shelves, rather than keep on hard disk.

I turn to the generality of what Keith believes. For him, the biggest threat to freedom in what can be called Anglo-America is not Communists or neo-Nazis, or the Moslems, or Christian fundamentalists, or any other of the groups the media preaches against. The real threat is our own ruling class of “totalitarian humanists.” These are a coalition of three forces. There are the cultural leftists – people who have abandoned any pretence of concern for the working classes, and replaced it with an obsessive political correctness. There is the old corporate elite. There are the various agencies of state repression. Together, they have created a police state at home and a foreign empire, both of which combine varying degrees of self-righteousness and brutality.

Until about thirty years ago, the cultural leftists were denouncing their new allies. Today, while still posing as outsiders, and even as dissidents, they provide a legitimising ideology for a power more total than anything known in Anglo-America since the puritan ascendency of the 1650s. Theirs is an ideology embedded in business and education and the media, and in politics and law and administration, and in every medical and professional bureaucracy. It is supreme in every transnational bureaucracy. Excepting only Islam, every main religion bows before it.

Within these areas, no open dissidence is allowed. Within society as a whole, there is dwindling shelter from the power of the ruling class. Intermediary institutions are subverted. Ancient liberties are swept away. We have censorship. We have detention without trial. We have police forces and welfare and social worker bureaucracies clothed with what amounts to absolute and arbitrary power. We have wars fought by terror bombing of civilians, and occupations in which torture and looting are central concerns.

All this is cried up as “progressive,” or an extension of “human rights.” When its existence is admitted, we are told that power is only bad when used for bad ends. Because the ruling class insists on the total goodness of its legitimising ideology, and the total evil of anyone who resists, no atrocity is forbidden – or is, by definition, an atrocity.

The emergence of this tripartite ruling class has made obsolete many of the assumptions absorbed by libertarians and market anarchists in the 1960s and 70s. The main oppressed groups in those days were ethnic minorities, women and homosexuals. It was reasonable for libertarians to take their side. But times are now altered. These groups are no longer oppressed in any reasonable sense. They are protected by anti-discrimination and often by hate speech laws that amount to legal privilege. There are libertarians and libertarian allies in all three. But the main discontent among ordinary members is that the privileges are not yet great enough; and their leaders are full members of the ruling class.

The main oppressed groups nowadays are the white working classes, religious minorities and people whose opinions about the official oppressed groups are not considered sufficiently enlightened. These include white nationalists, Christian fundamentalists and Moslems.

Anyone who is serious about freedom, therefore, should give up on posturing in a battle that ended some time in the 1980s. The battle has always been to destroy the police state at home in Anglo-America, and to end our imperial wars in the third world. This is not to be achieved by taking over the system, and trying to humanise it – but by destroying the system. We must overthrow all centralised systems of control, and replace them by a vast diversity of autonomous and voluntary communities. That is our goal. The alliances we need to make to get there are determined by forces outside our control. Our natural allies at the moment are people we may deplore. Our enemies are often people we used to support.

Keith asks:

"Which is more authoritarian: a Nazi community on the top of a mountain whose members voluntarily choose their way of life or a massive, centralist, “democratic” state that seeks to impose the narrow values of a self-serving elite on the whole of society?" [p.61]

Good question. Keith answers it without hesitation. Liberal democracy was always something of a fraud. It has now been destroyed. Its institutions are corrupted beyond repair. If this were not enough, state-sponsored mass-immigration has balkanised both England and America. There is no middle way left between totalitarian control and radical decentralisation. He accepts that this will not bring utopia. There

"might be associations or communities of such a puritanical nature as to put Calvin or Khomeini to shame…. Some of the institutions that would form in an anarchist world might be hallmarks in human progress and achievement while others might be hellholes of incomparable ghastliness. This is what authentic liberty and authentic diversity are all about. Individuals and communities alike must be left to succeed or fail on their own terms." [ibid.]

It is also the only answer to the problems brought by state-sponsored mass-immigration:

"Forced integration only exacerbates hostility between social groups. Allowing different groups to practice mutual self-segregation and sovereignty may be a partial way out of this predicament." [p.80]

As for economics, Keith broadly endorses the small-scale localism of writers like Kevin Carson. He sees big business and big government as close allies. Destroy the state, thereby taking away the privileges – incorporation laws, patent laws as they currently are, transport subsidies, etc – given to the corporate elite, and there would still be an economy based on market exchanges. But the actors in this market would be smaller and more integrated into their communities. There would be sole traders and partnerships and workers cooperatives, and the occasional firm employing wage labour in the conventional sense. Keith’s ideal is a world with no masters and no bosses. Anarchy may not take us there. But it will take us closer to it than the New World Order will.

I could easily say more about this book. It is, after all, very long. So far, I have drawn only from three of its essays. However, I have given something of its flavour, thereby discharging my first duty as a reviewer. My second duty is to say how far I agree with it.

In part, I do agree with Keith. My 2007 book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War, gives a similar critique of the ruling class. Mine differs so far as I concentrate on England, and he on America. It also differs in emphasis. I saw the cultural leftists as the dominant actors in the new ruling class. The State agencies and business had been captured by these people. Keith sees the ruling class much more as a coalition of equals. I am not sure if this is an important distinction. Indeed, since I have not read my own book since it came out, I may not remember exactly what I said. My main difference with Keith is over the nature and extent of what needs to be done. Here, I think it would be useful to speak of where each of us stands, and of the different paths by which we came there.

Keith arrived at his present views from starting as a conventional anarchist of the left. Also, he is an American. Even before the waves of mass-immigration that started around 1880, Americans had little sense of national identity. What little they nowadays have is a creation of the Federal State. I began as a Tory, rooted in the English past. I was brought over to classical liberalism in my late teens, when I read J.S. Mill and Macaulay and Lecky. I have become somewhat more radical with age. But the default position to which I always return is to want a reaction to something like the England of the 18th and 19th centuries.

If I ever came to power, I would ruthlessly destroy the new ruling class. I would shut down agencies and institutions and whole departments of state. I would throw functionaries by the hundreds of thousands into the street, and cancel their pensions. I would tax the already pensioned into shelf-stacking and telesales. I would strip away every corporate privilege. I would unleash a revolution as fundamental as the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII, or the destruction of the Tudor and Stuart State in 1641. This done, my imagination reaches hardly beyond restoring the Old Constitution.

I despise Elizabeth the Useless, but think well of constitutional monarchy. I hate corporate elites and plutocracies, but not the old landed aristocracy. I suspect that every present Member of Parliament is there for the sex or the bribes, or both: I still take comfort in the drone of a returning officer’s voice. I want England back as it used to be – though probably more like it used to be than it ever was.

For this reason, I find Keith’s taste for dissolving the nation state not to my own. And yet, I am sensible enough to doubt if what I want is remotely on offer. The moral and institutional bases of the old order crumbled away before I was born. It cannot be brought back. In particular, the non-European immigrations of the past sixty years have brought fundamental changes. Since I and most other people recoil from the thought of ethnic cleansing, we need to find some way of living together that does not involve a total state to keep the peace. All this brings me to a scared reading of Keith Preston and Kevin Carson and Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the other radicals. I arrived without their influence at a similar analysis of what has gone wrong, and of what needs to be done to stop the downward progress. I am less comfortable with their longer term solutions. But it may be that their visions of a stateless future are the only ones that have any chance of working.

And so I thank Keith for sending me a review copy of his book. It confirms many of my own opinions. It challenges others. Though sometimes disturbing, it is always brilliant. I have no hesitation in calling it the most significant book our movement has produced in the past year.

Is This Fort Worth, or Juarez? A 19-Year-Old Man was Indicted Friday on a Capital Murder Charge in the Robbery and Fatal Shooting of a North Side Tire Shop Owner in March; Antonio Segura is Accused of Fatally Shooting Eusebio Bernardo-Fernando, Known as Chevo, During a Robbery… [Not to be Confused with the Recent Decapitation-Robbery of a Houston Auto Parts Store Owner]

By A Texas Reader

"Suspect indicted in robbery, fatal shooting of Fort Worth tire shop owner"

“Fort Worth detectives say Antonio Segura confessed that he shot the owner of the El Chevo tire shop in the head, then returned to the store several times to steal items.”

The headline is from Fort Worth, not Juarez.

Thankfully, no Americans were involved.

At the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

New York Times: Racist, New York City Council and Communist Mayor Warren Wilhelm Jr., aka Bill deBlasio: Taxi Drivers are No Longer Required to Know a Word of English; Indeed, They Prefer that Drivers Not Know Any English!

By Reader-Researcher AL

Chittum in Civil War II speaks of a police officer hired somewhere in America that cannot speak English as an indication that Civil War II is at hand. He did not consider cab drivers.
 


Know English? For New York Cabdrivers, That’s No Longer Required
By Emma G. FitzSimmons
August 19, 2016
New York Times

Hail a yellow taxi in New York City, and there is a good chance the driver is from another country. Passengers are regularly exposed to a range of languages that span the globe, from Spanish to Bengali to Urdu.

It can be charming, but also maddening for riders who feel that drivers do not understand where they want to go. [No one is charmed to find that his taxidriver doesn’t know Englishoperative Emma G. FitzSimmons, to keep form being called a “racist.”] Don’t you have to speak English, some wonder, to drive a taxi here?

As of Friday, the answer is no.

That is when new rules went into effect eliminating the requirement that taxi drivers take an English proficiency exam. Now, the test for a taxi license is available in several languages, to accommodate non-English speakers.…




Friday, August 19, 2016

HPD Captures Negro Man Wanted in Beating, Decapitation of Auto-Shop Owner

By A Texas Reader

"Police said Friday they have captured the man wanted in connection with the beating and decapitation of the owner of an auto parts shop Thursday in southeast Houston.."

At www.click2houston.com.

Is dysgenic breeding leading to an even more feral class of blacks?

N.S.: Yes.


Michigan: Trump Visits, and Murder in Grand Rapids Township

By Grand Rapids Anonymous

Two items to contribute today.

1) Trump is in Michigan today, talking his new theme, of how much blacks mean to him (lol). He said, "When I am elected, I will bring jobs to African-Americans, so they don't have to stay on welfare." That's quite a threat.

He'll never get their vote,threatening them with WORK!!!

2) There's a breaking story in Grand Rapids, of a white 18 year old graduate of East Kentwood H.S., who was found dead in a wooded area of Grand Rapids Township-a suburb. A 16-year-old was arrested and WOOD-TV is reporting the girl was strangled, and her body transported and dumped in the wooded GR Township location.

Interesting, that WOOD talked to 3 blacks from East Kentwood, who knew her "VERY well." They commented that, "She was a great person" and "They hung out together."

The suspect and the victim, McKenna Hilton, knew each other on Facebook, but prosecutors are not filing charges immediately, giving police up to five more days to collect evidence.

WOOD talked to a "friend," Tyrese Baker, who claimed, "We'd go out to eat and laugh. She didn't deserve to die."

The TV channel interviewed other blacks (is that all there is at that school?), who also said the same thing. So if all her friends were black, I wonder who killed her?

One source also said, unconfirmed, that the suspect and Hilton, "lived in the same household"... whatever THAT means. I'll update when an ID is announced. Prosecutors are saying right now, "Open murder charges are likely."

Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:14:00 PM EDT