Saturday, February 13, 2016

James Edwards: He Paved the Way for Poitier and Washington


James Edwards, in Home of the Brave (1949)

By Nicholas Stix
February 16th, 2005
Intellectual Conservative, etc.

Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and Morgan Freeman all owe a debt of gratitude to James Edwards.

Today, two of Hollywood’s five highest-paid stars are black: Will Smith and Denzel Washington. Jamie Foxx (Ray) and Morgan Freeman (Million Dollar Baby) are the front-runners for the best actor and best supporting actor Oscars, respectively. (And while I have yet to see Ray, I did see Million Dollar Baby, and can tell you that Freeman is every bit as good as his press). Smith, Washington, Foxx and Freeman all owe a debt of gratitude to James Edwards.

Three years ago, Halle Berry subjected viewers to possibly the most ridiculous Oscar acceptance speech of all time, in which she claimed that she was accepting her award (for a performance which almost no one, including most of the Academy members who voted for her, had seen) in the name of Dorothy Dandridge, Lena Horne, Diahann Carroll, Jada Pinkett Smith and Angela Bassett, as if the performers in question had all been cheated out of Academy Awards, and as if Berry were not the daughter of a white woman. (There is no evidence that Lena Horne had any acting talent; Dorothy Dandridge, Diahann Carroll, and Angela Bassett were nominated for Oscars for powerful performances, but none of them deserved to win; and about Smith, the less said the better.)

And we will surely hear from yet more pampered black multimillionaires, as we have heard in recent years from Delroy Lindo and Cuba Gooding Jr., of how they suffer from racism in the entertainment industry. A few years ago, current best actor nominee Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda) also spoke vaguely of ill treatment he had suffered while working in TV. That ill treatment consisted of producer David E. Kelley giving Cheadle, then an unknown actor, a featured role on the most honored drama on network TV, Picket Fences. We should all suffer such indignity. Give Denzel Washington credit for mocking such absurdity at Berry’s Oscar show.

Racist black propagandists, such as Esther Iverem, have raged against white Academy voters for not automatically discriminating against white Oscar nominees, and voting as a bloc for black nominees. (I kid you not, and guarantee you that in Iverem’s fantasy world, she is an anti-racist.)

The Rage of a Privileged Class

In 1993, HarperCollins published The Rage of a Privileged Class, by journalist Ellis Cose, on the anger members of the black upper-middle class feel over perceived slights. (One black lawyer at a big firm told Cose that he does some client outreach to “protect” himself, as if that were extra work. As George Gilder observed — and I missed — client outreach is central to the man’s job! The lawyer thought that when he fulfilled his basic professional obligations, he was doing his firm a favor, as opposed to merely coming to the office, drinking coffee all day, and calling his wife to tell her how much he suffered under racism.) The title of Cose’s book, which given the reality should have been sardonic, was meant in deadly earnest.

If you were under a certain age and didn’t know any better, to hear today’s spoiled black movie stars — most of whom grew up middle and upper-middle class and have probably never even heard of James Edwards — moan about how hard their lives are, you’d be tempted to scoff at the idea that blacks ever suffered under racism in Hollywood. If anything, black Hollywood performers today are rewarded for the crassest racism. Jada Pinkett Smith announces to the world that she is better looking than any white woman. Spike Lee glories in his racism in his movies, his public pronouncements, and even in his behavior towards whites on the street. (If white racism were a problem in New York, Lee would have to constantly get new sets of dentures.) Charles Dutton, who previously had no directorial experience, gets a TV directing job based on the color of his skin, makes a point of insulting the white members of his crew the first day, when they go to greet him, and demands that white crewmen be replaced (which they were), at great expense, with black crewmen who are flown in from all over the country. Come to think of it, such conduct was not only racist, but criminal.

The rage of a privileged class is an instance of what I call Heller’s Law, after the German socialist political theorist Hermann Heller (1884-1934). Heller showed that the complaints of injustice trumpeted by a society’s establishment media tend to stand in direct contradiction to reality.


James Edwards and Jeff Corey, in Home of the Brave

The Bad, Old Days

But once upon a time, blacks did suffer terribly under racism in Hollywood, just as they did in much of American society (while the establishment press of the day, with rare exceptions, tended to be silent).

Who was James Edwards? A grandiose way of putting it, is that James Edwards died for the sins of the Delroy Lindos, Cuba Gooding Juniors, and Don Cheadles. Edwards died so that they could earn millions per year, and be able to complain without fear of reprisal, about how hard their lives are.


Edwards off-duty, circa 1949

Born in Muncie, Indiana in 1918, at the height of Jim Crow, James Edwards never seriously thought of a career in the movies until he was in an Army hospital contemplating his future during World War II. His face had been blown off in an accident, but Army plastic surgeons performed miraculous work, and left the post-op Edwards looking like a matinee idol. (I’ve never seen pictures of his pre-war face.)

After the war, Edwards headed for Hollywood.

Before the war, most movie roles for black men were demeaning and dumb, most famously the servant roles played by Stepin Fetchit.

(For a contrarian view, consider the observations by pathbreaking black athlete and actor Woody Strode (1914-1994), in his autobiography (as told to Sam Young), Goal Dust. “I remember when I was in Las Vegas [in 1965] making The Professionals for Columbia Pictures about the time Floyd Patterson was fighting Muhammad Ali. The black actors were criticizing Stepin’ Fetchit. He was one of our greatest comedians and the first black actor to get star billing. I took a stand for him. I said, ‘If it hadn’t been for Stepin’ Fetchit, I wouldn’t be here. Somebody had to start it.’ “They’re going to do his story some day and all this history will come out. John Ford loved the guy; so did Will Rogers. In fact, John Ford directed a couple of pictures in which Will and Step shared top billing. As a child [in Los Angeles], the only black movie star I had ever heard of was Stepin’ Fetchit. He made two million dollars during the 1930s. He owned sixteen cars. I saw him when I was a kid; he was driving a pink convertible Rolls Royce.”)


Woody Strode, as Sergeant Rutledge (1960)

Trading in Old Stereotypes for New

But after the war, there was a new wind blowing, and a new breed of liberal, white moviemaker — men like director Mark Robson and producer (later producer-director) Stanley Kramer — looking to portray black men with a dignity unlike what so many pre-war roles had afforded them. The downside of this development was that black men went from often playing inept, lazy idiots to playing noble victims in didactic social problem movies, which competed for the Writers’ Guild of America’s Robert Meltzer Award for a Screenplay Dealing Most Ably with Problems of the American Scene. I kid you not.

Edwards’ first role was a small one, as a prizefighter in Robert Wise’s classic story of a fixed fight and its aftermath, The Set-Up (1949). But it was later that same year, in Home of the Brave (produced by Kramer and directed by Robson), as a black soldier who suffers from the racism of his comrades-in-arms, where Edwards made his mark.

Note that Edwards gave his breakthrough performance in Home of the Brave nine years before Sidney Poitier would get the role of “Noah Cullen” in Stanley Kramer’s The Defiant Ones, that would make Poitier a star. Unfortunately, in the mid-1960s, as Poitier was rising to become the world’s number one box office star, he went in the opposite direction of Edwards. Poitier quit being an artist, and focused instead on being a cinematic role model.

In 1951, Edwards appeared as a corporal in Sam Fuller’s Korean War story, The Steel Helmet, and as “Joe Morgan,” who befriends “Larry Nevins” (Arthur Kennedy) in a veterans’ hospital, in Bright Victory. Larry, who is blind, doesn’t know that Joe is black. One of the most dramatic moments in cinematic history comes when Larry causally says the “n”-word in Joe’s presence.


Edwards in The Steel Helmet (1951)

Edwards next played the ne’er-do-well brother, “Honey,” of Ethel Waters’ “Bernice Sadie Brown,” in Fred Zinnemann’s The Member of the Wedding (1952; also produced by Kramer). Edwards’ desperate Honey was moving, but overshadowed by the towering Waters, who should have won the Oscar for best supporting actress, but was not even nominated. (Halle Berry either never heard of Ethel Waters, or Waters wasn’t pretty enough or skinny enough to count as a victim in Berry’s little world.)

In 1954, Edwards played an uncredited bit role in The Caine Mutiny (also produced by Kramer), as a mess “boy” in a scene at the center of Captain Queeg’s paranoid “strawberries” delusion. Such tiny roles were too much a part of the resume of a man as gifted as Edwards, yet he never sleepwalked through them. Any time I see him pop up in a movie, if only for a moment, I am immediately aware that I am watching Edwards, who will get whatever he can out of the scene, often through restraint.


James Edwards, possibly in The Caine Mutiny (1954)

A few weeks ago, I was watching Don Siegel’s movie, Coogan’s Bluff (1968) on TV. As Clint Eastwood’s fish-out-of-water Arizona deputy sheriff, “Coogan,” is walking up the stairs in a New York apartment building, he comes across an apparent junkie — Edwards! Edwards’ “junkie” was actually an undercover detective. Edwards was on screen only for about a minute, and had only a couple of lines, yet he was effective.

Although James Edwards made at most only 28 pictures, most were distinguished, and quite a few were classics: The Set-Up, Bright Victory, The Member of the Wedding, The Caine Mutiny, The Killing, The Manchurian Candidate, Patton. (It is not clear whether Edwards or another actor using the same name performed in the last, obscure picture credited to him, Legend of the Northwest, which was released eight years after his death.) He also performed in dozens of episodes of TV series.

Ironically, the name “James Edwards” is best known as that of the character Will Smith played in Men in Black. Smith, who is known to be extremely bright and well-read (and not shy about it), would certainly have known who the real James Edwards was.

Patton (1970), in which Edwards gave a dignified performance as the general’s (George C. Scott’s) personal valet, Sgt. William Meeks, came out months after Edwards’ death, on January 4, 1970, from a massive heart attack. He was only 51 years old. Patton, which won seven Oscars, would surely have rejuvenated Edwards’ career.


James Edwards as the very real Sgt. William Meeks, with George C. Scott, in Patton (1970); "sic transit gloria"

Woody Strode said that, in reaction to James Edwards’ trials and tribulations, in his acting career, he made a point of not trying to become an artist. Strode presented an ironic parallel contrasting Edwards’ celluloid life in Home of the Brave, and his real life in Hollywood.

(Strode was a world-class track and field man and a football star at UCLA who, with his old UCLA teammate, Kenny Washington, (re-)integrated the NFL in 1946. Strode later played on Canadian Football League Grey Cup championship teams. After retiring from football, he was a popular professional wrestler, eventually landed in Hollywood, and made pictures for directors like John Ford who liked physical actors who could do their own riding and stunts.

Strode’s most famous roles were in Spartacus (1960), Two Rode Together (1961), The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962), The Professionals (1966), and as the lead in Sergeant Rutledge (1960).)
A black actor named Jimmy Edwards also worked out of [Strode’s agent] Sid Gold’s office. Jimmy was famous for a Stanley Kramer film called Home of the Brave. You’ve got to see that one, it’s a classic.

Home of the Brave came out in 1949. It’s about segregation in the Army during the second world war. Jimmy played the lead, a black soldier who gets more abuse from his own men than he gets from the enemy, but by the end of the picture we learn he’s an equal. Well, that was probably the finest job that had been done by a black actor in the motion pictures.

Home of the Brave was the highlight of Jimmy Edwards’ movie career. There wasn’t much for him after that, and it broke his heart. He drank heavily, couldn’t control it, and died of a massive heart attack. He got lulled to sleep by Hollywood because he thought he was an equal. He was a nice-looking black, dark, handsome and a great actor. He was a stage actor, although I don’t know much about that part of his career. He found out color was the whole thing. I had a personal relationship with Jimmy, and he warned me about becoming involved socially in Hollywood. He told me, ‘Woody, you’ll never be white. Don’t try to become part of their society.’
When Strode’s agent suggested he take acting classes, Strode responded, “‘Look at the black actors. They’re starving to death. I’m not going to school to study, become an artist, and then fall apart.’ I never tried to take acting too seriously.”

Circa 1958, Edwards landed a role in Lewis Milestone’s (All Quiet on the Western Front) Korean War picture, Pork Chop Hill. He talked Strode into trying out for another role in the picture, coached him so that he won the audition (Edwards’ chief tips to Strode were to underplay the reading, and to avoid observing or listening to his competitors’ auditions), and when Strode got the role, Edwards coached him through the entire performance, at times from the sidelines with the cameras running. Strode’s career took off after that, and during the 1960s, he was much better known than Edwards was. But without Edwards’ help, today we might not even know who Woody Strode was.

Without Edwards, Stanley Kramer might still have made Home of the Brave, but it wouldn’t have been as memorable.

Without Edwards around to coach Woody Strode, Strode would not have gotten his role in Spartacus. That film still would have been made — its star and producer, Kirk Douglas, was not to be denied — but it wouldn’t have been as powerful. And without Edwards, Sergeant Rutledge would not have been made at all, and that would have been a crying shame.

John “Papa” Ford made Rutledge with Strode in mind, with whom he would develop a surrogate father-son relationship. (I don’t know what was worse — having Ford for a real father or as a surrogate!) That powerful yet anomalous movie was the first to tell the story of the black “buffalo soldiers” in the cavalry following the Civil War, and was the most honest movie ever made about the race relations of the time. And yet, although it could not have been made prior to World War II, it had a wonderfully throwback, pre-Civil Rights sensibility to it, due to its having been made by a man who was then 64 years old.

Without James Edwards’ performance in Home of the Brave, Stanley Kramer might never have made The Defiant Ones. The Defiant Ones was based on an original screenplay by Nedrick Young and Harold Jacob Smith. But without Edwards’ example, one wonders if Kramer would have commissioned Young and Smith’s screenplay at the time, if ever.

Kramer had repeatedly hired Edwards on his previous films: Home of the Brave, The Member of the Wedding, and The Caine Mutiny. Heck, Edwards was the only black actor with whom Kramer had any history. And so, when Kramer imagined a black actor in the role of “Noah Cullen,” whom could he have pictured but Edwards? I suspect that Edwards’ drinking may have cost him the role.

And though Sidney Poitier was then a rising, dynamic, young actor, he was no movie star. The Defiant Ones was the key to his career. Without The Defiant Ones, Poitier would still have had a relatively successful career, but he would not have enjoyed anything like the fame and adulation that came to him, and likely would not have starred in The Lilies of the Fields (1963), for which he won his best actor Oscar.

And Sidney Poitier “begat” Denzel Washington.

One can debate whether James Edwards had that elusive quality that makes a man not only an excellent actor, but a movie star. Hyperbole calls it “charisma;” I prefer “magnetism.” But no one familiar with postwar movies can debate Edwards’ pivotal role in their history.

And so, when you watch Jamie Foxx and Morgan Freeman give their acceptance speeches on February 27, raise a glass to James Edwards, one of the men who made those Oscars possible.



Anonymous said...

I remember James Edwards for "Men in War" and "Pork Chop Hill." In the latter, he tells Woody Strode's character, "I've got a personal interest in everything you do."

David From TN

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 at 11:43:00 AM EDT


Buffalo Soldier 9

Keep telling that history:

Read the novel, Rescue at Pine Ridge, "RaPR", where Buffalo Bill Cody meets a Buffalo Soldier. A great story of black military history...the first generation of Buffalo Soldiers.

How do you keep a people down? ‘Never' let them 'know' their history.

The 7th Cavalry got their butts in a sling again after the Little Big Horn Massacre, fourteen years later, the day after the Wounded Knee Massacre. If it wasn't for the 9th Cavalry Buffalo Soldiers, there would of been a second massacre of the 7th Cavalry.

Read the novel, “Rescue at Pine Ridge”, 5 stars Amazon, Barnes & Noble and the youtube trailer commercial...and visit the website

I hope you’ll enjoy the novel. I wrote it from my mini-series movie of the same title, “RaPR” to keep my story alive. Hollywood has had a lot of strikes and doesn't like telling our stories...its been “his-story” of history all along…until now. The movie so far has attached, Bill Duke directing, Hill Harper, Glynn Turman and a host of other major actors in which we are in talks with…see at;

When you get a chance, also please visit our Alpha Wolf Production website at; and see our other productions, like Stagecoach Mary, the first Black Woman to deliver mail for Wells Fargo in Montana, in the 1890's, “spread the word”.


Saturday, May 8, 2010 at 2:46:00 AM EDT

Friday, February 12, 2016

WSJ Open Borders Lobbyist Daniel Henninger Wants Candidates to Refuse to Answer Questions on Immigration

By Nicholas Stix


The Myth of George Washington Carver: A Black History Month Moment



Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

How Legends are Created: The Counterfeit Glory of George Washington Carver

There was affirmative action long before it had a name.

by Marian Evans

The discovery and promotion of black “role models” is now an important industry. It lifts long-dead cowboys, inventors, and ship captains from obscurity and presents them as significant figures ignored by racist white society. It accounts for why so many unknown blacks suddenly appear on postage stamps or in black-history-month displays.

George Washington Carver

George Washington Carver is very much the reverse. He was a legend in his own time, as the man who brought modern agriculture to the South and who discovered hundreds of ingenious new uses for the peanut. Along with people like Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. DuBois, he is a central figure in the history of black achievement, but his fame is absurdly out of proportion to his meager accomplishments. How did a good and engaging but unremarkable man win a reputation as a brilliant scientist long before affirmative action? His story, like that of Martin Luther King’s plagiarism (see book review, p. 5), says more about white people than about the man himself.

Traded For a Horse

Carver was born in Missouri during the last years of slavery, probably in 1864. An important part of the Carver myth is the dramatic story of his abduction when he was no more than six months old. “Night riders” made off with him and his mother with the intention of selling them in the deep South. Their owner, Moses Carver, did everything within his power to get the mother and child back, but managed to have only the child returned — in exchange for a horse. Biographers would later call it “the most valuable horse in American history.”

After emancipation, his owners kept him as a foster child and did their best to educate him. Through persistence and despite hardships, Carver earned bachelors and masters degrees in agriculture, and in 1896 was hired by Booker T. Washington at the Tuskegee Institute. He spent his entire career at Tuskegee and it was there that he built his reputation as the great peanut genius.

According to the official story, Carver quickly turned the loss-making farm at the Tuskegee Experiment Station into a money-maker and set about instructing Southerners in modern agricultural methods that transformed the region. His first known involvement with peanuts was in 1903, and his first serious effort to promote their cultivation was a 1916 bulletin called How to Grow the Peanut and 105 Ways of Preparing It for Human Consumption.

According to the myth, it was Carver who, almost single-handedly, introduced crop rotation to the monoculture South and it was his substitution of peanuts for cotton that saved the region from the boll weevil. Then, appalled that he had promoted peanuts to the point of overproduction and falling prices, he rushed into the laboratory and invented hundreds of profitable new ways to use the crop. As we shall see, the truth is quite different.

Carver was, nevertheless, an enthusiastic spokesman for the peanut, and in 1920, the United Peanut Association of America invited him to address its convention. This was a calculated public relations measure by the newly-formed association. There was news value in having a black man address its convention and in Carver’s entertaining claims for 145 different, practical uses for the peanut.

The association, which was lobbying Congress for a protective tariff, then sent Carver to Washington to present the peanut to the House Ways and Means Committee. Some of the legislators treated him with amused condescension, but by showing them samples of peanut soap, peanut face cream, peanut paint and a host of other improbable products, he held their attention for nearly two hours — far longer than the 10 minutes originally allotted him. This appearance was widely reported and was an important step towards fame.

Carver became a favorite on the exhibit and lecture circuit, and his laboratory was opened to admiring visitors from all around the world. The number of peanut products continued to grow, with a final tally of something around three hundred. The wizard turned his attention to other lowly plants and reported over 150 uses for the sweet potato. He reportedly made synthetic marble from wood shavings and paint from cow dung. By the 1930s, he was the legendary “Mr. Peanut,” and admiring articles appeared about him everywhere. An early issue of Life magazine published photographs of the great man.

Carver’s death in 1943 prompted countless newspaper eulogies. President Franklin Roosevelt’s statement on the occasion — “The world of science has lost one of its most eminent figures …” — was typical of public pronouncements across the nation. Senator Harry Truman introduced a bill to make Carver’s birthplace a national monument. It passed without a single dissenting vote, making Carver only the third American to be so honored, along with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. A new star had joined the American firmament.

The Real Record

What were Carver’s real achievements? The mainstays of his fame are easily unstrung. First of all, he was unable to make the Experiment Station farm profitable. He was interested in laboratory work, not administration, and had no talent for scheduling and overseeing the black students who worked the farm. His boss, Booker T. Washington, upbraided him for his failure to make the farm pay and pointed out that Carver did not even practice the sensible agricultural methods he preached to others.

Far more important is the question of his influence on peanut production. National production records show that the crop doubled from 19.5 million bushels to over 40 million bushels from 1909 to 1916, a rise that the Department of Agriculture called “one of the striking developments that have taken place in the agriculture of the South.” However, the increase took place before the publication of Carver’s first peanut tract, How to Grow … arid 105 Ways … and before he seriously promoted the crop.

During the 1920s, when Carver was enthusiastically boosting the peanut, national production actually fell. In Alabama, the state in which Carver worked, the 1917 peak was not reached again until the mid-1930s — and with little help from Macon County where Tuskegee is located. Carver himself noted sadly in 1933, that few peanuts were grown on the farms nearest to and most easily influenced by the institute. It is undoubtedly true that his peanut evangelism persuaded some to grow the crop, but his influence was by no means decisive.

What of the miraculous products Carver derived from the peanut? In 1974, the posthumously established Carver Museum at the Tuskegee Institute listed 287 peanut products, but much duplication inflates the figure. Bar candy, chocolate-coated peanuts, and peanut-chocolate fudge are listed as separate items, as are face cream, face lotion, and all-purpose cream. No fewer than 66 of the 287 products are dyes — 30 for cloth, 19 for leather and 17 for wood.

Many of the products were obviously not invented or discovered by Carver — “salted peanuts” are on the list — and the efficacy of many, including a “face bleach and tan remover” cannot be guaranteed or even tested. Astonishingly enough, Carver did not record the formulas for his products, so it is impossible to reproduce or evaluate them.


Although the popular understanding about Carver is that he launched whole industries that ran on peanuts, scarcely any of his products were ever marketed, and his commercial and scientific legacy amounts to practically nothing. He was granted only one peanut patent — for a cosmetic containing peanut oil — but this slim achievement was interpreted as pure generosity. “As each by-product was perfected,” wrote one admirer in 1932, “he gave it freely to the world, asking only that it be used for the benefit of mankind.”

Little benefit ensued because he never explained how to make the things he claimed to have discovered. In 1923, for example, Carver announced “peanut nitroglycerin” in a article called “What is a Peanut?”, published in Peanut Journal. He cheerfully reported that “This industry is practically new but shows great promise of expansion;” in fact, there was no peanut nitroglycerin industry and never would be. It is impossible to confirm if there was ever even any peanut nitroglycerin.

Other promising products were announced in articles with titles like “The Peanut’s Place in Everyday Life,” “Dawning of a New Day for the Peanut,” and “The Peanut Possesses Unbelievable Possibilities in Sickness and Health.” These possibilities remained largely as he characterized them: unbelievable.

Carver’s methods can be attributed, in part, to his gifted laboratory assistant. He recounted to many audiences how he turned to God in the despair of learning that farmers, following his advice, had produced a peanut glut:

“‘Oh, Mr. Creator,’ I asked, ‘why did you make this universe?’“And the Creator answered me, ‘You want to know too much for that little mind of yours,’ He said.
“So I said, ‘Dear Mr. Creator, tell me what man was made for.’

“Again He spoke to me: ‘Little man, you are still asking for more than you can handle. Cut down the extent of your request and improve the intent.’

“And then I asked my last question. ‘Mr. Creator, why did You make the peanut?’

“‘That’s better!’ the Lord said, and He gave me a handful of peanuts and went with me back to the laboratory and, together, we got down to work.”

On at least one occasion, Carver told a church audience that he never needed to consult books when he did his scientific work; he relied exclusively on divine revelation.

An Appealing Old Wizard

Upon close examination, therefore, “the Wizard of Tuskegee” resembles a different wizard of stage and movie fame. How did he become, as Reader’s Digest put it in 1965, “a scientist of undisputed genius”?

His appealing personal qualities certainly helped. He was genuinely uninterested in money, and refused to accept a pay raise during his entire 46 years at Tuskegee. When a group of Florida peanut growers sent him a check for diagnosing a peanut disease, he returned it, saying, “As the good Lord charged nothing to grow your peanuts I do not think it fitting of me to charge anything for curing them.”

He was also a black man segregationists could love. He was unmarried and celibate, apolitical, and always deferential. He really did “shuffle” and “shamble” wherever he went, and journalists enjoyed saying so.

A 1937 Reader’s Digest article written at the height of his fame begins with these words:

“A stooped old Negro, carrying an armful of wild flowers, shuffled along through the dust of an Alabama road … I had seen hundreds like him. Totally ignorant, unable to read and write, they shamble along Southern roads in search of odd jobs. Fantastic as it seemed, this shabbily clad old man was none other than the distinguished Negro scientist of the Tuskegee Institute …”

In 1923, the Atlanta Journal wrote happily of Carver that “He combines all the picturesque quaintness of the ante-bellum type of darkey [with] … the mind of an amazing scientific genius …”


Even after he became famous, Carver never attempted to cross the color bar, even declining invitations to eat with whites. After the death of the equally accommodating Booker T. Washington in 1915, Carver took his place as the nation’s foremost docile but achieving Negro.

There is also no doubt that Carver himself helped inflate his reputation. He did not explicitly claim to have invented all the products he spoke of, but he glossed over the difference between invention and list-making in a way that can only have been deliberate. When given an opportunity to correct exaggerated claims on his behalf, he did so in humorously humble ways that no one took seriously. On taking the podium, he might say, “I always look forward to introductions about me as good opportunities to learn a lot about myself that I never knew before.” To an author who had written of him favorably, he wrote, “How I wish I could measure up to half of the fine things this article would have me be.”

When asked for details about his inventions, he might reply, “I do dislike to talk about what little I have been able, though Divine guidance, to accomplish.” George Imes, who served for many years on the Tuskegee faculty with Carver, later wrote of his “enigmatic replies” to queries from scientists. To a writer who asked in 1936 for material on the practical applications of his discoveries, Carver replied that he simply could not keep up with them.

Of course, there always were people who knew that the reputation was a soap bubble, but they kept quiet. In 1937, the Department of Agriculture replied thus to a request for confirmation of Carver’s achievements:

“Dr. Carver has without doubt done some very interesting things — things that were new to some of the people with whom he was associated, but a great many of them, if I am correctly informed, were not new to other people … I am unable to determine just what profitable application has been made of any of his so-called discoveries. I am writing this to you confidentially… and would not wish to be quoted on the subject.”

In 1962, the National Park Service commissioned a study of Carver’s scientific achievements in order to best represent them at the George Washington Carver National Monument. Two professors at the University of Missouri turned in such an unflattering report that the Park Service’s letter of transmittal recommended that it not be circulated:

“While Professors Carroll and Muhrer are very careful to emphasize Carver’s excellent qualities, their realistic appraisal of his “scientific contributions,’ which loom so large in the Carver legend, is information which must be handled very carefully … Our present thinking is that the report should not be published, at least in its present form, simply to avoid any possible misunderstanding.”

By the 1950s, a few realistic appraisals of Carver’s career had appeared in print, and the 1953 edition of the 1700-page Webster’s Biographical Dictionary has no entry for him at all. Naturally, he has been rehabilitated in subsequent editions, and at a time when virtually any black of modest attainments is fair game as a “role model,” Carver’s chances of resting in peaceful obscurity are slim to none.

From today’s perspective, one of the most significant aspects of the Carver legend is that it grew to giant proportions in a segregated America that had never dreamed of quotas or busing and in which virtually no one believed blacks to be the intellectual equals of whites. It is instructive — and sobering — to realize that even then the affirmative action impulse was at work in the minds of whites.

The single best sounce for material on the Carver legend is “George Washington Carver. The Making of a Myth,” which appeared in The Journal of Southern History, November 1976 It contains excellent bibliographic material and was an important source for this article.

Why are Most Academics Miserable?

By Nicholas Stix

95. Academics are unhappy
September 21, 2015
100 Reasons NOT to Go to Graduate School
You know that today's graduate students are unhappy when the Wall Street Journal can refer (and not entirely facetiously) to the world's best-positioned graduate students as Harvard's Les Miserables. If the discontent experienced in graduate school were only a temporary condition to be endured on a path to a better life, then it might not be so bad. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of unhappiness among those who make it all the way through graduate school, and not just among the thousands of PhDs living on welfare (see Reason 83), or the thousands burdened by crushing debt, or the thousands working as barely paid adjuncts (see Reason 14). (The plight of adjuncts has turned so tragically absurd that it's now fodder for the Sunday comics.) There are also, of course, those who have suffered through the devastating humiliation of being denied tenure.

And then there are those for whom everything worked out. Yes, a great many academics who not only found tenure-track jobs (see Reason 8) but managed to survive the long road to tenure (see Reason 71) are surprisingly miserable. For some, their unhappiness began as soon as they were tenured; the Chronicle of Higher Education has covered the phenomenon of post-tenure depression on more than one occasion. For others, an unshakable sadness took hold much earlier in their careers. The culture of fear (see Reason 76) that pervades academe ensures that the deep unhappiness felt by so many academics is rarely discussed openly. [The “culture of fear,” to which the anonymous author refers is not what readers will expect it to be.] More often than not, it takes an observer working outside of academe to bring the subject to light.

The miseries of academic life are on full display, however, in fictional depictions of the university. Over the decades, those depictions have grown darker. Edward Albee's 1962 play "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" put academic torments on the stage. Countless novels put those torments on the page. As most academic fiction is written by academics, it is worth considering the source. In fiction, academics have found a way to describe their professional environment without jeopardizing their jobs. In
Faculty Towers, Elaine Showalter notes that since the 1970s professors portrayed in academic novels have "become more and more grotesque figures, full of self-doubt and self-hatred." Why is this so?...

[Read the rest here.]
That most academics are miserable is an exceedingly odd fact, if a fact it is. That normal, patriotic, white men slaving away as adjuncts (and on the rarest of occasions, professors), and being harassed by racist, sexist students, colleagues, staffers and administrators should be miserable makes perfect sense. However, that demographic has largely been purged, and now probably accounts for less than 10% of those on academic payrolls.

The remaining 90% of academic check-cashers should be as happy as human beings can be. After all, they get to spend their professional lives expressing, promoting, and acting with hatred. And yet, they claim to be miserable.

Many are simply lying.

Others may have deluded themselves, like a salesman who sells himself a bill of goods, that the lies they constantly spout of their “oppression” are true.

Some readers will counter, “If you feel miserable, you are miserable, and no one has the right to question or challenge your feelings.”

Au contraire. A privileged person has no right to lie about his existence, and expect others to believe him.

If one’s feelings of “misery,” “pain,” etc., have no basis in reality, the person claiming them is either insane, and needs to be put in a strait-jacket, or some sort of a fraud—a hypochondriac, a malingerer, a liar.

The antiversity is full of privileged black supremacists, feminists, reconquistas, militant homosexualists and racial socialists, none of whom has the right to claim to be “miserable,” “oppressed,” what-have-you, as far as his academic existence is concerned. These are the same people who produce fraudulent “research,” and who support, and even engineer “hate crime” hoaxes assembly-line-style: Noose hoaxers; Black Lives Matter; Campus Rape Hoaxers such as Crystal Gail Mangum, Jackie Coakley, Emma Sulkowicz, et al. They are deeply wicked, and even evil people.

If one feels compassion for those who deserve none, one will then withhold compassion from those who deserve it. Nobody has an unlimited reservoir of compassion, and those who claim the loudest to be full of it, are… full of it.

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Washington D.C. Lawmakers Find a New Way to Subsidize Muggers

By Nicholas Stix

This—bribing criminals not to commit crimes—is not only utterly depraved in theory, it will be completely unproductive in practice. The muggers will take the money, and continue mugging people.

It is, however, constituent with socialist/communist talking points, to which increasing numbers of Republicans have submitted. If criminals’ only problem is poverty, then it can be solved by simply giving them more money.

Never mind that it’s never worked that way, or that we’re already giving these people massive sums in welfare: TANF (“welfare”) money, social security disability, “free” food stamps, “free” health care, “free” schools, free cell phones, three free school meals per day (yes, even dinner!), “free” social workers, “free” summer jobs for youth… The list is endless, as are the demands.

As always, the causality is reversed. Lower-class, black and Hispanic criminals aren’t criminals because they’re poor, they’re “poor” because they’re criminals. Except that they’re not poor. When you total up all the welfare they receive, plus the proceeds of their crimes, they have considerably higher incomes than law-abiding members of the working class. That the criminals are perpetually broke is because they blow everything they get their hands on, on drugs/booze/whatever.

It was the “civil rights”/welfare (bribe) revolution that led to the crime revolution.

For the can’t-make-this-up file, Washington D.C. lawmakers unanimously approved a bill that would start a pilot program to pay residents not to commit crimes.

At Ex-Army Libertarian Nationalist.

In a Huge Victory for Obama’s War on Cops, Chinese NYC Policeman Peter Liang Convicted of Manslaughter for Accidental Killing of Black in Housing Project Stairwell; Judge Forbade Anyone from Mentioning Shooting, During Trial, of NYC Cops Patrick Espeut and Diara Cruz in Housing Project Stairwell by Hispanic Suicide Shooter

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

I just Google for the name of the Hispanic suicide shooter who wounded NYPD Officers Patrick Espeut and Diara Cruz, but it has magically disappeared from the Web.

NYC officer convicted of manslaughter in stairwell shooting
By Gordon Bassham
February 11, 2016 at 6:48 p.m. CST

NEW YORK (AP) — A rookie police officer who shot an unarmed man [!] dead in a darkened public housing stairwell was convicted Thursday of manslaughter in a case closely watched by advocates for police accountability.

The courtroom audience gasped and Officer Peter Liang, who had broken into tears as he testified about the 2014 shooting of Akai Gurley, buried his head in his hands as the verdict came after 17 hours of jury deliberations.

The manslaughter charge carries up to 15 years in prison. Liang's sentencing is set for April 14.

The shooting happened in a year of debate nationwide about police killings of black men, and activists have looked to Liang's trial as a counterweight to cases in which grand juries have declined to indict officers, including the cases of Michael Brown in Missouri and Eric Garner in New York. Like Gurley, Brown and Garner were black and unarmed.

[That’s a lie. Mike Brown certainly was armed—his 6’4,” 292 lb. body was a weapon, and he tried to grab Officer Darren Wilson’s service weapon, even leaving his DNA on the weapon, in an attempt to murder him. The 6’3” Eric Garner was even fatter than Brown—he was listed as 350 lbs., but looked more like 400 lbs. to me. Besides which, since Garner was resisting arrest, died of a heart condition, and police used no weapons on him whatsoever, AP operative Gordon Bassham is being extremely deceptive, in implying that NYPD cops shot a passive, harmless, black man dead.]

Meanwhile, supporters of Liang, who is Chinese-American, have said he has been made a scapegoat for past injustices.

[And they’re right, except for the “injustices” part.]

Liang was patrolling in the public housing in Brooklyn with his gun drawn when he fired; he said a sound startled him. The bullet ricocheted off a wall and hit the 28-year-old Gurley on a lower floor.

Prosecutors said Liang handled his gun recklessly, must have realized from the noise that someone was nearby and did almost nothing to help Gurley.

"Instead of shining a light, he pointed his gun and shot Akai Gurley," Brooklyn Assistant District Attorney Joe Alexis said in his closing argument.

But the defense said the shooting was an accident, not a crime.

[Here, Bassham is lying by omission, insinuating that Liang was being reckless in patrolling with his gun drawn. Black supremacists such as Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, when he was an NYPD lieutenant, have played the same game with white cops, who patrolled housing project stairwells and roofs with their guns drawn. New York City cops are specifically permitted by the NYPD Patrol Guide to have their guns drawn in such places.]

The 28-year-old Liang said he had been holding his weapon safely, with his finger on the side and not the trigger, when the sudden sound jarred him and his body tensed.

"I just turned, and the gun went off," he testified.

He said he initially looked with his flashlight, saw no one and didn't immediately report the shot, instead quarreling with his partner about who would call their sergeant. Liang thought he might get fired.

But then, he said, he went to look for the bullet, heard cries and found the wounded Gurley, with his weeping girlfriend trying to tend to him.

Liang then radioed for an ambulance, but he acknowledged not helping Gurley's girlfriend try to revive him. Liang explained he thought it was wiser to wait for professional medical aid.

"I was panicking. I was shocked and in disbelief that someone was hit," said Liang, who said he was so overcome that he needed oxygen as he was taken to a hospital for ringing in his ears.

While Liang's trial unfolded, two other New York police officers, Patrick Espeut and Diara Cruz, were shot and wounded during a similar stairwell patrol in a different public housing complex. The gunman later killed himself.

The judge barred any mention of those shootings in Liang's trial.

Is that the National Broadcasting Company, or the Negro Broadcasting Company?


NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt

By An Anonymous Reader

[Re: “New Frontiers in Newspeak: NYPD Says Mass Murder Suspect Michael Sykes is Wanted ‘Regarding’ ‘stabbing death of a woman & 2 children,’ Rather than ‘Wanted for [or in] the Stabbing Murders of a Woman and 2 Children.’”]

Right... “person of interest”


NBC News weatherman Al Roker

In other b.s. on the Negro Nightly News...We start off with Lester Holt introducing another anti-Trump story... followed by fellow black Al Roker talking about winter storm crisis #40, and then fellow black Rehema Ellis on mosquitoes and the disease of the month. I haven’t seen a white person yet. Don’t they believe in token white hiring at The Negro Broadcasting Company?

NBC News chief education correspondent Rehema Ellis

Ron Mott, another black, is on deck with something. I tuned out.

Any possible reason for all these blacks on one news show?


NBC News reporter Ron Mott

N.S.: When Lester Holt was named the disgraced Brian Williams’ “interim replacement” at NBC News, it was obvious that Holt was a permanent replacement, and I was happy for him. Holt was the hardest working man in broadcast news, on air at all hours of the day and night, on all sorts of different NBC News properties as a weekend anchor and fill-in man. However, the usual has since happened. Put a black in charge, and the organization gets blackified.

Was the “Obama” Effect at work, or was the John Doe calling himself “Barack Hussein Obama” unnecessary? Although the disappearing of white men has been underway for over 50 years, the “Obama” Effect radically accelerates everything, through emboldening black supremacists and their white allies.

New Frontiers in Newspeak: NYPD Says Mass Murder Suspect Michael Sykes is Wanted “Regarding” “stabbing death of a woman & 2 children,” Rather than “Wanted for [or in] the Stabbing Murders of a Woman and 2 Children”

We’re in a “Golden Age of Surveillance,” in Which Big Brother Will Spy on Law-Abiding Americans Using Their Own Devices and Household Appliances



“James Clapper, director of national intelligence, heads up 16 federal spy agencies”

By A Longtime Reader

“The nation’s top intelligence officer admitted Tuesday that the government may use information transmitted to the Internet from your washing machine, your thermostat, your television, your refrigerator or your favorite video game against you.”

I used to work for Coalfire Systems. Coalfire is a cyber security outfit. It's owned in part by Chertoff Associates.

“Joe” was a colleague of mine at Coalfire. He was also an IT auditor. He audited computer networks to ensure that the networks were compliant with various industry security protocols.

Joe had been issued a refurbished Dell Latitude notebook. He used it to perform IT audit work in the field. The computer had a built-in camera at the top of the LCD screen. Joe had affixed a piece of black electrician's tape over the camera. He wanted to ensure that the camera could not be used to view or record him if someone had somehow turned the camera on by remote, unauthorized means. That is, if the computer had been hacked.

Imagine that: An IT auditor who did not trust the security software and hardware embedded in his own computer. And he worked for a firm owned by Michael Chertoff.


Gene Hackman and John Cazale in The Conversation

WND Exclusive
Intel chief: “We might use smart-home devices to spy on you”
Clapper drops bombshell in annual “threat assessment”
By Leo Hohmann
February 10, 2016

The nation’s top intelligence officer admitted Tuesday that the government may use information transmitted to the Internet from your washing machine, your thermostat, your television, your refrigerator or your favorite video game against you.

Almost every home appliance and electronic gadget sold today is outfitted with a computer chip, constantly feeding information about their owners back to utilities, manufacturers and other data networks.

James Clapper, director of national intelligence, in his annual assessment of threats given before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, said the government considers this information fair game against people it suspects of terrorism or other crimes.

The so-called “Internet of things” is providing a bevy of personal information about Americans, many of whom are completely unaware of the dragnet they are tied into.

Smart meters, for instance, measure, in real time, a homeowner’s electricity usage, what appliance or device the usage is coming from, and feed that information to the local utility provider. Many televisions are capable of picking up sound and motion through microphones and motion sensors. Laptop computers have built-in cameras– perfect for spying.

As the Guardian reported, Clapper made clear that the many devices increasingly connected to the Internet are providing ample opportunity for intelligence agencies to spy on targets, and possibly the masses.

“In the future, intelligence services might use the [Internet of things] for identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment, or to gain access to networks or user credentials,” Clapper told the Senate panel.

Americans need to be aware of the Web of surveillance being spun all around them, says privacy advocate Patrick Wood, editor of Technocracy News and Trends and author of “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.”

“Smart Home” devices that exist in major appliances, thermostats, LED light bulbs and security cameras are all targets for spying, Wood says.

“Smart Grid provides WiFi-enabled connectivity to every smart appliance within your home. Every WiFi router and cable modem is also a gateway into private areas.”

In his book “Technocracy Rising,” Wood posits that the David Rockefeller-founded Trilateral Commission is the leading force for building a new way of governing by scientific data collection on every living being and the regulating of all human activity by unelected “technocrats.” This growing “technocracy,” Wood believes, if not checked will ultimately lead to dictatorship.

He noted that Clapper, as director of national intelligence, is head of all 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S., including the NSA.

Wood writes:
“The position was created by President George W. Bush in 2005, and the first appointee to fill the position was Trilateral Commission member John Negroponte. Negroponte architected and re-organized the intelligence community to provide future monitoring for the coming Technocracy.”
The Guardian reported that advances in microchip technology will only increase the security concerns of average consumers in the coming years.
“The so-called Internet of things promises consumers increased convenience – the remotely operated thermostat from Google-owned Nest is a leading example. But as home computing migrates away from the laptop, the tablet and the smartphone, experts warn that the security features on the coming wave of automobiles, dishwashers and alarm systems lag far behind.”
General Motor’s OnStar program, for example, tracks the car’s movement and reports it back to the automaker, which stores it indefinitely. The government could order the company to fork over this information years down the road.

Clapper did not name any specific agency involved in surveillance of home appliances, cars or other devices. But privacy advocates “take as a given” that governments and various private entities will intercept the signals the newly networked devices emit, much as they do with those from cell phones, according to the Guardian report.

Online threats again topped Clapper’s list of “worldwide threats” to the U.S., followed by the evolving threat of low-intensity terrorism. Clapper said violent Sunni Muslims, which he called “violent extremism,” have “more groups, members, and safe havens than at any other point in history.”

FBI “going dark?”

Clapper’s comments contradict a major study released last week by Harvard’s Berkman Center. It concluded that the FBI’s recent claim that it is “going dark” – losing the ability to spy on suspects because of encryption – is largely overblown, mainly because federal agencies have so many more avenues for spying. This echoes comments by many surveillance experts, who have made clear that, rather than “going dark,” we are actually in the “golden age of surveillance,” the guardian reported.

Guardian columnist Trevor Timm points out that privacy advocates have known about the potential for the government to exploit the Internet-connected gadgets for years.

Police are “increasingly serving court orders on companies for data they keep that citizens might not even know they are transmitting,” Timm writes. “Police have already been asking Google-owned company Dropcam for footage from cameras inside people’s homes meant to keep an eye on their kids. Fitbit data has already been used in court against defendants multiple times.

“But the potential for these privacy violations has only recently started reaching millions of homes: Samsung sparked controversy last year after announcing a television that would listen to everything said in the room it’s in and in the fine print literally warned people not to talk about sensitive information in front of it.”

Timm provided a list of devices that serve as all-seeing or all-listening, including several television models, Xbox Kinect and Amazon Echo.

Even a new Barbie doll has the ability to spy on you.

“It listens to Barbie owners to respond but also sends what it hears back to the mothership at Mattel,” Timm explains.

New court ruling ominous

The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in a Feb. 8 ruling that police can spy on Americans’ front doors for 10 weeks without a warrant using a camera mounted to a public utility pole.

That’s what happened to Rocky Houston, who lived with his brother on a farm in rural Tennessee. When federal ATF agents suspected that Houston, who had served time for a prior felony, had possession of a firearm, they directed a utility company to install a camera on its utility pole. No warrant was issued.

“This ruling confirms the fears that we voiced in the wake of United States v. Jones—namely, that the arsenal of surveillance technologies now available to law enforcement do not require government officials to engage in a physical trespass of one’s property in order to engage in a search,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute and author of “Battlefield America: The War on the American People.”

“Obviously, the new era of technology, one that was completely unimaginable to the men who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, requires an updated legal code to enshrine the right to privacy,” Whitehead said. “New technologies which enable the radical expansion of police surveillance operations require correspondingly robust legal frameworks in order to maintain the scope of freedom from authoritarian oversight envisioned by the Framers.”

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

In Mexican City, Almost the Entire City Council was Arrested for Corruption—Only the Mexican City… was in Texas!



By Nicholas Stix


Are You Part of the 83% of Americans Who Say That Government Should Not Give Benefits to Illegal Aliens? (Poster)

Trump Wins New Hampshire GOP Primary with 35.1%, Sanders Wins Dem Primary with 60%; Kasich is a Shocking Second in GOP, with 15.9%, While Rubio Finishes Fifth, with Only 10.6%; Christie, with a Mere 7.5%, is Probably Out; Carly Who? Dr. Who?

By Nicholas Stix

According to the AP, Trump won 10 delegates, and Kasich took 3. Ted Cruz came in third (2 delegates), with 11.6%. Trump owes much of his margin of victory to his nemesis Jeb Bush, who got 11.1% of the vote (and also 2 delegates); and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who came in sixth, with 7.5%; both of whom took away votes from Cruz and Rubio (who, with 10.6%, won no delegates).

Christie badly wounded Rubio during the last debate by pointing out that the latter was robotically repeating himself. Rubio took the blame last night for hurting himself in the debate. CNN’s Jake Tapper drew the wrong moral to the story, saying that when you hurt an opponent “you may also hurt yourself,” but Christie didn’t hurt himself at all. Without his debate attack on Rubio, he might not have broken 5%.

Christie has been dead in the water since before the get-go, and announced that he is cancelling all of his scheduled engagements in South Carolina, while he goes home to New Jersey to take a break, and catch his breath. In other words, to plan his bowing-out party. But he really was done before he ever announced. The Democratic dirty tricks operation of “Bridgegate” had been designed to put the kibosh on Christie’s presidential plans, and it worked splendidly.

Trump was gracious in victory, thanking all of his rivals, and CNN’s talking heads praised his “presidential” manner, but getting praised by CNN is a red flag. As analyst Margaret Hoover noted the other day, whenever Trump gets “presidential,” his popularity falls. He also muffled his tone, politically. He mentioned “the wall,” but only spoke of “ISIS,” rather than Islam. Someone has been whispering “self-censor” in his ear, and he has been listening. Self-censorship will not help Trump.

The MSM had claimed that Rubio was a great debater; so much for that line. They were desperately hoping that the young senator from Florida would take Trump down, so the media were the biggest losers last night. As with Jeb Bush, if Rubio remains in the race, he will only help Trump by taking votes from Ted Cruz.

Carly Fiorina (4.2%) and Dr. Ben Carson (2.3%), on both of whom at various times the MSM pinned their hopes of toppling Trump, are finished. Look for both to bow out of the race before South Carolina. If Carson doesn’t, it’s because he’s trying to squeeze a few million dollars more in fundraising money out of Evangelicals.

In this “losing is winning” primary season, the GOP runner-up, Ohio Gov. John Kasich gave a long, weird speech, as if he had won. He talked and talked and talked, and said nothing. He said we need an America where people care about each other, and where everyone has a job. Call him, the Rev. Kasich.

Keep in mind that John Kasich plans on enacting an amnesty for all illegal aliens on American soil. The MSM, the Open Borders Lobby, and some other observers claim that this number is now only 11 million. In late 2014, veteran financial analyst Robert Justich estimated to me that it was then 21-25 million (which would have increased by over two million since then). I then estimated that the number was around 50 million. But whichever number you believe, it is impossible to improve the job prospects for Americans, if you are amnestying millions of foreign job-thieves, and rolling out the welcome mat for millions more. Thus, Gov. Kasich is running on misleading, feel-good homilies. Still, that religious shtick may serve him well in South Carolina. It’s hard to tell in this wildest of elections since 1992.

Meanwhile, as CNN’s talking heads observed, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders gave such a tired speech that his followers were finishing his sentences. Sanders (13 delegates) beat Hillary Clinton (9 delegates), 60% to 38.4%, with help from independents and New Englanders supporting one of their own. However, if Sanders refuses to start attacking Clinton over Benghazi and her illegal use of a private email server to receive classified, “above top secret” emails, he doesn’t have a Chinaman’s chance of winning.

Play Taps for Mike Gilotti, Yet Another White American Military Hero Who Survived War Abroad, Only to be Slaughtered at Home by Black War Criminals


Mike Gilotti, with sons Russel, left, and Kevin



Alleged war criminals Ahmad Johnson and Charleston Wells have been charged with murdering Mike Gilotti

Does TSA Stand for “Transportation Security Agency,” or for Total Security Abyss? Agency Routinely Fails to Screen Job Applicants for Illegal Aliens, Visa Overstayers, and Criminals, While Protecting Terrorists



By Nicholas Stix


Tuesday, February 09, 2016

Notorious Racist, Black Baseball Free Agent Delmon Young Allegedly Celebrated Black History Month by Committing Yet Another Hate Crime!



Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Thanks to reader-researcher “W,” who observed,
And during Black History Month, no less….Oh, What would Rev Dr King have to say?

Delmon Young is the kid brother of ballplayer, Dmitri Young, who also had a nose for trouble, but not of Delmon’s character or magnitude.

Delmon Young Arrested: Latest Details, Comments and Reaction
By Matt Fitzgerald
Feb 8, 2016
Bleacher Report

Veteran MLB outfielder Delmon Young was arrested Sunday night in Miami and charged with one count of battery after allegedly choking and threatening to kill a valet employee at the Viceroy hotel.

Peter Burke of reported the news Monday, noting Young also allegedly used derogatory slurs in addition to physical violence.

"Stupid Cuban. Open the (expletive) door. I'm here. Now what?" Young said during the altercation, according to the police report. He later reportedly said to the valet attendant, "I'm gonna (expletive) kill you, you Latin piece of (expletive)."

The police report also indicated Young was slurring his speech and was unsteady on his feet when police arrived at his condominium after the incident. Per the police report, Young told one of the officers, "I'll slap you in the face with money, you (expletive) Cuban."

Per Burke, Young was booked at the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center. Andy Slater of reported Young bonded out Monday afternoon.

Young played for the Baltimore Orioles in 2014 and 2015 and is now a free agent. The 30-year-old was arraigned on a hate crime harassment charge in 2012 after reportedly using anti-Semitic slurs during a fight in New York City.

In the minor leagues in 2006, Young was ejected from a game for protesting a third-strike call by staying in the batter's box. He flung his bat at the umpire as he headed to the dugout.

The most notable accomplishment of Young's playing career came in 2012, when he played for the Detroit Tigers. Young was named the American League Championship Series MVP after a four-game sweep of the New York Yankees during which he hit .353 with two home runs and six RBI. He's otherwise struggled to fulfill his promise as the No. 1 overall pick in the 2003 MLB draft.

Young appeared in only 52 games for Baltimore in 2015, batting .270 with two home runs and 16 RBI.

MTV Black History Month Video: Blacks Invented Everything, and Created All the Wealth in America

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

I thank the reader who gave me this link, writing:

MTV video promoting Black History Month: 'A World Without Black History' | MTV News

You have got to watch this. Shows how far the Left's propaganda machine has gone in promoting black "invention" lies, exaggerations, and myths as "facts" to our youth. Beyond BS.
See how long you can tolerate the video below. I made it about one minute in, before “learning” that a black man invented open-heart surgery. Based on my long experience with “black history” hoaxes, I was sure that it was a lie, and sure enough it was.

This video could just as well have been produced by the Nation of Islam.

Black supremacists and their white sycophants credit Dr. Daniel Hale Williams with inventing open heart surgery in 1893, but according to what I dug up, the candidates were:

Francisco Romero of Spain (1801)

Baron Dominique-Jean Larrey of France (1810)

Henry C. Dalton of St. Louis (September 6, 1891)

Ludwig Rehn of Germany (September 10, 1896)

Dr. Alfred Blalock, Vivien Thomas, and Dr. Helen Taussig, in Baltimore (1944)

Dr. John H. Gibbon Jr. in Philadelphia (May 6th, 1953)

One source I read (actually more than one) maintains that in the sense under which people understand “open heart surgery,” the procedure was not invented until the 1950s, and no blacks were involved in inventing the procedure. also denies that Dr. Daniel Hale Williams invented open heart surgery.

After that, while I was able to eventually finish watching the video, I did not waste any more time checking out its wild claims, some of which, e.g., that the wealth that slaves produced picking cotton in the South, financed Northern industry, were ridiculous on their face.


Published on Feb 3, 2016

Franchesca Ramsey:
Brought to you with love by:
Produced by:

It’s Black History Month! And while most people take this opportunity to learn about and reflect upon the accomplishments and struggles of African-Americans, plenty more choose to criticize the annual celebration. What many fail to realize is that black history is largely overlooked within the broad scope of American history, and the purpose of Black History Month is to spread awareness of this vibrant cultural past as well as black americans' important contribution to the development of the USA as we know it. After all, without black history, America would be a very different place!


To learn more about some famous African-American Inventors:

Mark Dean: Co-Invented the Personal Computer

Gerald A Lawson: Helped Develop The Video Game Console

George Crum: Invented Potato Chips

James Edward Maceo West Developed the Foil Microphone Used in 90% of Cell Phones

Jan Ernst Matzeliger Revolutionized Shoe Manufacturing in the 1800's

Lewis Lattimer Developed Long Lasting Carbon Filament for Lightbulbs

Dr. Daniel Hale Williams performed the first successful Open Heart Surgery

Otis Boykin's Resistors & Control Unit Helped Make the Modern Pacemaker

For more info on the importance of African Slavery to the American Economy & America's Rise to Power


Chad - James W. Coker (@JamesWCoker)
Mandi - Jenny St. Angelo (@jstangelo)
Grandpa - Richard Bergman

Writer - Ryan Hunter
Director - Adam Sacks
Producer - Frank Cosgriff
DP - Eric Brouse
Gaffer - Steven Latta
Grip - Austin Castelo
Sound - Brett Van Deusen
Makeup - Delina Medhin
Production Assistant - Emily Thielen
Editor: Amanda Madden


Subscribe to MTV News:

More from MTV News:
Official MTV News Website:
Like MTV News:
Follow MTV News:
MTV News Google+:
MTV News on Tumblr:
MTV News Instagram:
MTV News on Pinterest:

Multicultural Wrap-Up

By Nicholas Stix

At Countenance, natch!

Monday, February 08, 2016

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Steps in It - Again

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

[See also: “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the SPLC, but were Afraid to Ask.”]

The Southern Poverty Law Center Steps in It - Again
By KC McAlpin
November 5, 2015
US Inc.

One of the Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) notorious stable of smear mongers just launched another howler. Hefty lefty Heidi Beirich penned a blog entitled "What's the Matter with Kansas' Kris Kobach" Nov. 2 on the SPLC's "Hatewatch."

The hit piece attacks Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach for speaking at the Writer's Workshop conference in Washington DC recently, and says the conference was put on by the "white nationalist Social Contract Press." Ms. Beirich included a snapshot of Kobach speaking at the gathering.

There was just one problem. It turns out the snapshot had been taken by one of the conference's black attendees, a woman from Georgia who has been a regular at the conference for years. Beirich got the photo from another left wing smear machine called "Imagine 2050," which it lifted without permission after the woman posted it on her Twitter feed.

In fact, besides black Americans, there were Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans in the audience. Two of the conference speakers were Hispanic. I should know. I emceed the conference and I am seated on the podium next to Kobach in the photo.

Wouldn't any normal person conclude that it was very unlikely that American minority group members in significant numbers would register and attend a convention of rabid "white nationalists?"

Of course they would, because the charge of "white nationalism" is a complete lie. What brings this annual gathering of Americans of all colors and backgrounds together is their patriotic love for this country and their insistence that our borders should be secure, that criminal aliens should be deported, and that American workers should not be fired and replaced by foreign workers like hundreds of programmers were this year at Disney.

But Ms. Beirich and her fellow SPLC/Imagine 2050 mud slingers don't want to debate those positions because they are opposed to all of them, and they realize their hard-left views in favor of open borders have almost no popular support. So, following Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" playbook of intolerance, they resort to personal attacks and character assassination against anyone who opposes them.

This is simply the latest episode in the SPLC's long history of launching false smear attacks against political opponents. A few years back the SPLC printed a story in their Intelligence Report magazine accusing a retired county sheriff the SPLC mud-slingers were "tracking" of advocating the killing of federal agents. When he called them out for the lie and threatened to sue, they quickly retracted the story and apologized.

In another example the SPLC wrote that the Tea Party was "shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories, and racism." Only this week, a black Tea party activist named Jenean Hampton made the SPLC look ridiculous when she was elected Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky.

Earlier in the year, the SPLC attacked GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson as "an extremist," for his conservative political views, and then when challenged, quickly retracted the charge.

The welcome and growing emergence of patriotic, pro-American blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans in American politics gives the SPLC and its thought police fits because it gives the lie to their racist, white nationalist, narrative. The reality is that the only organizations obsessed with racial identity are those on the far left like the SPLC and its Imagine 2050 cousin. In fact Imagine 2050's motto is "race, identity, democracy."

But the SPLC's incessant mud-slinging also helps to divert attention from its founder, Morris Dees' own racist history, and the fact that he has amassed a multi-million dollar fortune while working for an "anti-poverty" organization, whose $300 million cash hoard rivals that of Clinton Foundation.

Dees and his law partner once defended a Ku Klux Klansman charged with beating some blacks at a Montgomery, Alabama bus station. Dees worked in the campaigns of openly segregationist candidates for public office and more recently embraced the Confederate flag flying over the Alabama State Capitol as "part of my heritage."

The Montgomery Advertiser newspaper once interviewed thirteen former black SPLC employees, twelve of whom claimed there was an atmosphere of racism in the organization.

These are the kinds of origins and facts that the SPLC would pounce on to demonize and attack other organizations as "racist" or "white nationalist." But because the corrupt and reclusive Dees hides behind his "anti-racist, anti-hate" group facade, the media gives him a pass.

So my question to Ms. Beirich is, how can you work for such an odious organization?

More about the hateful SPLC attack

Read the blog post by Inger Eberhart describing this hateful attack by the SPLC.

The Southern Poverty Law Center: Part Karl, Part Groucho, by Mark Krikorian, November 9, 2015.

More information about the SPLC

The Southern Poverty Law Center - A Special Report, The Social Contract, Spring 2010.

The SPLC Exposed

Answering Our Critics