PayPal

Monday, December 31, 2007

Jewish Influence, and Censorship at Google

By Nicholas Stix

In a blog entitled, "Nicholas Stix,AmRen, and Other Ramblings,” blogger Howard in Las Vegas writes,

For the past several years I have been involved with the Conservative/White Nationalist movement and throughout this time I have read many great books and articles by several intelligent, dedicated and honest men and women. One of these men is Nicholas Stix. Stix describes himself as a "dissident" journalist living in New York and "whitelisted" by the main stream media (MSM) because of his political views which are by no means "politically-correct". Unlike most writers Stix takes a "Pro-White" stance and has authored articles about the carjacking, kidnap, rape and murder of a young white couple in Knoxvile, Tennessee (google "Knoxville Horror" if you don't know what I am talking about) and wrote the "State of White America-2007" which was published by the National Policy Institute. Stix is also a Jew. Why would a Jew take a "Pro-White" stance? Like my mother said,"May the Jews be happy with what's left of America when Whites are gone." Admittedly a very pessimistic view of Whites disappearing, which I don't agree with, but the point is that Jews have never had a better friend than White American's. Jews (with the help of White liberals) that control the media and government have done an excellent job of brain-washing Whites into believing they have no right to a racial identity. Does Stix recognize this? Stix, why do you support White America?


I just posted the following response at HILV:

First off, thanks for the nice things you said about my work.

Second, you should know that Google’s blogsearch censor has whitelisted you. When you originally posted this blog, Google blogsearch listed it. I found it under my name at about 1:30 a.m., on 12/22. One or two days later, blogsearch removed the listing. I tried “last day,” “last week,” and “last month,” but nothing showed up. I just went back and tried again at blogsearch, and then put in “Howard in Las Vegas” and “Nicholas Stix,” but got nothing. Tried just HILV, and got nothing. Tried HILV and NS at general Google. Nothing. I even tried variations on “Nicholas Stix,AmRen.” Zip. For HILV, I did get 5,470 hits, but Google offered only three pages, with no mention of you. I then hit the secondary link to “similar” links, and got five pages, but again, no HILV.

You are, however, linked at Technorati.

Given that Google owns your blog (as it does mine), while Technorati does not, why does this state of affairs exist?

Google is into censorship. Heavily. Its blogsearch censor does the same thing to me for months at a time, and has in fact resumed censoring my new blog listings as of a day or two.

If a communist blogger attacks me, it goes up immediately at blogsearch, and stays. If a conservative praises me, it often goes up quickly, and remains there. But most people go to blogsearch to find someone’s own writings, in the first place, and if no one sees that I’ve published something new, few bloggers are going to find their way to my blogs, to read and then discuss my work at their own blogs. Which is exactly the point of the whitelisting.

So, if you want people to read you, you are going to have to reach out to them, with a direct, grassroots campaign (Unfortunately, since such campaigns are taxing, I’m going to have to follow my own advice.) Emphasize that Google is trying to destroy you. You are welcome to quote me.

BTW, Google has also tried to keep people away from AmRen. By late May, two weeks after my Knoxville Horror Web exclusive had been published, and been read by thousands of people (and plagiarized by CNN!), Google refused to list it. I punched in “Channon Christian,” and went through 1,000 or so listings at google. (There were about 40,000 hits, if memory serves, but to my knowledge, Google never provides more than 100 pages—i.e., 1,000 links.)

Google listed all kinds of obscure blogs, but no AmRen. This is not about “algorithms”; it is about political targeting. And it’s not new at Google, which is a leftwing outfit with a history of censorship, though a very eccentric one (e.g., they don’t censor the likes of Alex Linder or Bill White).

But though the foregoing may (should) be of great importance to you, it’s not the red meat you’re after. It’s just an appetizer.

Do I take a “Pro-White” stance? I dunno. I thought I took a pro-right stance, not as in “right-wing,” whatever that now means, but as in “Do the right thing,” as the old saying goes. Would you have me take an anti-white stance? A pro-wrong stance?

But I don’t understand the phrase, “May the Jews be happy with what's left of America when Whites are gone.” As long as the Jews are here, the whites aren’t gone.

I’ve often heard the charge that the Jews control the media and government, but never with any background beyond ancient media lists peopled with Jews, most of whom are either long dead or out of the loop.

But once upon a time, many Jews did wield great power in the media. How did they come to dominate the media? Because they founded them, that’s why! Jews risked the shirts off their backs, and their very lives founding media companies. When white nationalists complain about Jewish media influence, they are just showing their envy. The Jews who founded Hollywood, and many other media companies (e.g., the Big Three networks), were deserving of praise, not calumny!

And rather than promoting Jewish interests, they went out of their way to not even give the impression of doing so. During World War II, when the then-Jewish owned New York Times and Hollywood studios found out about the Holocaust, they went out of their way NOT to publicize it. This was due to their not wanting to seem too parochial, and due to having been had by FDR, who used the Jews, but didn't give a damn about six million European Jews perishing.

Had powerful Jews in Hollywood and the press pulled out all the stops, to publicize the Holocaust, FDR would have been forced to do something, saving anywhere from thousands to millions of Jews.

And for the payoff, I get to hear how the Jews run everything, according to their whims. (Or are you going to tell me the Holocaust never happened?)

As for Jews controlling the government, that’s just a lot of nonsense that you cannot support.

But the Jews have certainly exerted influence disproportionate to their numbers in America. And why is that? Because they are so much smarter than all the other groups! And they outworked them, too.

So, complaints about Jewish influence are just the expression of envy.

But why did Jews go into Hollywood and the press? For the same reason they went into junk and furs and diamonds. Because they could! Before World War II, smart Jews were locked out of the best WASP colleges, companies, and law firms. So, they made their own way. And you’re angry that in spite of the blockades, they succeeded? You should be tipping your hat to them. They did it the American way.

And while you’re tipping your hat, you can also start studying the matter. Try Howard Sachar’s A History of the Jews in America. It’s comprehensive, and a page-turner.

Friday, December 28, 2007

Support Your Local Hispanic Rapist!

By Nicholas Stix

Since June 2006, the Chandler Rapist in Chandler, Arizona has raped at least five girls between 12 and 14 years of age, and will rape many more, if local Spanish radio station KMYL (1190 AM) has anything to say about it.

Although according to descriptions by all five rape victims, the Chandler Rapist is Hispanic, the folks at KMYL, as represented by vice president for programming at New Radio Venture, KMYL’s parent company, Mayra Nieves, don’t want anyone to know that crucial fact. Nieves has demanded that Chandler police stop informing the public that the rapist is Hispanic. She ordered police to instead refer to the suspect as having “dark skin.” She said, “I think this is racial profiling,” and also accused police of “stereotyping.”

East Valley Tribune staffer Nicole Beyer reports, “Nieves said Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race — and many Hispanics are white or black. She said ethnicity should not be used when describing an attacker.” [Calling rapist a Hispanic irks radio station, By Nicole Beyer, East Valley Tribune, November 10, 2007.]

Aside from the issue of whether “Hispanic” is even an ethnicity (traditionally, “ethnicity” refers to one’s nationality, or that of one’s forebears, e.g., “Mexican”), when people hear “dark skin,” they tend to think, “black.” And so, had the Chandler Police Department acquiesced to Nieves’ demands, in the vicinity of Andersen Junior High School, where the five rapes and a sixth attack in November that stopped short of rape have all taken place, people would be on the lookout for a black rapist, and lower their guard in the face of a Hispanic.

Misleading the public in this case serves the interest of only one person: The rapist.

Fortunately, the police were insubordinate to Mayra Nieves.

“But Chandler police spokesman Sgt. Rick Griner said his department will stand by its description, saying they release the details the victims give them. “‘It would be irresponsible on our part to change or alter that,’ he said.”


The rapist is described as “Hispanic, 28 to 40 years old, short [5’6” in some reports] with a muscular build, dark hair and hazel or brown eyes,” and during last month’s attack “was wearing a white T-shirt and blue jeans.” He has also been described as having black hair and a mustache.

Fox News’ Melissa Underwood quotes the CPD’s Sgt. Griner as responding,
“They are wanting a skin color. How do you classify a skin color?” Griner said. “What might be dark to me might not be dark to you. We’re going off what [the victims] are telling us.” [Spanish-Language Radio Station Slams Police for Describing Suspect as ‘Hispanic’, Melissa Underwood, Fox News, November 14, 2007.]


According to reporters Kevin Tripp and Sandra Haros of news radio station KTAR (92.3 FM), “Radio station 1190AM refused to use the word ‘Hispanic’ when it broadcast the description.” Apropos of nothing, Mayra Nieves “said the man may look Hispanic, but may not be.”

Nieves told WTAR that police should ignore victim reports (or is that just victim reports by non-Hispanics?) identifying assailants as Hispanic, even when the assailants speak fluent Spanish, and also spoke of Mestizos as an exclusively non-Hispanic group.

`It’s feeding more into the anti-Hispanic sentiment that everybody’s saying is not there, but is seen everywhere,” Nieves said “For me, saying he’s Hispanic because the victims are saying he’s Hispanic, is actually doing racial profiling.”


“By the fact that someone looks dark doesn’t mean that he’s Hispanic,” she said. “Even if he has an accent, as some people have said, it could be an Arab, it could be someone from mestizo descent. We don’t know. We don’t know if he’s Hispanic….”

“But, she said, 1190 AM listeners, are ‘confused and enraged because we are saying this person is Hispanic and immediately profiling this guy. And we don’t know, we don’t know if he is Hispanic or not. That is something people are very disgusted about.’
[Hispanics Protest Rapist’s Description, By Kevin Tripp and Sandra Haros, KTAR, November 9th, 2007.]


But 1190 isn’t saying the rapist is Hispanic!

(Unfortunately, KTAR’s editor further muddled things with a misleading title: It wasn’t “Hispanics” who protested, but one radio station.)

Tripp and Haros also published the letter (reprinted below in its entirety, including spelling and grammatical errors) that Nieves claimed to have sent to the Chandler PD, but which the CPD denied having received.
Dear Public Information Officers,

I would like to call your attention to a misleading detail in the description of the suspect that you are providing regarding the case of the Chandler rapist.

You describe him as a “Hispanic male, 28-40 years old, short and stocky with muscular build, dark hair, hazel or brown eyes. Base [sic] on your description the person [sic] skin color is not mentioned. It doesn’t tell me if the suspect is white, black or mestizo. The fact that the suspect may also speak English and Spanish fluently, by the accounts of witnesses [sic], doesn’t make this person necessarily a Hispanic. There are people from other ethnic groups that also speak fluent Spanish.

By calling this suspect a “Hispanic male” we are stereotyping the suspect and hurting the search by limiting what people should be looking for. There are many other ethnic groups that could also fit the description that we see in the drawing. By your sketch, this suspect could also be a [sic] Phillipino [sic], Arab, African American, French, Italian, Morocan [sic], etc… [sic]

I hope you can make the correction. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Mayra Nieves

VP Programming - New Radio Venture

“Colorado’s and Phoenix [sic] only Spanish News/Talk Radio”

La Buena Onda 1150 - Denver

La Buena Onda 1190 - Phoenix - (602) 433 1190



Not even the ACLU would back Nieves, saying “They are using concrete information to follow up leads.”

As laughable as Mayra Nieves is, she should not be laughed off. A few years ago, her ilk wouldn’t dare pull such a pathetic stunt; today, the Mayra Nieveses have no inhibitions regarding such theatrics. Remember the recent incident in Los Angeles, in which Hispanic school activists called black American parents “racist” for demanding that school district advisory board meetings be held in English?

And no matter how idiotic the position of a Hispanic chauvinist, another Hispanic or non-Hispanic from the open borders lobby will come up with some shameless sophistry in support of her.

Thus did Ad Age’s affirmative action blogger and supporter of Hispanic rapists, Laura Martinez, come to Nieves’ defense by offering the existence of white, blonde-haired Spanish TV stars as “proof” that the term “Hispanic” has no descriptive power. As if the five rape victims might have been talking about some blonde-haired, white guy.

Illegal Hispanic immigrants and their Hispanic citizen and open borders lobby supporters have learned the lessons of black race hustlers all too well. And patriots must be ready to stand up to them, as many times as it takes.

(Cross-posted at VDARE.com. Please hit this link to support VDARE with a tax deductible donation. Hit this link (and/or this one and/or this one) to learn why VDARE is worthy of your support.)

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Assaulted by Patti LaBelle

By Nicholas Stix
Updated at 12:12 a.m. on December 20, 2007.

“That is the fabulous Patti LaBelle,” said Today Show host Meredith Vieira. “What a voice.”

We had just listened to possibly the worst singing performance, outside of American Idol, ever shown on live TV. The 63-year-old LaBelle was off-key; her voice broke on every note; and the song she "sang" was unrecognizable.

Of Vieira’s intro, The Boss said, “They have to say that; they got to save their job.”

I feel like suing. My ears hurt. I’m no singer, and yet, I’m in much better voice than LaBelle is, this morning.

The Boss changes the channel to the Fox morning show with Jodi and Ron.

“I can’t take Patti LaBelle singing. The lady’ll keep me awake. I gotta sleep,” says The Boss, who just came home from working the graveyard shift.

What was the woman singing? Something about “silver and gold”?

The Boss says it was, “I will bring Him silver and gold,” as in “Do You Hear What I Hear?” but what LaBelle was singing didn’t sound at all like that song. The Boss provides her universal explanatory theory for bad contemporary Christmas music: “It’s other people songs she singin,’ so she have to sing it differently.”

Sure enough, I Google LaBelle, and find that she is flogging a Christmas album that includes a five-minute-long assault on “Do You Hear What I Hear?”

In late November, LaBelle claimed to reporters that she was the victim of racism, because she and Celine Dion had both sung the same song, “If You Asked Me to,” and LaBelle’s version made it only to #79 on the pop charts in 1989, while Dion’s 1992 version made it to #4. LaBelle’s explanation for the greater popularity of Dion's version: “because she's a white girl,” and the music business is so racist.

That was LaBelle’s good-natured way of reflecting on a music award both singers had just received. During the same interview, she also claimed that Dion – you know, the “white girl”? – is her friend.

I've been singing for 45 years and that's an obstacle that I'm still ... I'm getting over it because I'm fabulous. You know, so you can't beat me up. You can't make me feel less than I am because whenever I get the microphone I'm gonna show you who I am. But the industry is very racist.


Let’s see. She’s "fabulous," so you can’t hurt her, but she’s still struggling with it after 45 years, and obsessing over having been outsold by a white singer on one single 15 years ago. For Patti LaBelle these days, logic is as much of a struggle as singing is. And if the music industry is so racist, why is it still giving record contracts to a washed-up, black singer with a voice that is a public menace? If that's racism, I want me some!

I haven’t heard either singer’s recording of “If You Asked Me to,” though when LaBelle began her campaign, I read some bloggers who said that Dion had flat out outsung her, which makes sense. While Celine Dion is no Ella Fitzgerald, she has long been a much better singer than Patti LaBelle.

But you just keep on saying that you’re "fabulous," and that only "racism" is keeping you down (or is it not keeping you down?), Patti. Maybe that’ll get you enough attention to make a few pity sales of your Christmas CD. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

“The Immigration Encyclopedia” Needs Your Support

Bewildered former Arkansas governor and GOP presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, recently told the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza that everywhere he goes, voters’ number one concern is immigration.

It does appear to be the issue out here wherever we are. Nobody’s asked about Iraq—doesn’t ever come up. The first question out of the box, everywhere I go—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, it doesn’t matter—is immigration. It’s just red hot, and I don’t fully understand it.


Welcome to America, Mike!

Here’s the problem. With the help of the MSM, Huckabee has conned millions of voters into thinking that he supports enforcing America’s immigration laws, when in fact he is a confirmed supporter of abolishing America through open borders.

What if I told you that there is an online encyclopedia – though its editor/publisher doesn’t use that term – devoted (though not limited) to immigration, which is vastly superior in factual reliability (unlike the New York Times, it has its own house fact-checker) to any daily newspaper, but which at the same time has more scholarly rigor than you’ll find from tenured professors? (With the notable exception of immigration economist George Borjas.) And what if I told you it has an archive of eight years’ worth of thousands of such articles? And what if I told you it’s free?

Readers of The Immigration Encyclopedia know all about Mike Huckabee’s chameleon routine, because TIE’s dogged researcher-writers have scrutinized the Governor every step of the way.

Keeping track of presidential aspirants’ flip-flops is just one of the many services that TIE provides on a daily basis through its articles and blogs.

And while it costs nothing to read TIE, it does cost money to produce and maintain it. Not just due to Web servers and bandwidth, but because TIE pays its writers and its fact-checker, which is how it can provide you such top-notch reporting, scholarship, and commentary. (Full disclosure: I am proud to say that I am one of those writers.)

The site isn’t actually known as The Immigration Encyclopedia. I gave it that title, because it is the most encyclopedic source on legal and illegal immigration into America on the Web, and to mock a certain pretend Web encyclopedia that has just collected so many millions of dollars in donations that it is embarrassed to even cite the figures. The pretend encyclopedia pays contributors nothing, and nothing is what it provides—but at a cost of millions! By contrast, The Immigration Encyclopedia is a priceless resource that is run for mere tens of thousands of dollars per year in tax-deductible donations. But that relatively small sum is essential.

TIE’s official name is VDARE.com. The reason I didn’t name it earlier was to be coy, to stress what I believe is VDARE’s true character, and to fool Google. Since this is my third fundraising post this month, had I stated its purpose at the top, Google’s blogsearch would have seen this as a repetitious post, and not listed it.

Please hit this link to support VDARE with a tax-deductible donation. (Did I mention that your contribution is tax-deductible?)

Thank you.

With best holiday wishes,

Nicholas Stix

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Jackie Mason vs. James Watson: Jews, IQ, and “Shvartzers”

By Nicholas Stix
Updated 4:06 and 4:19 a.m., Monday, December 17, 2007.

Schmucks!

In the Watson Affair (read this, this, and this), 79-year-old, Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson was forced, in late October, to recant his statement that blacks are, on average, less intelligent than whites and that there are genetic reasons for this inequality, and to resign his position as chancellor of the world-famous (due to Watson’s 40-year leadership) Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Since then, ever more rats have been jumping the good ship IQ, including some I hadn’t even known were on board.

Two such rats are the authors of Schmucks!, comedian Jackie Mason and “celebrity divorce attorney” Raoul Felder. Mason and Felder, politically neo-conservative, Ashkenazi Jews — the kind that were raised as liberals, but changed through experience — joined the anti-science, leftwing-dominated mob denouncing Watson.

In “Race and Intelligence,” Mason and Felder pile on, lying like Persian rugs, not only about the science, which backs up Watson in spades, but at least in Mason’s case, about his own beliefs as well.

Apparently a subject that has attracted scientists is the question of the correlation between race and intelligence. Now don't get us wrong. We believe that basically this is an area of wasteful analysis. In our lives, we don't deal with “races,” we deal with individual people. For instance, if science has determined that Jews are smarter than Buddhists, the fact is if we needed an operation, we would rather have a smart Buddhist picking up the scalpel than a dumb Jew. But if scientists want to explore a particular subject for what they believe is a search for the truth, and want to waste their (hopefully, not the public's) money on a particular piece of nonsense, so be it.

A worldwide uproar occurred because Nobel Prize winner James Watson made a racist statement about the supposed lower intelligence of Africans. “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours,” according to the London Sunday Times, but then he added, “Whereas all our testing says, ‘Not really.’” Who cares? Even if true — which we believe it is not — it is basically an irrelevancy. Does that mean, if Watson is to be believed, that Africans should not be entitled to an equal share of the economic pie, the right to be equally educated, or the right to have all the protections and benefits that government can offer? In short, even if it were true — again, which we do not believe it is — who cares? Might not centuries of exploitation and denial of the benefits of education and health facilities cause testing to be skewed?

Watson's position is eerily similar to that of Professor Arthur Jensen, who wrote an article in 1969 in the Harvard Educational Review wherein he postulated that racial differences in intelligence test scores may have a genetic origin. He suffered the same fate as Dr. Watson.


Mason and Felder also speak of Watson’s remarks on African IQ as “pseudo-science” on a par with “global warming and the Loch Ness monster.”

Mason and Felder don’t deal with “races”? “Who cares” whether one group is smarter than any others? A black with an IQ of 67 or 85 has the same right as a Jew with an IQ of 112 to get admitted to a prestigious university or get a high-paying, intellectually demanding job? “Centuries of exploitation and denial of the benefits of education and health facilities”? (In the latter case, are they talking about blacks or Jews?)

As for Arthur Jensen, he may have been vilified and assaulted for his work, but that work endures scientifically, and Jensen did not suffer the same fate as Watson. Jensen was not suspended, much less forced to resign by his employer, UC Berkeley, and he never repudiated his research on intelligence. And there is nothing “eerily similar” about the common points between Watson and Jensen; based on the known facts of psychometrics and genetics, the two scientific giants simply agree. It happens.

(Jensen’s classic, 1969 article, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?” was published as a stand-alone volume (No. 39) of that notorious lunatic fringe publication, The Harvard Educational Review. I heartily recommend it to Mason and Felder, should they ever wish to learn something about the science of intelligence.)

As for Watson having made “a racist statement,” the truth cannot be racist.

It is a scientific fact that African blacks have radically lower average IQs than whites, and that American blacks also have considerably lower average IQs than whites. One may curse a scientific fact, as one may curse the rain, but one cannot wish it away. The average group IQs are: white Americans, 100; black Americans, 85; blacks in sub-Saharan Africa, 67. It is likewise a scientific fact that at 105, East Asians (including Red China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan) have the highest average IQ of any identifiable racial group. (Richard Lynn, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, 2006, 23, 37, 44, 128, 130.) Ashkenazi (European) Jews’ IQ has been estimated to average 112-115 (PDF).

The genetics behind group IQ differences are based — as Watson was intimately aware — on the alleles (“alternative forms for genes”) for intelligence that developed in those races that left Africa 50,000 years ago, as opposed to those that stayed. Some of Watson’s tormentors knew this, and were thus traitors to science; others were scientific illiterates who lied out of ignorance, spite, and the will to power.

Due to Jackie Mason’s distinctive public track record on race, I am going to focus on him. But first, a quick history of the loving community of blacks and Jews.


“Shvartzers”

No group has done more for blacks than Jews. As a result, urban blacks have long hated Jews even more than they hate every other group, including blacks. As my mom always says, “No good deed goes unpunished.” The Jewish machers (big shots) got the glory, while encouraging ever more of the already robust black racism (PDF) that destroyed and continues to destroy the lives of countless Jewish kleine pishers (“little nobodies,” literally, “little pissers”).

(In addition to the machers’racial pandering, two myths get in the away of appreciating the historical relationship of blacks and Jews: 1. ‘All Jews are rich and powerful’; and 2. ‘As a people that must dwell alone, Jews exhibit an incredible solidarity, which they developed as an “evolutionary strategy,” in order to destroy gentile host societies.’ The second myth, in particular, is the expression of people who know absolutely gornisht (nothing) about Jews, who engage in intermarriage at a higher rate than any other religious or ethnic group in America.)

In his 1963 essay, “My Negro Problem–and Ours,” Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz reflected on how he and other working-class and poor white, especially Jewish boys he grew up with in 1930s and ‘40s Brooklyn were brutalized by racist black boys. And that was in the “good old” days!

Honest Jews have for generations been increasingly bitter about black anti-Semitism. After all, Jews don’t target blacks for muggings, assaults, rapes, murders and riots, or ethnically cleanse them from neighborhoods and workplaces. And John Podhoretz notwithstanding, unqualified Jews don’t get affirmative action jobs in place of qualified blacks. (Blacks have long terrorized white gentiles as well, but there is no phony history of a loving community uniting those two groups.)


The “Ambassador” Gets Recalled

During the 1989 New York City mayoral race, Jackie Mason served, in historian Chris McNickle’s words, as Republican-Liberal candidate Rudolph Giuliani’s “unofficial ambassador to the Jewish community.”

Following on the heels of the second of his many wildly successful, one-man Broadway shows, the Tony Award winner was on top of the world. In August 1987, even dour, pc New York Times theater critic Frank Rich wrote, “I hereby confess that I was the last drama critic in New York to catch Jackie Mason's act on Broadway - a full six months after the comedian's opening night.” Rich was sure he would be immune to the comic’s crude charms, but had to admit that, “for all the familiarity of his [Borscht Belt] attack, Mr. Mason was very, very funny.” Among other things, Rich also praised Mason’s lack of pretence, refusal to pander to the audience, and honesty.

Mason’s success and honesty have always been of a piece with his volatility. Considering that his hair-pin-trigger temper had led to powerful TV host Ed Sullivan exiling him to show business limbo a generation earlier, Mason knew exactly what the stakes were. And yet, he risked a long, hard fall with some blunt talk on race.

During an August 31, 1989 off-the-record luncheon interview arranged by Mason’s agent, Jyll Rosenfeld, with Giuliani and four Newsweek writers (Jonathan Alter, Nancy Cooper, George Hackett and “an old friend” of Mason’s, Charles Leerhsen), Mason said that socialist (or as the New York Times’ Sam Roberts called him, “mainstream Democrat”) David Dinkins, who was running to become New York City’s first black mayor, was just a “fancy shvartzer with a moustache.” (I recall the phrase as “just a shvartzer in a fancy suit,” but Mason gave multiple versions of it.)

One month later, during an interview with the radical leftwing New York weekly, the Village Voice, Mason argued,

There is a sick Jewish problem of voting for a black man no matter how unfit he is for the job. They feel guilty for the black predicament, as if the Jews caused it…. The Jews are constantly giving millions to the black people. Have you ever heard of a black person giving a quarter to a Jew?”


(Mason reportedly also used “shvartzer” during the Voice interview; I could not determine whether that interview was on the record.)

When the Newsweek interview somehow came out within the Village Voice story, the four Newsweek staffers were severely reprimanded for failing to report what Mason had said. (But the interview was off the record!)

Forget what “journalistic ethics experts” say; most scribes routinely either suppress or report impolitic remarks made to them in private by public figures, based solely on feelings of political, ethnic, and/or racial loyalty or enmity. In this case, however, rank opportunism was also at work. In violation of Newsweek policy, Jonathan Alter had pitched an article on the Mason interview, playing up the racial angle, to Adam Moss, the editor of New York’s short-lived, lefty political magazine, 7 Days. (The Voice article also somehow — see below — exposed the 7 Days affair.)

Newsweek responded to the Voice story by reporting on the off-the-record luncheon, quoting Mason’s “shvartzer” line, and saying, “Giuliani joined in the nervous laughter, making no effort to rebuke Mason.”

Not only did Jonathan Alter violate Newsweek’s ethics rules, by not asking his editors’ permission to peddle to another media outlet what they considered to be “proprietary” material, since he had recorded Mason while on assignment from them, but he violated the trust of Charles Leerhsen and Jyll Rosenfeld, without whom he would never have gotten the interview. And then, for good measure, he lied about the whole thing.

Although Newsweek’s honchos reportedly only refrained from firing the four reporters after they privately showed proper remorse, Alter shamelessly spun the story in public, calling the matter “Much ado about nothing,” because the story had never run in 7 Days. That’s like a street punk insisting he’s a good guy, because his intended victim somehow managed to slip his sucker-punch.

As NYT media reporter Alex Jones wrote on October 14, 1989,

Mr. Alter said yesterday: “We all regret that the remark was not printed in Newsweek in a more timely way. As for the 7 Days business, I never wrote a word of any article for 7 Days, though discussions took place, and I think the rest of it is much ado about nothing.”


The reason Alter never wrote the story for 7 Days is because after he pitched it to Adam Moss, he asked Jyll Rosenfeld for permission to quote Mason. When Alter confirmed to Rosenfeld that Mason had used the “s” word, and that Alter planned on quoting him doing so, she refused to grant him permission.

Alex Jones tried to have it both ways. He sought to help Alter and hurt Rosenfeld, by emphasizing that there was no “explicit” agreement that the interview was off the record. Jones doth protest too much. That Alter would call Rosenfeld to ask her permission to use the material left no doubt that both understood that the interview had been off the record. But Jones also noted, “The situation was doubly charged regarding Mr. Alter, who has often chastised news organizations for journalistic and ethical lapses.” (Perhaps Jones told himself he was being balanced, or perhaps he felt constrained by Times press room politics to spin things the way he did.)

Alex Jones also misrepresented what Mason had told the Village Voice, writing “The comedian later was forced to leave the campaign after being quoted as saying that some Jews would vote for a black candidate out of guilt.” But Mason had said an “unfit” black candidate, which is considerably different.

As historian Chris McNickle recounts in To be Mayor of New York: Ethnic Politics in the City, Mason immediately resigned his unpaid position in the Giuliani campaign, and Giuliani distanced himself from Mason, saying “the remarks do not reflect my views.”

Mason proved prescient: Due to over 30 percent of white voters — including 23 percent of white Catholics and almost 40 percent of Jews — pulling the lever for Dinkins, while less than three percent of blacks voted for Giuliani, Dinkins, who had promised to be a “racial healer,” won by only 47,000 out of 1.8 million votes cast the closest mayoral race since the five boroughs were joined in 1898 to create modern New York City. (Source: McNickle.)

(In 1992, Alex Jones would leave the Times to co-author with his wife, and with the paper’s cooperation, a history of the Times. Upon the book’s 1999 release, the paper promoted it, which led to Jones and his
wife being named the following year to share an endowed journalism chair at Harvard, where Jones was also named to run the school’s Shorenstein Center on the Press. When 7 Days folded in 1990, after only two years in business and $10 million in losses, pc featherweight Adam Moss landed at the Times, where he would eventually be entrusted with the radical dumbing-down of its Sunday Magazine. Since 2003, Moss has run the already pre-dumbed-down, New York Magazine. At Newsweek, Jonathan Alter is more powerful than ever. And lest I forget, the Village Voice, which broke the 7 Days affair, was then owned by Leonard Stern, who simultaneously owned 7 Days. Big Journalism — which includes “J-schools” — is a small world, after all.)


A Bissl Yiddish

In German, which has no “n” word, “Schwarzer” simply means “black man”; “Neger” simply means “negro.” (“Schwarzer” is the German spelling; “shvartzer” is the Yiddish version phoneticized using the Roman alphabet.)

But Mason wasn’t speaking German. He was speaking Yiddish, the roughly thousand-year-old dialect born in the Rhine River Valley, that pairs the ancient Hebrew alphabet with a vocabulary that is approximately 67 percent Middle High German, 17 percent from various Slavic tongues, and 17 percent Biblical Hebrew. And on top of that, Mason was using “shvartzer” as a New York Jew would, even if he was born and raised in Wisconsin.

Growing up in Long Beach, Long Island, from 1965 until circa 1974, I lived in a Jewish building. Old Jewish ladies sat on beach chairs in front of our building, bundled up in their winter coats, no matter how hot it was outside. (“Aren’t you cold?” they’d ask me.)

I grew accustomed to three ways they would occasionally pepper their English with “shvartzer”: 1. Meaning innocent and non-threatening, as in ‘He’s black, but he’s o.k.’; 2. Meaning borderline, as in ‘Maybe good, maybe bad, who knows?’; and 3. With an entirely pejorative meaning, the same as the “n” word, instantly recognizable through the drawn-out first syllable.

Notwithstanding Mason’s tendency to cut short his syllables in his trademark now mumbling, now staccato delivery (or so it was, when I saw him on the Broadway stage in the late 1980s), I’ll leave it to the reader to conclude which meaning of “shvartzer” he had in mind.

While Mason was stupid to call Dinkins a “fancy shvartzer,” he showed great courage in emphasizing Dinkins’ unfitness for the office of mayor, and “liberal” Jews’ craven racial paternalism.

After David Dinkins’ inauguration as New York’s first black mayor, he immediately proved to be so incompetent, that even Jewish socialist staffers who loved him almost immediately began seeking to escape his administration.


Bury My Heart in Crown Heights

The amazing thing is not that some Jews complain about “shvartzers,” but that more don’t. The only time I recall my late, Hungarian-born Nana (1893?-1976) mentioning race was circa 1970, when she referred to a “nice colored man.” (“Colored” was the respectable term used by ordinary whites and blacks alike until the early-to-mid 1970s. “Negro” was in parallel use by white and black elites until the same period. Circa 1918, when my Nana left her parents’ Lower East Side home, she also quit the Hungarian and Yiddish of her childhood. I never heard her say a word in either tongue.)

The last time I heard anyone say “shvartzer” was in 1992. I was visiting a Chabad-Lubavitch Chassidic friend in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, one year after a racist black mob had engaged in a three-day pogrom against the Chassidim. At one point during the pogrom’s first night, a black man, Charles Price, yelled “Kill the Jew!” and the mob lynched visiting Australian rabbinic scholar, Yankel Rosenbaum.

Mayor Dinkins ordered the NYPD to let the mob have its way. When the rioters threw bottles and rocks at New York’s Finest, the policemen ran away. On day three, Mayor Dinkins addressed the mob, but the rioters threw bottles at him, too! He only ordered the NYPD to stop running away and end the pogrom, out of anger at the lack of racial loyalty the rioters showed him.

Note that the “Rebbe” (spiritual leader) of Chabad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994), had endorsed Mayor Dinkins in the 1989 election.

Before Yankel Rosenbaum died, he identified his killer, Lemrick Nelson Jr., in whose pants pocket police found the blood-soaked murder weapon. Nelson also repeatedly confessed to the crime. On October 29, 1992, a racist, black and Hispanic-dominated jury acquitted Nelson, and the next day celebrated with the killer and his lawyer.

When we were alone during my visit, my inconsolable Chassidic friend repeated, “Shvartzers, shvartzers, shvartzers.”

I no longer recall whether my visit was before or after the juror-accessories aided and abetted Nelson.

Already at the time of the pogrom, the socialist MSM sought to rationalize it and the lynching of Yankel Rosenbaum, using the same pathetic boilerplate that leftists always use to rationalize racially-motivated, black-on-white violence. As my old philosophy teacher, Hans Joachim Kramer used to say, “Gründe lassen sich immer finden.” “Reasons can always be found.”

The 1993 election was even closer than its immediate predecessor, with Giuliani winning by a mere 44,000 votes. The Times’ Sam Roberts employed desperate sophistry, in an effort to diminish the significance of a Republican (and a former prosecutor, no less!) winning election in a city where registered Democratic voters outnumbered registered Republicans 5-1, and where the municipal unions and the TV and print media were, with rare exceptions such as Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, rabidly leftwing.

Giuliani got his revenge, and Mason got a measure of vindication … but Yankel Rosenbaum was still dead.


Intelligence and Integrity

Ashkenazi Jews have a well-earned reputation for being the smartest group around, a reputation they have long been extremely proud of. And why not? What are they going to brag about, Jewish basketball stars? If you think a couple of brilliant Ashkenazim like Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder actually believe that all races are intellectually equal — you know, the races they say they “don't deal with” — and that a typical African with an IQ of 67 (or 85, for that matter) has the same right to admission to a selective university and to an intellectually demanding job as a typical Jew with an IQ of 112 or higher, I have a great deal for you on a slightly used bridge.

Note too that typically, every group obsessively talks privately about, and feels superior to every other group it comes into contact with.

And Ashkenazi or no, virtually all educated people, Left or Right, care about intelligence. As Steve Sailer has often wryly observed, in his Sailer Law of IQ,


Liberals tend to believe two things about IQ:

• First, that IQ is a meaningless, utterly discredited concept.

• Second, that liberals are better than conservatives because they have much higher IQs.



Mason and Felder each stomps on Watson with only one foot. While telling a “noble lie” about race and IQ, they defend scientists’ right to pursue “racist” research in peace. Apparently each thinks he can thereby divert attention from himself, while buying a little peace from the forces that mugged Watson.

At 76, Jackie Mason is almost as old as James Watson. There is a cowardly symmetry to Mason taking a cheap shot at Watson, in the course of implicitly recanting his own beliefs. How can Mason live with himself? (How, for that matter, can Watson?)

As John Stuart Mill observed in “On Liberty,” all the intelligence in the world is worthless, without intellectual courage. In other words, Felder and Mason may be smart, but they’re still a couple of schmucks.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Barry Bonds, Race, and the New York Times’ Mr. Subliminal

By Nicholas Stix
September 3, 2002
Toogood Reports

Last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine contained a long article on Barry Bonds by David Grann that was wonderful, if you knew nothing about baseball or Bonds.

Remember Kevin Nealon’s Saturday Night Live character, “Mr. Subliminal”? Everything he said out loud was a lie, which he would betray with the contradiction he’d mutter in his next breath. And so it is, with the New York Times’ Mr. Subliminal, David Grann. Grann claims he isn’t writing a story about race, but for Grann, in sports race isn’t everything, race is the only thing.

I will give a sampling of Grann’s lies, followed, in parentheses, by the mutterings the reader is supposed to subliminally pick up on.

Grann tells us that “A man had called a Houston television station and vowed to shoot him before he could break the record. Bonds thought it was because of his race, that he was being threatened the way they had once threatened Hank Aaron, but the caller insisted it was something else: like so many fans, he just hated him.”

(‘Yeah, right. Racists have become more sophisticated, in coming up with non-racial rationalizations, but you can tell they’re racists, because they always deny that they are racists.’)

“When Bonds’s contract expired at the end of his record-breaking season, not a single team reportedly expressed public interest in luring away the greatest player in the game.”

(‘They’re dirty, racist bastards, who will disrespect the greatest player in the game, based merely on the color of his skin. In baseball, nothing has changed since the days of Jackie Robinson being subjected to racial taunts.’)

Why won’t the reporter tell the truth? At the age of 37, Bonds wanted a five-year, guaranteed deal, when no team felt that at his advanced age, he was good for even four.

From 1968-1981, Barry Bonds’ father, Bobby, was an immensely gifted but inconsistent player who had personal problems. Grann suggests the reporters who wrote, ‘‘Bonds Charged With Drunk Driving’’ and ‘‘Bonds Confronts Rumors About Drugs, Drinking’’ were making up or exaggerating Bobby’s drinking, but then quotes Bobby as saying that, ‘‘What I was doing was probably no different than Mickey Mantle or a bunch of ‘em.”

(‘The racists covered for the Mick.’)

Grann leaves out that Mantle, a classic, falling-down drunk, drank himself to death. And that Mantle, who played his entire career in New York and traveled by taxi, was never arrested for DUI.

“Although Bobby still continued to put up good numbers year after year, he never lived up to expectations. ‘Anything I did that wasn’t what Willie Mays did meant I never lived up to my potential,’ Bobby once said. Yet there were whispers that Bobby’s failure was not just the result of the pressure of having to play in the shadow of Mays.”

(‘Racist whisper campaign!’)

Grann is patronizing the elder Bonds. For someone with Bobby Bonds’
talent, “good numbers” aren’t good enough. Besides, the elder Bonds didn’t mind superstar treatment and superstar pay; he just couldn’t stand the pressure to consistently produce like a superstar.

Grann overtly blames the change in baseball reporting on the game having become more clearly a business, with the first players’ strike, in 1972, killing many romantic notions. Were he familiar with his subject, he would have known that reporting was revolutionized by the 1970 publication of the irreverent, hilarious book, Ball Four, by former Yankees pitcher Jim Bouton and sportswriter Leonard Schechter. In one passage, Bouton recalled a pinch-hit, game-winning home-run by a Mantle so hung-over he could barely see the ball.

Grann sees himself as a debunker of romantic notions, in portraying the game as having “actually” been played not by country boys, but by “urban toughs.” Cap Anson, “Home Run” Baker, Christy Mathewson, Ty Cobb, Shoeless Joe Jackson, et al., a bunch of city boys? Right. And as if Barry Bonds were a street kid!

(‘If they were honest about baseball’s roots, they would embrace
“urban” types.’)


Grann: “In recent years, few players have been held up as representatives of the old ideal more than Jeff Kent, the Giants’ slender, tightly coiled second-baseman, who in 2000 Kent [sic] beat out Bonds for the M.V.P. and is said to despise Bonds more than anyone in baseball.”

(‘Kent is the Great White Hope. That’s why they lionize him, at Bonds’ expense.’)

Jeff Kent, the representative of an ideal? When Kent played for the New York Mets during the mid-1990s, he was almost universally considered a selfish crybaby, who slammed down his batting helmet when he struck out. As with Grann’s other broad statements lacking quotes or attribution, Grann does not cite one single sportswriter who idealized Kent.

At one point, Grann portrays Jeff Kent as an anti-gay bigot. A baseball player? Who’d’a thunk it? Grann is pandering to Times editors and reporters. In an oft-repeated story that was originally reported by Reed Irvine, a Times staffer observed that at editorial meetings these days, three-quarters of the staffers and editors present are gay. (And if any of those gay Timespersons are baseball fans, they keep such proclivities locked securely in the closet.)

Grann also does a “Great White Hope” number on Mark McGwire, “who despite a reputation for arrogance and rudeness became known as the antidote to Bonds.”

Not being able to recall McGwire’s “reputation for arrogance and rudeness,” I did a google search, and still couldn’t come up with any incriminating material. I do know that in McGwire’s later years, he worked hard to live up to his role as poster boy for the game, both on the field and off.

I think I know what is going on, when Grann attacks white players, while rationalizing away Barry (and Bobby) Bonds’ shortcomings. It is a common practice among racist blacks today — civilians as well as writers and academics — to run down any prominent white, with or without reason, while defending to the death any prominent black under fire, no matter how strong the case against him is (e.g., O.J. Simpson). Similarly, there are whites in the media, education, and politics, who consider themselves the friends and protectors of blacks. These whites read and listen to the most outrageous black claims, but instead of giving the mass of strangers whom they claim to love a much-needed reality check, they ape blacks’ prejudices. David Grann is one such enabler of racist, black, self-delusion.

While there are New York Times readers who will see through Grann’s agitprop, they tend to be over 50 years old, their numbers dwindling by the day. The current, dumbed-down Sunday Magazine, edited by pc featherweight Adam Moss, is geared towards younger readers with a limited knowledge of ... anything.

Consider the level of baseball knowledge of David Grann and his editors: Grann refers to Bonds’ Pittsburgh Pirates manager, Jim Leyland, as “Jim Leyland, the Pirates head coach,” and argues, “It didn’t matter that, unlike many players, Bonds never actually held out for more money.” “Head coaches” and “holdouts” are the stuff of the NFL. No student of the game would EVER make either mistake, and no editor competent to work on sports stories would let it pass.

(In case you’re wondering how a guy who doesn’t know a manager from a “head coach” gets assigned to write a baseball story for the New York Times Magazine, David Grann is the son of publishing executive Phyllis Grann. In a puff piece by Marion Maneker on Phyllis Grann that appeared in the January 21 New York magazine, Maneker described Grann, who built Putnam Books into a $100 million-per-year imprint, as “the undisputed queen of New York’s book business.”)

But then, Grann is an ideological warrior who doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. His opening rings so false, as to give baseball fans ear aches: “One night last fall Barry Bonds, the demon of America’s pastime, caught a glimpse of his own redemption.” Demon? Barry Bonds?

Grann emphasizes the business-like nature of today’s baseball, to disguise his thinly-veiled belief, from the Harry Edwards school of racist sports sociology, that it would demean black stars to entertain the (predominantly white) paying fans — even though Grann quotes a contradictory statement by Bonds, emphasizing that baseball is entertainment. ‘‘It’s entertainment. It will come back. A lot of companies go on strike. . . . And people still ride the bus.’’

[The bus isn’t entertainment, it’s a necessity. In fact, the typical person who relies on buses for travel, cannot afford to go to major league baseball games.]

For Grann, Bonds is just ‘keepin’ it real.’ Grann doesn’t know where first base is. Those who do, understand fans’ distaste at having the men whom they pay rub fans’ noses in the dirt, and know that fans reacted so viscerally to the 1994-1995 strike, that it took five years, all manner of goodwill propaganda by owners and players, and the continued use of a juiced baseball, before attendance recovered to pre-strike levels.

Quoting Richard Ben Cramer, Grann speaks, in the context of Joe DiMaggio, of a “hero machine.” And yet, baseball fans and writers recall that when DiMaggio demanded a pay raise, he was roundly booed by Yankee fans for weeks. Some hero machine. But Joe was white, so I guess that fact wouldn’t fit Grann’s storyline.

Grann sees himself as deconstructing baseball’s “romanticized” past, in which players’ foibles were kept from the public. In reality, fans had much more access to, and thus knowledge of players’ personalities 50 years ago, than they do now. Brooklynites of a certain age recall riding the trolley car to Ebbets Field with the likes of Jackie Robinson and Duke Snider. During the mid-1990s, Bobby Bonilla, then playing for the Mets, made a ludicrous ad, in which he claimed to ride the subways.

I’ve never encountered a professional athlete using public transportation.

Reportedly, one player did ride the subways during his time with the Mets, during the late 1990s, but John Olerud would not fit Grann’s profile. Olerud is white.

Grann calls Bonds, without qualification, “the most [sic] dominant player of the modern era.” Willie who? Hank who? While Bonds is the dominant position player of his generation, I would not rank him above Mays and Aaron. For one thing, there is the “standing on the shoulders of giants” factor. Even under comparable conditions, a player must do more than slightly exceed the achievements of his forebears, before being considered their superior. Those who came earlier, were not competing with the future. And so, the Johnny-come-lately must shatter those achievements. The livelier ball notwithstanding, Babe Ruth was to all the sluggers who came before him, as Secretariat was to all the race horses that preceded him.

But conditions are not comparable. Mays and Aaron played initially without the dilution of quality caused by expansion (and only modest expansion later in their careers), hit in stadiums with deeper outfields (lots of long fly outs), had to contend with a larger strike zone, and hit against pitchers who stood on higher pitching mounds, and who threw balls that were not juiced. Last year, former Mets great Donn Clendennon vividly expressed the difference. Visiting Mets broadcaster, and Hall of Fame pitcher Tom Seaver, Clendennon spoke incredulously of “145-pound” players “jacking” the ball.

Had Willie Mays and Hank Aaron played under today’s conditions, they each would have hit at least 100 additional home runs during their respective careers.

Grann feigns disbelief that Bonds’ contemptuous treatment of sportswriters should result in their disliking him, and then suggests that the unwritten “rules” local sportswriters have developed for dealing with Bonds, are based in (racist?) fantasy.

In contrast to Kent, there were unofficial rules, I was told by reporters, to get to Bonds. Don’t talk to him when he is getting dressed. Don’t talk to him just before or after batting practice. Don’t talk to him when he is sitting in his chair. Don’t talk to him when he is talking to the trainer or to his son.


But Grann broke the “rules,” and got away with it. Bonds must have seen through to Grann’s inner goodness, in contrast to the “racist” beat reporters whom Bonds forces to jump through hoops.

It doesn’t occur to Grann that his easy access to Bonds might have derived from the institutional power of the New York Times, or that Bonds, who is a bright man, likely did a background check on the writer, and determined that he was a greenhorn when it came to sports, and painfully pc, so as to be at worst, harmless, and at best, useful.

Oddly enough, in the one clearly racial situation that Grann writes about, he shies away from its racial implications. He quotes Bonds as complaining of [white] sportswriters who disparage him in private, only to approach him in the clubhouse or on the field for a quote. Bonds brags that he has “spies” who tell him what the writers say in private.

So, there are sportswriters who act collegially with their peers in private, only to betray them to the athletes they cover. Bonds has no problem with such journalistic rats, all of whom should be fired for unprofessionalism. But they won’t be. Many of them are “racials”: black affirmative action hires who didn’t get their jobs based on their abilities, to begin with. Others are whites who like to suck up to blacks, and harm other whites. It never occurs to Bonds that he routinely plays with people he dislikes. Nor does he consider how he would feel if his confidants routinely betrayed his private thoughts to outsiders, much less that there is a word for people who do their job, even when it requires being polite to those whom they personally despise: Professionalism.

The young Barry Bonds was a schmuck, whose general surliness was made all the more maddening, by his occasional attacks of charm and goodwill. In Bonds’ record-breaking season last year, he showed a much more gracious side, but has remained a difficult customer.

In April, Slate’s Joan Walsh, an unabashed Bonds fan, did a more honest job than David Grann, in expressing her admiration for the player:

Contrary to stereotype, Bonds’ problem isn’t that he’s a callous asshole, but that he’s way too sensitive.... Besides, I’m a Bonds fan because of his frailties, not in spite of them.

What does it take to love Barry Bonds? Exactly that: Seeing him as shy and strangely fragile and slightly tortured, rather than as a pampered prima donna. I gave it up to Barry only recently, so I can sympathize a little with his detractors. I know their grievances, and so do you: He’s standoffish and not wildly popular with his teammates; he won’t run out routine ground balls; he’s a jerk to reporters; he’s not exactly Mr. October, batting around .200 in the playoffs; he’s got that big leather recliner, a huge TV and three lockers in the Giants’ clubhouse.


But then, Walsh succumbs to the same disease as Grann: Her beloved Barry is the victim of racist sportswriters.

The New York Daily News’ Bill Madden has provided the most succinct portrait of Barry Bonds as a latter-day Ted Williams. Writing on May 27, 2001, on the eve of Bonds’ passing of the Splendid Splinter’s mark of 521 home runs, Madden called his column, “Thorny Like Splinter.”

In so many ways, Bonds is the reincarnation of Williams, which is especially sad if, like “Tempestuous Ted,” Bad Barry doesn’t allow us to appreciate him until he’s an octogenarian.

For his remarkable, sure-thing Hall of Fame career, Bonds has chosen to be the sullen slugger, disdainful of the media and dismissive of the fans. Therefore, it is not surprising that after hitting his 10th home run in eight games on Thursday night, Bonds received a standing ovation from only about one-third of the Pac Bell Park crowd.

Williams was accustomed to the same lukewarm support from the Boston fans. Of course, he was known to go so far as to spit at the fans to
demonstrate his contempt for them. Bonds merely makes it clear on a day-in, day-out basis he doesn’t give a damn how the fans regard him because he especially doesn’t give a damn how the media portrays him....

So we should not care if, at 36 years old, Bonds is on pace to hit 87 homers this year, just as the fans should not feel deprived by his avowed refusal to take part in the home run hitting contest at the All-Star Game. Plain and simple, Barry Bonds isn’t going to do anything to help promote the game. Like Williams throughout his career, he just wants to be left alone. Yet Bonds wonders why the Giants remain undecided about giving him a contract extension.

He’s by far a better all-around player than Williams was, but for all the other reasons, he seems destined to be forever compared to him. How sad, if Bonds, like Williams of recent years, does not start saying hello until the time comes to start saying goodbye.


It is apparently an unwritten rule among politically correct writers never to speak of a black as the “reincarnation” of a white, except perhaps as an insult to someone who’s not “black enough” — even when the description is dead-on.

I disagree with Madden, however, regarding Bonds’ attitude towards the fans. I think he wants them to love him; he just hasn’t been willing to meet them half way.

While giving the appearance of an intimate portrait, David Grann’s attempt to turn Barry Bonds into a race-political icon, only adds to the distance between informed reader and subject. Transparent dishonesty will do that. But then, what can you expect from a newspaper that is edited by people who hate sports, and who ran a front-page magazine story a few years ago, suggesting that baseball’s lack of popularity among black fans was indicative of some sort of subtle racism in Major League Baseball, Inc.’s approach to them? Once again, the mighty Times has struck out.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

The Price of Real Journalism

Why VDARE.COM Needs Your Help
By Nicholas Stix

(This is another previous fundraising appeal I made, back in 2005. I have only made slight changes, entering the winter 2007 donation link, and cutting a reference at the end to deductions for charitable giving enacted by Congress only for 2005, in response to Hurricane Katrina. I’d write a new pitch letter, but by the time I finished it, it would be 2010, and VDARE needs your support in 2007.)

In this holiday season, you are being deluged by scam artists seeking to fleece you for what they claim are “charities.” Have you gotten your yearly call, for instance, from the guy who claims to be collecting donations to give to the widows and orphans of policemen murdered in the line of duty? Ha! The guy on the phone is a low-paid flunky; over 90 percent of the money you donate goes to his boss, who is a crook and a creep who should be hunted down by real policemen and put out of business. (Our state and federal legislators are so busy passing pork barrel legislation that it has not occurred to them to pass laws criminalizing phony charities. And so, crooks like the above-mentioned type continue to fleece the big-hearted.)

But one legitimate, truly worthy organization that desperately needs your support is VDARE. This Web site, founded six years ago by the brilliant social critic, Peter Brimelow (author of, among other works, Alien Nation on immigration and The Worm in the Apple on the teachers' unions), is the site par excellence for news, analysis, and commentary on immigration into these United States. And it ain't too shabby on race, either.

Why should you support VDARE? Glad you asked. For several years, VDARE was alone among major Web sites in banging the drum for immigration restriction. And it is still the best source for information on the attempt by President Bush and America's elites of the Right and the Left, to smuggle into law a stealth amnesty (aka “guest worker plan”). And it is the best source for information about the immigration bureaucracy and the many de facto amnesty programs already in existence.

VDARE is also one of the only sites on the Internet whose publisher actually pays his writers. And one of those writers is yours truly. So, if you think that my work is deserving of support, please hit this link to give to VDARE. Thanks in advance.

One of the reasons why most of the material you read on the Internet is so godawful is that almost no one pays for material. And so, the typical Web “pundit” sits down in front of his pc and pounds out his “insights” in about ten minutes – even less, if he's a fast typist. And who needs spell-check? (That begs the question: Why is most of the material one reads in newspapers and magazines that pay writers so bad?)

But work that demands to be read takes time to research and write. Hours, days, weeks, even months. It takes Web searches; it requires buying and poring over sometimes expensive, out-of-print books; sometimes it takes costly Lexis-Nexis searches and archived newspaper and journal articles; and it may take calls to lawyers, flacks, politicians and victims.

Very few people can afford to devote that sort of time and money to writing, and those who are independently wealthy generally demand, and get payment. (They're the ones writing the drivel published in newspapers and magazines.) And very few “professional writers” are willing to buck the conventional wisdom, Left or Right. Thus are we saddled with the likes of Tamar Jacoby and Jonah Goldberg from the Republican side, and Ellen Goodman and Frank Rich from the socialist side. None of the aforementioned writers will give you the truth about ... anything. Jacoby, in particular, has been lying about immigration and the possibility of immigration enforcement for years, in order to prevent Americans from doing anything to reassert American sovereignty and American law. Her goal in life is apparently to ensure that every upper-middle-class American family's “civil right” to illegal immigrant nannies, gardeners, and cooks; and every American corporation's “right” to low-wage Indian computer programmers remains inviolate.

Some formerly orthodox neoconservative writers, such as Heather MacDonald, have in recent years come around to understand that illegal immigration is destroying America, but they might never have, had it not been for VDARE alone banging the drum for immigration restriction, lo these many years.

Peter Brimelow has published two [in the meantime up to six] of my articles since May 2004, and they were two of my most important exposés on policing and multiculturalism (“'Disappearing' Urban Crime” and “Diversity is Strength! It's Also ... Police Corruption”). [Of my more recent work for VDARE, see: "The Knoxville Horror: Crime, Race, The Media, and 'Anti-Racism'", and "The Incredible Disappearing Duke Rape Hoax."]

In his current fundraising appeal, Brimelow writes, “help feed starving young writers in fiscal 2005!”

“It is amazing how little money it takes to get young people to take this risk—not a risk at all, really, but certain professional suicide, unless we can build VDARE.COM up as an alternative institution fast enough.” [How nice to be referred to as “young” – that hasn't happened in years!]

“At various times this year, I’ve had to go slow paying writers—and also to turn aside the many new writers who want to appear on VDARE.COM. It’s deeply distressing, because just a little money means so much to them—and to their country.

“Tonight, we post Tom Piatak’s summary of the War against Christmas, Michelle Malkin, plus, of course, the blog.

“Scroll down to the end, past Ms. Bevens’ picture—and when you pass the donate link, remember my starving young writers.”

Monday, December 03, 2007

VDARE: America’s Finest Political Webzine Needs Your Support

By Nicholas Stix

(Last spring, I began an elaborate, ambitious call for readers to support VDARE.com, but have yet to finish it. Considering that a few days ago, VDARE founder Peter Brimelow saw fit to quote almost 500 words from that fundraising letter in his current one, I figured that if it’s good enough for Peter, it should be good enough for me, too. The alternative is to continue with the new fundraising letter, which I might not finish until next year. But Peter needs your money now!)


It’s that time of year again. You are bound to be inundated with telephone calls from the “National Police Officers’ Association,” or some such scam, which will claim to be helping out the widows and children of police officers slain in the line of duty, organizations which virtually never contribute one dime to the welfare of police officers or their families. But one organization, which does not seek, via cold-calling or any other method, to fleece the unwary good-hearted, and which, in fact, is indispensable, is VDARE.

Not only is VDARE (those mysterious typos, notwithstanding) the best-written Web site that I know of, it is the indispensable Web site, which has had more of a positive effect than any 200 GOP talking points sites (some of which are edited by would-be political consultants) combined.

VDARE is devoted to the National Question. As in, shall the United States of America endure, and what is necessary to do, in order to ensure that it does? Since presently, the greatest threat to the continued existence of these United States is mass immigration, legal and illegal, immigration is VDARE’s preoccupation.

How important is VDARE? Pat Buchanan’s just released work, State of Emergency, is easily the most important immigration book written since Michelle Malkin’s Invasion, four years ago. (It may be the most important book since VDARE founder Peter Brimelow’s 1995 work, Alien Nation.) The impeccable statistical research Buchanan cites in State of Emergency was provided by statistician Edwin Rubinstein, a regular VDARE columnist. And when the standard-setting report on race in America, The State of White America, appears later this month, it too will have statistical foundations provided by Ed Rubinstein.

But that’s not all, folks.

Steve Sailer, another regular VDARE columnist, may well be the most brilliant intellectual-journalist working in the English language today.

But there’s more. VDARE also showcases work written exclusively for it by columnists Bryanna Bevens, Allan Wall, James Fulford, Joe Guzzardi, Juan Mann, Donald A. Collins, Brenda Walker and Athena Kerry.

A listing of just a few of its exposés (including two from yours truly) follows:

S. 2611 Amnesty/Open Borders/Immigration Acceleration Bill – VDARE helped galvanize opposition that shelved the bill for now, and exposed the Pence Plan by Cong. Mike Pence (R-Indiana), that sought to backdoor amnesty, while claiming to be a “rational middle ground.”

Misrepresenting the Hispanic Vote: Steve Sailer has for several years continually exposed the myths whereby not only the socialist MSM, but their Republican counterparts, not to mention politicians from both major parties have proceeded as if Hispanics’ votes somehow counted for more than whites’ votes.

Naming Open Border Lobby names: VDARE writers have shown how low the OBL will sink, in order to defend the indefensible, such as in Patrick Cleburne’s exposé of Colorado horse farm owner Helen Krieble’s agitations for amnesty, whereby Krieble seeks to depress the wages she has to pay her workers.

VDAWDI: With his VDARE American Worker Displacement Index, Edwin S. Rubenstein has kept a monthly tab on the rise of “immigrant” employment, and concurrent decline in the employment of Americans.

EOIR: In what he should have turned into a book by now, immigration attorney and VDARE columnist Juan Mann has shown how the Executive Office of Immigration Review has undermined the enforcement of immigration law.

America’s Worst Immigration Journalist: VDARE columnist Joe Guzzardi presides over one of the fiercest journalism competitions in existence: determining who, of all the shamelessly dishonest open borders shills, is the worst.

God & Girl at a Catholic University: Athena Kerry’s series showed the decline into multicultural nihilism of one once proudly Catholic institution.

Diversity is Strength! It’s Also … Police Corruption: In 1995, the New York City Police Department hired illegal alien Martin Peters. When Peters came under suspicion in the murder of the mother of his child, and the NYPD showed reticence about promoting him to sergeant, Peters played the race card, and got his promotion. Sgt. Peters is now under indictment for Murder in the Second Degree, Assault in the First Degree, Intimidating a Witness in the Third Degree, Menacing in the Second Degree, three counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, defrauding HUD out of $38,724 in rent subsidies, bankruptcy fraud and last, but not least, immigration fraud.

“Disappearing” Urban Crime: shows the methods of statistical fraud the NYPD employs to make New York “America’s Safest Big City.”

The VDARE Blog: VDARE has one of the best blogs on the Web, with steady contributions from its regular columnists, plus bloggers Patrick Cleburne and Randall Burns.

If you doubt me, try for yourself!

Syndicated columnists: VDARE also runs and archives the columns of Pat Buchanan and Michelle Malkin. So, what’s the big deal about running columns you can read anywhere? The big deal is that nowhere else can you read these columns with the encyclopedic links that VDARE’s editors weave into the text.

Sam Francis: Over the past twenty or so years, Sam Francis was one of America's most important political thinkers, and one of her few honest writers on race. Francis died on February 15, 2005 of complications following heart surgery, at the age of 57. But during his brief stay in this vale of tears, Francis was as prolific as he was insightful. And all of the approximately 400 columns he wrote for VDARE are still available at his VDARE archive, which also contains links to obituaries honoring him, to his work for Chronicles magazine and townhall.com, and to the newly published collection of some of his work. This archive is a treasure trove.

Donate: Please give to VDARE. If you do so by December 31, you can write your contribution off your 2007 taxes. And tax write-offs aside, giving to VDARE is, in the words of one of my favorite ex-convicts, A good thing.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Picture This: September 11, Multiculturalism, and the War on White Male Heroes

By Nicholas Stix

April, 2002
Middle American News

(See also: “Giving Thomas Jefferson the Business: The Jefferson-Hemings Hoax.”)

In recent weeks, Americans have been dramatically reminded of a development that in fact has been institutionalized for over thirty years in America: The war on white male heroes. Fought under the pretext that too many white faces makes blacks feel unwelcome, and that more black faces will raise black self-esteem and hence black achievement, the war on white male heroes has been a pillar of multiculturalism's (primarily Afrocentrism and feminism), anti-white race war.

Billions of people around the world saw the picture of three white New York City firemen – Dan McWilliams, George Johnson and William Eisengrein — raising the American flag at Ground Zero on September 11. That photograph was to be memorialized by a $180,000 bronze statue at Fire Department headquarters. However, Democratic Party fundraiser (and Clinton-crony) Bruce Ratner, who commissioned the statue, and FDNY honchos, decided there was a problem with the photograph: Too many white faces. The solution was to falsify the image, by turning one fireman into a black, and another into an Hispanic. As so often occurs in the war on white, male heroes, initially, the mainstream media refused even to report on the revisionist statue. On December 21, when New York City Fire Department officials announced the plan for the revisionist statue, NewsMax alone reported on it. Although a petition campaign totaling (for two petitions), at this writing, over 400,000 signatures, got the FDNY brass and Bruce Ratner to back down from their agitprop statue, for purely racial reasons, they do not plan on memorializing the three white firemen. (One on-line petition totaling 395,000 signatures as of this writing, has been started and maintained by Free Republic activist Jeff Head.)

Meanwhile, in January, Brooklyn, New York's new borough president, Marty Markowitz, decreed that portraits of too many “old white guys” with names like Washington and Jefferson, were hanging in Brooklyn's Borough Hall. Markowitz sought to remove the “offensive paintings,” but later relented in the face of public outrage.

In education, white heroes have been edited out of school books since the 1970s. They have been replaced with black, female, Hispanic, Asian, the airplane. And the only “George Washington” millions of students ever hear about, is George Washington Carver, the black inventor of the peanut.

(Postscript: Since publishing this article, I learned that not only did George Washington Carver not invent the peanut—God took care of that—but it is not clear that Carver ever invented anything. See “How Legends are Created: The Counterfeit Glory of George Washington Carver: There was affirmative action long before it had a name.”)

Indeed, to the degree that the Founding Fathers are still mentioned, they are relentlessly attacked, including the hoax that claimed that “DNA evidence” showed “a strong likelihood” that Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one of the six children of his slave, Sally Hemings. While it is theoretically possible that Jefferson was the father of one or more children of Hemings, it is unlikely. All that is known for sure is that one out of some sixteen males on the Jefferson line was the father. Such scientific scruples did not inhibit the editors at Nature magazine, where the hoax was first published, in 1998, much less the mainstream media outlets which relentlessly repeated the hoax. In 2000, a second tendentious “study,” published by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Society, argued, without any evidence, that Jefferson may have been the father of all six of Hemings' children.

In “The Fable of Tom and Sally,” published last year in Insight magazine, James P. Lucier reported that experts he'd interviewed said that the debacle over the Jefferson hoax was, “a battle for the interpretation of America's heritage and the way future generations view the founders of the nation.” A group of top-flight scholars examined the claims and concluded, “We have found most of the arguments used to point suspicion toward Thomas Jefferson to be unpersuasive and often factually erroneous. Not a single member of our group, after an investigation lasting roughly one year, finds the case against Thomas Jefferson to be highly compelling, and the overwhelming majority of us believe it is very unlikely that he fathered any children by Sally Hemings.”

While the Founding Fathers are constantly defamed and denigrated, famous blacks of flawed, and often of dubious character, are deified. Obsessive plagiarist, philanderer, and communist fellow-traveler Martin Luther King Jr. is presented as the greatest American who ever lived, while genocidal racists such as Marcus Garvey and Elijah Muhammad are memorialized in public museums and during Black History Month. Garvey has also had streets named after him, and been made a part of Afrocentric stealth curricula in many public schools. The January scandal in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, revealed that public school officials had posted the separatist “Black National Anthem,” “Black Pledge of Allegiance,” and Garvey's black separatist flag on the Millwood School District's official web site.

For black authority figures, whether teachers, principals, professors, police officers, or parents, the war on white heroes is not merely about history. These black authority figures teach black children to hate and disrespect all white male authority in the here and now. The theory behind the teaching of anti-white-male hatred, is that if blacks focus all of their hatred and violence on white men, they can then somehow save all of their love for fellow blacks. The most influential proponent of this position is Amos Wilson, the author of Black-on-Black Violence: The Psychodynamics of Black Self-Annihilation in Service of White Domination.

Afrocentric racists have enjoyed tremendous support from influential white socialists, such as Queens College political scientist, Andrew Hacker. Hacker, whose publisher, Ballantine Books, claims he is “the foremost expert on race in America,” is the author of Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal, which is mandatory reading in college social science courses across the U.S. In Two Nations, Hacker claims that a conspiracy of white police and prosecutors are responsible for the high arrest rates among young black men. Hacker then calls on those same, “racist” authorities to turn a blind eye to the violent crimes of black predators, notwithstanding that such crime supposedly does not exist. Meanwhile, arguing that every violent black-on-white crime is a form of racial reparations, Hacker suggests to black men that they commit MORE violent crimes, provided they follow affirmative action guidelines, restricting themselves to white men, and leaving white women alone. Logic and morality are obviously not Andrew Hacker's strong suits.

The strategy of encouraging black hatred has been a miserable failure. Rather than leading to black self-respect, educational success, and reduced black crime, the war on white male heroes has resulted in institutionalized black racism, black illegitimacy, black educational failure and spiraling black crime. Seventy percent of black children are today born out of wedlock, over four times the 1950 rate. And while a 1990 study by the leftwing Washington, D.C. Sentencing Project, determined that 25 percent of all American black men between the ages of 20 and 29 were either in prison, on parole, or on probation, a mere five years later, the number had risen to 33 percent. Blacks have sought to explain away spiraling black crime via the hoax of “racial profiling,” but the truth is staring them in the mirror.

Oddly, Afrocentrism's staunchest allies in the war against white males have been white feminists. Odd, because Afrocentrists hate white women no less than they do white men, and because feminists fear black men much more than they do white men. No matter. While sympathizing with black male predators, feminism paints white, heterosexual males as the source of all of history's evil. Feminists dominate the public schools, teacher education programs, and children's textbook publishing. Feminists have even conscripted God in their fight. Led by theorists such as Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sallie McFague, and Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, and deeply influenced by atheist male-hater, Mary Daly, feminist theology seeks to draft new, female prophets to make up for Biblical “gender imbalance,” re-interpret the Bible in feminist terms, and even to recast God, variously as a hermaproditic deity, or as a woman.

Feminism lacks any sense of heroism; indeed it undermines the machismo necessary to look death in the eye. And feminists lack not only the courage, but the physical ability to save lives, when only strong men will do. While feminists have succeed at pressuring, through frivolous lawsuits, fire departments across the nation into watering down essential physical strength tests, and getting female “fire fighters” hired, such affirmative action hires are for “show-no” jobs; they show up, but do no work. For if firewomen were sent into action, they would perish, and cause the deaths of firemen trying to save them, not to mention the civilians the fire fighters were supposed to save. That would result in scandals, and in multimillion-dollar negligence suits against fire departments for using incompetent “fire fighters,” instead of real firemen, to fight blazes. Thus, it is no surprise that of the 343 New York City “fire fighters” who perished on September 11, every single one was a man. And 319 of the 343, were white men. Feminists' response has been to complain about the lack of portrayals of heroic women on September 11.

A lone voice of sanity has been that of Pres. George W. Bush, who bypassed traditional U.S. Postal Service procedures, which commemorate only the dead, and only depict paintings on stamps. The President directed that the actual picture of firemen Dan McWilliams, George Johnson and William Eisengrein, taken by newspaper photographer Thomas E. Franklin, of the The Record in Bergen County, N.J., be turned into a postage stamp. On March 11, the stamp was unveiled as a 45 cent, “semi-postal” stamp, which will go into circulation in the late spring. Each stamp counts for 34-cents, first class postage; the other eleven cents go to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to be disbursed to survivors of emergency service personnel killed saving people in the Twin Towers on September 11.