PayPal

Monday, February 18, 2008

NY Times’ Frank Rich: White Men Must Commit Political Suicide

By Nicholas Stix

In Frank Rich’s New York Times column yesterday (you know, the same one he’s rehashed hundreds of times before, with slight edits), he speaks of the “demographic monotony: all white and nearly all male” of Sen. John McCain’s (Media-AZ) victory “posse” (“The Grand Old White Party Confronts Obama,” February 17, 2008).

Rich tells us that in victory, “McCain looked like a loser,” and that his white men supporters are an “albatross.”

Imagine if he had said that female or black or Hispanic political supporters were an “albatross” around a candidate’s neck, and made him “look like a loser.” But he wouldn’t dare. He’d be out of a job, and the column would be killed.

If, as Rich says, white men supporters are an “albatross” around McCain’s neck, then the only thing for the Republican frontrunner to do is to tell them, “White men, leave me alone; I only want women and people of color to vote for me.”

That would guarantee Gov. Mike Huckabee (Christian Opportunist-AR) the party nomination. And if the Huckster followed Rich’s advice, it would guarantee the Democrats the biggest landslide in American history.

Rich claims that in being dominated by white men, “A cultural sea change has passed [the GOP] by.” On the contrary, today’s GOP is a response to that sea change. Beginning in the 1960s, the Democratic Party undertook its Northern Strategy. Its leadership decided that promoting racist and sexist hatred towards heterosexual white men was the wave of the future. Millions of heterosexual white men got the message and exited the party. The rich ones stayed, because the party’s policies did not harm them, as long as they mouthed the racist, sexist slogans, and made generous contributions.

Rich wants the Democratic ticket to win, whoever heads it, because he is a Democratic hack. His pompous, racist, sexist rhetoric is the expression of his party loyalty. Rich is one of those privileged, white, heterosexual males who still have status in the Democratic Party. He’s probably not even aware that, as Steve Sailer first showed about eight years ago, the statistical and political key to any Republican winning isn’t in jettisoning white men and pandering to blacks and Hispanics—which McCain’s already been doing for years—who will never support him, but in reaching out to more whites. As Sailer has shown, were any GOP candidate to get 60 percent of the white vote, he would be guaranteed the White House.

In contrast, the innumerate Rich closes with, “A national rout in 2008 just may be that Republican Party’s last stand.”

But McCain won’t get 60 percent of the white vote, because he’s not reaching out to "that Republican Party." For the past eight years he’s done everything in his power to appease the Frank Riches of the press corps. He’s consistently screwed over white folks, and given Rich & Co. everything they said they wanted: Unconstitutional campaign finance reform; unconstitutional open borders; opposition to tax cuts.

Rich actually acknowledges McCain’s anti-white, anti-Evangelical, and anti-American positions (though not in those terms), but they don’t matter to him, because, at the end of the day, McCain is still an old white man. He’s not cool. Obama is black, and thus cool.

Rich conjures up a couple of wealthy, white male Republicans, including a political operative, who support Obama. In what used to be called rhetoric, this is called “bandwagoning,” and is real bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. ‘See, they eat Diabetic Shock Cereal, you should, too.’

Similarly, Mark McKinnon, the Bush media maven who has played a comparable role for Mr. McCain in this campaign, reaffirmed to Evan Smith of Texas Monthly weeks ago that he would not work for his own candidate in a race with Mr. Obama. Elaborating to NPR last week, Mr. McKinnon said that while he is “100 percent” for Mr. McCain and disagrees with Mr. Obama “on very fundamental issues,” he likes Mr. Obama and what he’s doing for the country enough to stay on the sidelines rather than fire off attack ads.


As craven and decadent as the elites running the GOP are, the idea that wealthy, influential, white Republicans would vote for a racist, socialist Democrat just because he’s black is still pretty hard to take.

Let’s take another look at that title again: “The Grand Old White Party Confronts Obama.”

No. For the title to bear any relation to Rich’s words, he would have had to come up with more than one named political media operative and an anonymous “staunch anti-Clinton Republican businessman” that we’re supposed to believe is a “friend” of Rich’s.

Between the title and the text, this is Frank Rich projecting his hopes. Ever since Times columnist and black, racist newsroom enforcer Bob Herbert began his subliminal liar campaign on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama (Race-IL) in 2004 (‘He transcends race/vote for him because he’s black’), the Times has sunk to new lows in political rhetoric, in its attempts to gin up support for the racist, socialist, sometimes kinda Moslem, sometimes kinda Christian, biracial senator.

In any event, there’s a certain poetic justice to a man like McCain, who has stabbed so many people in the back, getting a dose of his own medicine from his media guy.

I used to be a Democrat; I even considered myself a “liberal,” until I figured out that the word meant “socialist/communist/whatever.” But after years of facing Democratic racism, sexism, and heterophobia, I left the party. I never bothered changing my voter registration because, after all, I still live in New York City, and aside from that, at present, it really doesn’t matter what party I register under.

Unlike Frank Rich, I’m not a hack for any party.

According to Rich, the hip thing for white, heterosexual, working and middle-class white men to do would be to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama. But he can’t give a single argument on behalf of his position. All he can do is mock white men Republicans, in the hopes that he will somehow shame them into voting against their own interests.

And he wonders why the majority of heterosexual, white men vote Republican.

Poor Rich. Fifty-eight years old, and never had a thought. Intellectually, he’s still a virgin. He’s always lived in an echo chamber of socialist (or is it communist?) slogans, and never stepped outside. He shows no awareness that Republican politicians were more supportive of the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Does he even know what party Lincoln led?

If Rich left his echo chamber and had a thought, he’d know that the GOP has no more to offer working and middle-class white, heterosexual men than the Democrat Party does.

It’s time for a new party.

A cultural sea change has passed you by, Frank.

Barack Obama, Man of Faith

By Nicholas Stix
August 22, 2004

“I am a Christian…. So, I have a deep faith. I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.

“That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.”

Thus, U.S. Senate candidate for Illinois Barack Obama in a campaign contribution by Chicago Sun-Times columnist Cathleen Falsani.

Obama’s supporters include not only constituents and corporations giving him monetary contributions, but scores of alleged journalists who see their job as doing everything in their power to get him elected. As Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass observed, “A conservative Ditka candidacy would also have forced Barack Obama, the anointed one, to actually campaign for the Senate rather than wait for more air kisses from Hollywood liberals and the Eastern press, the Midwestern press, the Western press.”

Obama, an Illinois state senator representing the South Side of Chicago, is in fact a far-left politician who – as I’ve previously shown – seeks to force ever more socialist and racist laws and programs on the American people.

Meanwhile, Obama’s media devotees have launched such a successful crusade on his behalf, that in what took on the airs of a coronation, just before the late July Democratic National Convention in Boston, he was chosen by the Kerry campaign to be a keynote speaker. And he acquitted himself stupendously. Between the lines, one can read Obama’s media cadres going from touting the biracial (half-white, half-black) candidate as potentially “only the third African-American to take a seat in the Senate since Reconstruction” (the New York Times’ Bob Herbert), to seeing in him potentially the nation’s second “black” president. It is worth examining the spiritual world of this rising national player.

After emphasizing the transcendence of Obama’s Christianity, Cathleen Falsani would appear to contradict herself, by claiming that “Obama's theological point of view was shaped by his uniquely multicultural upbringing.”

Since his mother was a secular humanist – and between the lines, sounds like an atheist – and his stepfather was a Moslem (the late Barack Obama Sr., a Moslem-raised but non-religious Kenyan economist, deserted his family when his son was only two years old), how would that shape the faith of someone who, according to Falsani, “is unapologetic in saying he has a ‘personal relationship with Jesus Christ’”?

I say, appears to contradict herself, since Falsani’s column makes a gruel of Christianity. But on one point, she is clear:

“Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion,” he says. “I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I'm a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. [Actually, Obama is not a law professor, but a “senior lecturer.” As Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet has pointed out, and as I know from six-and-a-half years as a full-time, college adjunct lecturer, “In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles.” As Sweet also notes, however, Obama’s misrepresentation of his academic position is the least of his credibility problems.]

“I am a great admirer of our founding charter and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root in this country.

“I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate. I don't think it's healthy for public figures to wear religion on their sleeve as a means to insulate themselves from criticism, or dialogue with people who disagree with them.”

Falsani quotes lefty activist, Roman Catholic Fr. Michael Pfleger, of St. Sabina Church on Chicago’s South Side, “I always have felt in [Obama] this consciousness that, at the end of the day, with all of us, you've got to face God. Faith is key to his life, no question about it. [It is] central to who he is, and not just in his work in the political field, but as a man, as a black man, as a husband, as a father.... I don't think he could easily divorce his faith from who he is.”

(Martin Luther King Jr. would appear to have been the greatest spiritual influence on Fr. Pfleger, who is obsessed with what he perceives to be white racism, but blind to the very real black variety. Logic is also not Fr. Pfleger’s strong suit, witness the following statement on whites and MLK: “Their anger came from the fact that he would not react to their anger and hatred.”)

So, Obama’s religious faith is and is not transcendent. Thank you, Cathleen Falsani.

Obama the Christian is a devout believer in unlimited abortion rights. He denies the existence of Hell. He came to Christianity through social organizing with activist religious. His devout Christianity derives from the secular humanist “values” his atheist mother imbued him with. He believes, with all his heart, in the separation of church and state – except when he campaigns in black churches, in violation of that separation, and in violation of the tax code. (According to U.S. tax law, any house of worship that permits politicians to campaign within its walls, loses its tax-exempt status. But then, as another Chicago politician, Cong. Jesse Jackson Jr., announced on the radio talk show Nashville This Morning on election eve in November 2000, the separation of church and state and the tax code simply don’t apply to blacks.) Obama wears his religion on his sleeve in black churches, but in dealing with the mainstream media, attacks the same behavior, at least as far as white, conservative Christians are concerned.

The only recognizably Christian position Obama takes is his opposition to same-sex marriage, due to the “religious connotations” of marriage. (“Religious connotations”? What about “civic religion”; the “separation of church and state”; the “enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate”? Don’t ask.) This is surely due to the fact that blacks are the racial/ethnic group most adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, and Obama does not want to rile the one voter bloc on which his candidacy is most dependent. However, I would expect his position on same-sex marriage to begin “evolving” around, say, … November 3. Once Obama is safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, he knows that his black base will stick by him, for richer or for poorer, for better or for worse. Then he will doubtless begin the sort of “education” of the Christian black electorate in matters of same-sex marriage, which black leaders earlier conducted in the matter of abortion.

Regarding Obama’s religiosity, which appeared out of nowhere during his social activist work, following his graduation from law school, a line from Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass comes to mind, when the latter explained why Mike Ditka was not prepared for political life. “Ditka doesn't need a political life. And he hasn't spent decades planning for the scrutiny.”

Obama’s closest religious advisers – Fr. Pfleger, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, and Illinois State Sen. James Meeks, who moonlights as the pastor of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church – may have quotes from Scripture always handy, but are theologically closer to Karl Marx and black nationalism, than to Christianity. (Union Theological Seminary theologian James H. Cone, who is credited with having founded liberation theology, is a black nationalist who speaks the lingo of Marxian dialectic. And as white Marxists have over the past 40 years adopted the language of race war, socialism and black supremacy have increasingly come to resemble each other. I call the common movement, which is more typically referred to as “multiculturalism,” racial socialism.)

The transcendent-non-transcendent motto the Rev. Wright has given Trinity is, “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian.”

According to State Sen./Rev. James Meeks’ humble, personal church Web page, “Meeks’ practical and charismatic style of instruction motivates the hearer to take action and has resulted in accomplishments of miraculous proportions.” When the good Senator/Reverend is not accomplishing miracles and other feats “never before documented in history,” he serves as the executive vice president of Jesse Jackson Sr.’s National Rainbow-Push Coalition. Why a man of God would want to be identified with Jackson’s personal den of iniquity is a question only the Rev. Meeks can answer.

Keep in mind the parallels between Obama, his black constituency, and the Democrat Party. As black Chicagoans have suffered less and less under racism, they have become increasingly racist. Conversely, once the Democrat Party gave up its role as a pillar of Jim Crow, it increasingly has come to trade in race hoaxes. And as leading black preacher-politicians (witness Jesse Jackson Sr.’s former opposition to abortion) and white Democrat pols alike have made “Christianity” indistinguishable from the program of the left wing of the Democrat Party, so too have millions of black Christians “revised” their Bibles. And so, just as “rights” have become merely a euphemism for whatever black, “progressive,” or homosexual Democrats desire, so too has Christianity.

Apparently, the only thing that the “Christianity” of Barack Obama, Fr. Pfleger, the Rev. Wright and the Rev. Meeks forbids, is voting Republican.

Now that Obama has a Republican opponent in Alan Keyes, Obama’s media acolytes are working hard to discredit Keyes, a talk-show host who is a former ambassador, and presidential and senatorial candidate. Meanwhile, Obama, who when Jack Ryan was his opponent wanted six debates, has no desire to debate Keyes. Obama & Co. had better stick to their new script or Keyes, a brilliant man who knows the Constitution better than “Professor” Obama does, and whose own Christian faith comes not from Karl Marx or black nationalism (or possibly Unitarian Universalism), but from Christianity, might put some hard questions to Barack Obama.

Barack Obama, Race Man

By Nicholas Stix
Illinois Leader
July 6, 2004

With the June 25 announcement by conservative Republican Jack Ryan that he was dropping out of the U.S. Senate race for Illinois, the seat falls to Democrat candidate Barack Obama virtually by default.

But who is Barack Obama? Is the charming, handsome, articulate 42-year-old state senator who dominated a field of six in the March 16 Democrat primary with 53 percent of the vote, the herald of a “new kind of politics” or merely a new voice calling for the same old, racist, urban welfare politics the Democrat Party has promoted for forty years?

On June 4, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pitched for Obama.

“In a political era saturated with cynicism and deceit, Mr. Obama is asking voters to believe him when he talks about the values and verities that so many politicians have lied about for so long. He's asking, in effect, for a leap of political faith.”

Herbert crafted two cover stories, as to why voters should support Obama: 1. He is a left-of-center candidate whose message transcends partisanship; and 2. He is black. (Actually, Obama is biracial; one can only call him “African-American” by reading his white mother out of his genetic code.)

Forget number one. Herbert wants Illinoisans to elect Barack Obama to the Senate, because Herbert has defined him as black.

Imagine how Herbert and millions of other black and white “liberals” would react, if a white columnist called on voters to elect a political candidate, merely because the latter was white (or was defined as white).

Herbert tells us that Obama is a “left of center” pol who believes in "a set of core values that bind us together as Americans." Herbert writes that Obama’s “partisans describe [him] as a dream candidate, the point man for a new kind of politics designed to piece together a coalition reminiscent of the one blasted apart by the bullet that killed Robert Kennedy in 1968.”

“Core values” talk -- logic and morality be damned -- always seems to lead to the demand that black and Hispanic Americans (and Hispanic non-citizens!) be privileged under the law, and white Americans be disenfranchised. And in fact, Obama is a rabid supporter of affirmative action and other racially biased policies, though Herbert did not see fit to divulge those facts. Indeed, Herbert provided no credible or substantive information about Obama’s politics.

Obama , who currently represents Illinois' 13th Senate District, on the largely black South Side of Chicago, is also an ardent supporter of abortion, and a lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago. But has he ever read the Constitution? The Supreme Court’s decisions deeming abortion a “fundamental right” and in favor of affirmative action were, constitutionally speaking, some of the worst in the history of the Court.

According to another fawning, if brief, profile in The Economist, “He has worked hard to reach across racial lines, but his core support comes from blacks and white urban progressives, and he has pinned his primary hopes largely on the Chicago area.” The anonymous Economist editorialist also indulged in some cheap race-baiting: "Are Illinois voters ready for this? In a city with deep Irish roots, a local commentator suggests that he might do better as O'Bama."

Had the writer at The Economist bothered to check his facts, he would have known that Chicago today has twice as many blacks as Irish. Apparently, he only knows Chicago from 1930s' 20th Century-Fox movies about Mrs. O'Leary's cow .

The media coverage of Obama that I have seen, has been an endless series of puff pieces, many of which employ the same fork-tongued rhetoric: ‘He transcends race (but support him, because he’s black).’ Such uncritical campaign propaganda from the press should not surprise students of the media - Obama and the people “covering” him are overwhelmingly leftists. Alleged journalists see helping Obama win as a matter of political honor.

But are Illinois voters ready for Obama's race politics?

Affirmative Action: America has already suffered for almost 40 years under a system in which incompetents are accepted to college and graduate and professional school, hired to responsible jobs, and given government contracts, due solely to their race, ethnicity, or sex, while qualified people suffer egregious discrimination, based solely on their race, ethnicity, or sex. Obama would maintain such vicious programs in perpetuity.

The unrealistic attitude of many black supporters of affirmative action was succinctly expressed by Obama’s wife, Michelle, as recounted in yet another valentine, by New Yorker writer William Finnegan. “Michelle’s father was a city worker, her grandfather a handyman. ‘They were bright, articulate, well-read men,’ she says. ‘If they’d been white, they would have been the heads of banks.’”

People have lived under the racist regime of affirmative action for so long, that they may fail to see the connection between it and contemporary racialist policies which are in fact direct outgrowths of it. Affirmative action has for over thirty years been defended by, among other rationalizations, the theory of “disparate impact.” According to “disparate impact,” any category in which a “preferred minority” (or women) does less well than white men, is automatically a case of racial discrimination. No evidence is required of those charging discrimination. Not only are claimants released from the onus of proving their case, but in recent years, a paranoid conspiracy theory has been joined to disparate impact theory, in order to foist pernicious race hoaxes on the public, such as the fiction of “racial profiling.”

Law Enforcement: Obama drafted successful legislation ensuring that all interrogations in death penalty cases are videotaped; “passed model legislation designed to curb the practice of racial profiling by law enforcement”; and “has been a leader in reforming the juvenile justice system to keep more young people in school and out of prison, and has fought to increase penalties for domestic violence.” (Quotes are from Obama’s official Web site.)

The videotaping requirement Obama got passed is part of a national movement to have all police interrogations videotaped. The movement gathered steam in late 2002, as part of the ultimately successful campaign to get the convictions of the five New York men who in 1989 as teenagers had admitted to assaulting, sexually abusing, and leaving for dead Tricia Meili, whom whites had known for years as “the Central Park Jogger” thrown out. (Blacks knew Meili’s name, because black media had constantly publicized it from the start.)

According to the Supreme Court, police are legally permitted to use deceit, in order to trick suspects into confessing to crimes, but some members of the public, particularly among blacks, oppose such tactics. And while some supporters of videotaping all interrogations have claimed that the practice is necessitated by the history of Chicago police coercing confessions, those same advocates believe that there is no such thing as a true, voluntary confession, at least not by minority suspects. (Advocates' ultimate goal is to get ALL confessions, at least all by minority suspects, thrown out of court.) Those who support the videotaping of interrogations hope that juries will be so disgusted by detectives’ use of deceit, that they will acquit the guilty, or that detectives will be so handcuffed by public race-baiting, as to be rendered impotent.

The Illinois legislation against so-called racial profiling requires that all local police departments record the race of anyone police stop for questioning. The legislation's rationale is that if “too many” blacks are stopped, the police are guilty of racial profiling. “Too many” is virtually always framed by race advocates as being more than the black (or black and Hispanic) proportion of the local population.

But in Illinois, as in the rest of the nation, disproportionate numbers of minority group members are violent criminals. “Anti-profiling” legislation leads to “de-policing” , whereby in order to have the "right numbers" and to avoid charges of racism, police ignore violent crimes committed right in front of their noses by minority criminals, while arresting whites for the pettiest of offenses. Another consequence of “anti-profiling” agitation is police departments’ doctoring of crime statistics, in order to compensate on paper for what police may not do on the street.

Obama’s “reform” of the juvenile justice system is designed to protect violent, young, black (and, to a lesser degree Hispanic) felons from having to pay for their crimes. But why would someone who is so lax with violent, young felons be so draconian with men convicted of domestic violence? For one thing, such legislating -- like his support for unlimited abortion rights -- burnishes Obama’s feminist credentials with white, female progressives. For another, such legislation primarily targets white men. “Domestic violence” is largely about locking up unruly and violent white husbands. (Violent wives get a pass.)

Seventy-seven percent of white children are born to married parents, while only 31 percent of black children are. And so, such legislation is tailored to harm white men. Note too that “domestic violence” law tends to get treated de facto as an adjunct of family law, in which constitutional protections are routinely violated. And so, Obama, a lecturer on constitutional law, wants to fabricate ever broader, new legal protections for black and Hispanic criminals, while doing away with legal protections for heterosexual, white, married men.

To me, Barack Obama comes off like Bill Clinton, a former professor of constitutional law who also apparently never read the document. Like Clinton, Obama also is a man of great charm. That charm and a historical decline, such that policy proposals that once would have been publicly denounced as racist nonsense are now taken seriously, makes Obama so much more dangerous, than if he were simply a crudely vicious racist like Gus Savage.

No wonder so many liberal journalists seem to fantasize about Obama eventually being elected the nation’s second “African-American” president.

Monday, February 11, 2008

The Kirkwood Massacre and Beyond: Articles on the MSM’s Suppression of Race in Black-on-White Crime

By Nicholas Stix

VDARE editor-columnist James Fulford has kindly posted a blog referring readers to my Kirkwood Massacre article. Just one year ago Thursday, Fulford published the best article I’ve yet seen on the history of the socialist MSM’s (SMSM) practice of concealing the race of black criminals: “Hate Crimes, Real Crimes, and Relevance.” You will be shocked to learn just when the SMSM’s leading institution codified this practice.

Since Thursday night, a mere five hours after the atrocity, Fulford has repeatedly posted on the massacre:

“Black Gunman Shoots Six In Kirkwood, Missouri.”

“Kirkwood Shooter’s Brother ‘Obstinate’–‘Raised the Issue of Race’”;

“Fighting Back During a Massacre Works Again”; and

“More on Kirkwood–Shooter, Race Unmentioned, Called ‘An Ardent Supporter of the Rights of Residents.’”

The term “residents” in the last title comes from a quote from a St. Louis reporter, who was referring to black residents. Mass murderer Charles Thornton was not a supporter of the rights of white residents. Not to life, much less to liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

James Fulford has made reporting on black-on-white rapes and murders in which the socialist MSM refuse to identify the respective races of assailant and victim a regular feature of his blogs at VDARE. At one point last year, he linked all of his reports, but I just searched unsuccessfully for the missing link. However, if you hit the link to all of Fulford’s blogs, and run through the articles that pop up, you will quickly find the relevant ones.

For more reading on the socialist MSM’s practice of deceiving the public on the link between race and crime, the following articles by yours truly may also be of interest.

Duke Rape Hoax Exposé

“The Knoxville Horror: Race, Crime, the Media and ‘Anti-Racism’”

“The Knoxville Horror: The Crime and the Media Blackout”

“The Knoxville Horror: The Crime and the Cover-Up”

“Seven at New Orleans Times-Picayune Win Duranty-Blair Award for Journalistic Infamy”

“Another Associated Press Scandal: Wire Service Covers Up Black-Male-on-White-Male Rape Spree”

For an unvarnished look at the aggregate, statistical reality of interracial crime behind the MSM’s censorship, read the state-of-the-art report that was the high point in criminology for 2005, and which was met both by tenured academic professors of criminology (who are often the furthest thing from real criminologists) and by the MSM, socialist and Republican alike, with the silence of the graveyard:

The Color of Crime (free download!)

Sunday, February 10, 2008

The Theory of the Black-on-White Murder Cycle

A reader posted the following unsigned thoughts as a comment on my previous post, on the Kirkwood Massacre. He obviously had put a lot of thought into the succinct theory he developed, which matches the facts as I have observed them, though I confess to not having monitored such crimes for as long as he has. His post was too good to leave buried in my comments section, and so I am honored to present it to the public. I wish I could give the proper author credit, but he surely left his name off in the knowledge that telling the truth about black-on-white crime has many potentially negative consequences, but almost never any positive ones.

Nicholas Stix

* * *


I've been monitoring racially motivated black-on-white murder for almost 20 years. The reaction is the same today as it was in the 1980s (and probably before).

1. The media will not report the race of the white victims or the black murderer.

2. Once some racial information leeks out, they will bring in a phalanx of "experts" who can assure us the motive was not racial.

3. Blacks interviewed will express unqualified support the murderer. Some will say he went about it the wrong way. But almost all will "understand" why he did it: to fight white "racism" which is the cause of 100% of their problems.

4. Whites will not organize, march or even complain very much. In fact, they will defensively assure everyone that they are not racist. The murder will not be linked to the thousands of similar cases of racially motivated black-on-white murder.

5. There will be no talk of hate crime charges or including the murder in "diversity" seminars or in multicultural school curriculum. That would be reserved for the James Byrd, Medgar Evers and Emmett Till murders.

6. A handful of whites will get an excellent education on the real meaning of racism in America. Children, parents, brothers, sisters and friends will grieve in silence, but they are white so nobody cares. Nothing will change. Blacks will go on killing whites (and other non-blacks) because of their skin color. Schools, the media, universities, politicians, churches, businesses and every other institution will go on endlessly about white racism and black victimization. Blacks will get more racist. Whites will get even more weak and timid.

7. Repeat cycle.

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Mass Murderer was a “Hero,” Say Blacks

By Nicholas Stix
Last updated at 5:04 p.m., Saturday, February 9, 2008.

Kirkwood, Missouri Police Sergeant William Biggs, 50. KPD Officer Tom Ballman, 37. Director of Public Works Kenneth Yost, 61. Councilman Michael H.T. Lynch, 63. Councilwoman Connie Karr, 51.

All dead, all white.

Mayor Mike Swoboda, age unknown. Suburban Journals reporter Todd Smith, 36.

Both wounded, both white.

Shooter Charles “Cookie” Thornton, 52, black.

Sergeant Biggs was a “cool, calm” man who had been a cattle rancher in Colorado, before returning home to the St. Louis County area to become a Kirkwood city policeman 20 years ago.

Officer Ballman had been a Marine, a corrections officer for two years, and a Kirkwood city policeman for eight. The old Marine’s ability to defuse prison conflicts was legendary.

DPW Kenneth Yost, known both for his strict adherence to rules, and for his helpfulness towards citizens navigating the city codes, had been married for 41 years to his high school sweetheart, the former Cathy Voss.

Councilman Michael Lynch was an architect and Special Business District booster.

Councilwoman Connie Karr, a former journalist, planned on running for mayor.

Charles Thornton was a local businessman who owned an asphalt company. He didn’t see why he should have to obey the local parking regulations, which he deemed “racist,” and had thereby amassed 150 parking tickets for illegally parking his asphalt mixing trucks. He had taken to disrupting City Council meetings, and when he got himself arrested twice for disorderly conduct in 2006—with Officer Ballman serving as the arresting officer both times—he filed suit in Federal Court, charging that his First Amendment rights had been violated. His suit had been thrown out of court last month.

The city had considered barring Thornton from all Council meetings but, considering him a harmless nuisance, dropped the idea.

Although Charles Thornton wasn’t interested in killing any non-whites, the shootings of Thursday night's Kirkwood Massacre weren’t racially motivated. Black-on-white mass murders and execution-style murders and torture-rape-murders (see also: here and here) never are. Just ask any expert.

And yet, at a community meeting in a local black community, Meacham Park, Ben Gordon said,

To me, Charles Thornton is a hero. He opened a business. He went to court, but the system failed him. … We are sorry, we grieve, but (Kirkwood officials) share in this responsibility.


Gordon was quoted in “Shooting reactions reveal racial divide,” by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Adam Jadhav, Jake Wagman, and Tim O'Neil. At first reading, I thought that the reporter who quoted Ben Gordon had neglected to ask him for whom he was sorry, for whom he was grieving. But then I went back and re-read an earlier section of the story, and got my answer.

Many say they are sickened by Thornton's brand of vigilantism. But others say they're left outside the mainstream and oppressed by unfair rules. Those people mourned Thornton and directed their anger back at Kirkwood officials.


The killer’s (or is it “hero’s”?) brother, Gerald Thornton, said “This was an act of war by my brother. He had people that he was in battle with.”

Gerald Thornton has refused to “judge” his brother. English translation: He supports what he did.

And Gerald Thornton possesses expertise in such matters: He murdered a man in 1996, and did five years in prison for it, yet another victim of racially discriminatory sentencing.

If you’re a Thornton, you’ve got to “represent.” Family and racial traditions are at stake.

In case you were wondering, Charles Thornton is dead.

Carrying a gun from home, Thornton approached Sgt. Biggs, who was standing on the street outside of City Hall, where the City Council was meeting, shot him dead, and took his weapon. But before Thornton shot Sgt. Biggs, the policeman managed to hit the “alert tone on his radio,” to summon backup. In the City Council chambers, Thornton entered shouting something about “justice” and “Shoot the Mayor!” and firing away with both guns, killed Officer Ballman first.

Thornton chased white City Attorney John Hessel around the room. Hessel told St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Steve Giegerich that he yelled, “Cookie, don't do this, don't kill me. I'm not going to let you do this.' I picked up a chair and threw it at him.”

Between Thornton having to duck, as Hessel threw one chair after another at him, and his stumbling over victim Kenneth Yost’s body, Hessel bought enough time, so that he was still alive when two officers responding to Sgt. Biggs’ distress signal arrived, and shot Thornton dead.

But the massacre wasn’t racial. It wasn’t racial. It wasn’t racial. Just repeat that to yourself a million times. And if that doesn’t work, sign up for some more diversity training—I’m sure you’ve already had some; haven’t we all?—so you can learn that white racism drove Charles Thornton to do what he did, even though what he did wasn’t racially motivated. And if that doesn’t work, try and wash away the contradictions, with a fifth of scotch.

Every white in the world could commit suicide, and blacks would still blame the “legacy of (white) racism” for all of their problems.

Perhaps the oddest thing about the experts and police chiefs and reporters and editors and tenured professors who constantly tell us that these black-on-white atrocities aren’t racially motivated, is that blacks don’t believe that for a second. They know that they are racially motivated, they say so, and they celebrate them for it.

As Gerald Thornton said of his brother, he went to war. You may not be interested in race war, but race war is interested in you.

* * *



Greetings to readers from VDARE, Cassandra Redux, and Mangan’s Miscellany. Why no trackback appears from VDARE is a googlian mystery, but I know that VDARE’s James Fulford has blogged on and linked to this article.