PayPal

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Nivius Vir Video: Dead Silence: In Memory of People “Not Worthy” of the Attention of the Media

By Nicholas Stix



Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23, of Knoxville, TN: Both carjacked, kidnapped, gang-raped, tortured and murdered, in the January 7, 2007 Knoxville Horror (see also here; official story: “motive: robbery”).

Christopher Jones, 14, in Crofton, MD: Knocked off of his bicycle, and stomped to death in on May 30, 2009 (official story: “gang-related”) .

The surviving, and thus unnamed white victims of Aaron Gelly and Reon Hall, in Clapham, South London on October 26, 2008 (official story: “motive: robbery”).

Aysha Dawn Ring, 24, her throat slashed, as she stood in a checkout line at a Catonsville, MD liquor store on November 22, 2008 (official story: “random crime”; “no motive”).

Nivius Vir’s blog is devoted to race, particularly black-on-white crime.

He was kind enough to cite my blog article on Gelly and Hall.

Watch Your Back: A Liberal May be Sneaking Up on You

“Liberals are simply people who want to be last in line to be eaten by the alligator. They will hysterically cry and push others in front of them to be eaten first. But they have not a brave fiber of courage to gather together with those in line to kill the alligator.”

• BT // June 29, 2009 at 7:22 pm at The Cantankerous Old White Guy.

The New York Times’ Race Hoax/Propaganda Machine: A Bibliography in Progress

By Nicholas Stix

If no publication is named, the article in question was published in the New York Times. Feel free to suggest additional titles in the Comments suggestion.

New York Times: Sally Hemings News.

“The Reunion upon a Hill,” by Lucian K. Truscott IV, July 10, 2003.

“A Family Get-Together of Historic Proportions,” by James Dao, Monday, July 14, 2003.

“Editorial Observer; Interracialism Among the Jeffersons Went Well Beyond the Bedroom,” by Brent Staples, July 16, 2003.

“Giving Thomas Jefferson the Business: The Sally Hemings Hoax,” by Nicholas Stix, Middle American News, December 2003.

“Lust Across the Color Line and the Rise of the Black Elite,” by Brent Staples, April 10, 2005.

“New York Times to Duke Rape Hoax Victims: Drop Dead,” by Nicholas Stix, at various Web sites and Nicholas Stix, Uncensored, August 25, 2006.

“Nicholas Stix’ Absolutely Definitive Account of the Incredible Disappearing Duke Rape Hoax,” by Nicholas Stix, VDARE, January 13, 2007.

“Hate Crimes, Real Crimes, and Relevance,” by James Fulford, VDARE, February 07, 2007.

“Reunited: NY Times Columnists Who Slimed Duke Lacrosse Team,” by Clay Waters, News Busters, March 3, 2009.

Monday, June 29, 2009

TV Pitchman Billy Mays Dies Suddenly at 50: Blood Clot to Blame?

 
 


By Nicholas Stix

Billy Mays is dead. The 50-year-old star of a thousand infomercials died in his sleep at some point between Saturday night and Sunday morning. Mays was most closely associated with the product OxiClean: “Powered by the air we breathe!”

On Saturday, the US Airways flight Mays was returning home on came in for a rough landing in Tampa, and something hit him in the head. When he was interviewed by a reporter from Tampa’s Fox affiliate, Mays lightheartedly recounted, “All of a sudden as we hit you know it was just the hardest hit, all the things from the ceiling started dropping. It hit me on the head, but I got a hard head.”

But his wife, Deborah, said he had felt ill when he went to bed at 10 p.m. that night.

I suspect that the blow to the head had caused a blood clot, which traveled to Mays’ lungs, heart, or brain, blocked an artery, and caused his instant death that night. I have heard of other cases in which someone was hurt by a sudden jolt to the head that was moderately painful, but did not seem to merit a hospital stay, and who suddenly died within the week, due to a blood clot that the jolt had caused.

The AP’s Mitch Stacy reports that William Mays was born in McKees Rocks, Pa., on July 20, 1958.

I remember the first time that I saw Billy Mays on TV. I thought that he was Bob Vila, the This Old House TV home repair guy whom Mays resembled, though the two had much different voices and styles.

I never bought any of Mays’ products, because I assume that all such products are con jobs, but I enjoyed his commercials as entertainment. (My current favorite TV pitchman is Vince, the “Shamwow” guy.) Mitch Stacy reports, however, that Mays believed in his products, used them all, and gave them out to visitors to his home, and even as gifts to the 300 guests at his second wedding, to his wife Deborah. The couple met when he was pitching products on the Home Shopping Network, where she worked as a buyer.

Mays’ first wife, Dolores “Dee Dee” Mays, who grew up with him in McKees Rocks, had only kind words for him.

“I knew him since he was 15, and I always knew he had it in him. He’ll live on forever because he always had the biggest heart in the world. He loved his friends and family and would do anything for them. He was a generous soul and a great father.”

Mays is survived by his second wife, “a 3-year-old daughter and a stepson in his 20s.”

“Long live your laundry!”

Farewell, Billy! RIP.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Driving in Mexico: The Future of Driving in America?


VDARE reader Ned Garver writes of his experience working in Mexico:
We were required to get a Mexican driver’s license. This was an amazing process. My company arranged for the Mexican licensing agency to come to our corporate headquarters with their camera, fingerprinting equipment and laminating machine.

Surprisingly, we did not take a written or road test. The only instruction we received was never give a policeman your license if stopped, but to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If the policeman got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

Note that most Mexicans don’t have to worry about policemen stealing their driver’s licenses, because they never bother getting licenses, just as they never bother to learn how to drive. They just start driving, and let the chips fall, where they may.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Trying the Michael Jackson Trial


 
 



By Nicholas Stix

With the death of Michael Jackson, the media have done their usual job in such situations, of wasting a great deal of time, while providing no insights into the life of the newly departed and, wherever possible, confounding the confused, and darkening the obscure. And so, until I am able to publish an essay about Jackson’s life, I offer this reprint of my June 2005 analysis during his child molestation trial, in which he was ultimately acquitted of all counts.
 
 

June 5, 2005

I do not envy the jurors deciding the Michael Jackson trial. These twelve citizens have begun deliberating, in order to come up with a verdict on each of ten counts, ranging from conspiracy (to abduct a child) to four felony alcohol counts to attempting to commit a lewd act to four counts of molestation. Jackson is alleged to have committed the crimes in question against a then-13-year-old cancer survivor. From all the charges and counter-charges in the testimony, not to mention Jackson’s own bizarre behavior, three things jump out at me. 
 
 
A Judicial Vicious Circle

1. According to the law California Evidence Code §1108, enacted in 1995, testimony can be given charging a defendant with “prior bad acts” for which he has been neither convicted nor prosecuted, if such testimony helps establish a “pattern” or “propensity” to commit the crime with which he is presently being charged.

This law guts the presumption of innocence, which is perhaps THE foundation of American criminal law.

In practice, this means that if you hate somebody, and find out that he has been charged with a crime, you can announce that he has previously committed a similar crime against your person, and testify against him in his current trial for the previous “crime.” It’s legal double freebie. You get to testify to the jury, as if the defendant had already been convicted of an earlier crime, AND get to prejudice the jury regarding the crime he is currently charged with. (This is exactly what some women sought to do during the 1991 trial of Kennedy scion William Kennedy Smith, whom Patricia Bowman had charged with rape. Smith was acquitted.)

And that is what has happened in the Michael Jackson trial, though Jackson’s million-dollar defense team was able to come up with witnesses who contradicted the charges of prior bad acts, regarding the attempted commission of lewd acts. Imagine the fate of defendants who can’t afford superstar defense counsel.

Such testimony, when permitted, is usually subject to serious limitations, because it is so prejudicial. As CNN legal analyst Jonna M. Spilbor has noted, California law once had such limitations, but they were thrown out the window when California Evidence Code §1108 was enacted.

Judge Rodney Melville, presiding in the Jackson case, is Exhibit B as to why such testimony should not be permitted, and why California Evidence Code §1108 must be repealed. The judge has not only permitted such testimony, he has permitted it predominantly from people who do not even claim to be victims of Jackson, but rather to have witnessed Jackson committing such crimes against others.

Prosecutor Tom Sneddon is Exhibit A: If he had a strong case, why would he feel the need to exploit a bad procedural law?

The justification for permitting such testimony is circular. It goes to showing a “pattern,” but you can only show a pattern after you have convicted the defendant INDEPENDENT of the (supposedly) older allegations.

In other words, only if witnesses accusing Jackson of similar crimes in the past had NOT been permitted to testify, and Jackson were convicted based solely on the merits of the present case, could one THEN go back and see that prior allegations against Jackson taken together with his crime, formed a pattern. And yet, you still wouldn’t know if the allegations of prior crimes were true. But to seek to show a pattern prior to a conviction, is putting the cart before the horse.

Each criminal allegation must be put to the test of a trial. Without that test, allegations as to prior bad acts function as legally sanctioned character assassination.

To get an idea of how prejudicial the law’s effects can be, Charles Montaldo, the “guide” for law at the popular liberal Web site, about.com, assumed that Jackson was guilty of serial pedophilia:
After a heated hearing on the motion by the prosecution, Judge Melville ruled that testimony about previous sexual offenses and a pattern of "grooming" young boys for molestation would be allowed, but rather than allowing evidence about seven previous Jackson victims, he allowed only five.

Montaldo should have said “seven alleged …”

‘Alright,’ you may say, ‘But Montaldo is a blogger. So, how are the Solons doing?’

In some states, testimony as to prior bad acts is considered to have what the law calls “probative value,” regarding a charge of molestation within an ongoing relationship.

Michigan case law has long recognized that, in cases where sexual misconduct by one family member upon another is charged, other acts testimony is highly probative because such misconduct is unlikely to occur between family members as a single, isolated event. Forcing the victim to testify about the charged act apart from its context may unfairly make the victim's testimony appear incredible.

Note, however, how even the Michigan court’s language presupposes that the plaintiff in any given case is indeed the victim of a crime. And in a “he said-she said scenario,” I fail to see how the Michigan decision overcomes the circularity problem. The plaintiff need merely add, “He was hitting on me for months, before he raped me.”

A more common use of testimony regarding “prior bad acts” is in impeaching a witness’ credibility.

… a witness's credibility can be impeached with intrinsic evidence of prior bad acts bearing on truthfulness, even if the act did not lead to conviction. (Evidence that is "intrinsic" comes from the witness's own mouth, rather than from documents or the testimony of another witness.)
 
 
 
Trying the Accuser

2. Feminists, who coined the slogan that aggressively cross-examining a woman who has charged a man with rape means that “the victim is being raped all over again” notwithstanding, in every criminal trial, the accuser must also, figuratively speaking, be put on trial. We call this the right of a defendant to confront his accuser. That is true whether the accuser is an individual or the state. (E.g., seeking to impeach the testimony of an arresting officer.) A defense attorney who did less would be guilty of legal malpractice. And indeed, if the accuser cannot withstand a trial, then the defendant should be acquitted, or the charges dropped, with prejudice, meaning that they may not be reinstated. (The feminist slogan was invented, in order to make it easier to railroad innocent men.)

In the Jackson trial, it is not just the accuser whose credibility is at stake, but his brother and mother, as well. Indeed, since it is the accuser’s mother who was the main force behind the case, her credibility or lack thereof may, for all practical purposes, be the central issue for the jury to decide. (This although the judge may have instructed the jury to focus on the accuser’s testimony.) The accuser’s mother has been revealed to have a history of welfare fraud. And a paralegal who worked for the mother’s lawyer on a lawsuit against the J.C. Penney department store, in which the mother claimed to have been roughed up by a security guard, has also given testimony unfavorable to the mother. The paralegal, who is not bound by attorney-client privilege (after all, she’s not an attorney), testified that the mother had told her that bruises that she had charged the J.C. Penney security guard with inflicting on her had actually come from her ex-husband, and that she’d sent her sons to acting class, so that they could convincingly lie. (The mother got over $100,000 out of Penney’s.)

Some legal “experts” have insisted that such testimony is irrelevant, because the accuser, in his video, came across as believable. Well, if I were a juror, the mother’s lack of credibility would weigh heavily on me, and I am sure that that is true as well of some of the actual jurors. 
 
 
Never-Never Land

3. But then there is some of the evidence against Jackson. Even if we call the countervailing charges of different witnesses a wash (one witness testified to having seen Jackson sexually touching, i.e., molesting, an under-aged Macaulay Culkin, but in Culkin’s testimony, the actor denied the claim), Jackson has proudly boasted to the world for years that he thinks there is nothing better than sharing his bed with under-aged boys who are not his sons during “sleepovers.”

Now, I’m not sure about California law, but I would venture that in many states such a remark would, at the very least, constitute a confession to the crime of child endangerment. At least it would, if the speaker were not a zillionaire entertainer.

And then there is the testimony that Jackson illegally served under-aged boys wine, kept adult heterosexual pornography that would be of little interest to him, but of great interest to young boys having a “sleepover” in his bedroom, and a bottle of Vaseline handy. 
 
 
The Weight

And so, among the many charges and counter-charges of conflicting testimony, each juror must weigh the following:

a. Legally admissible testimony that the defendant has a history of sexually abusing under-aged boys;

b. Jackson’s own history, outside of the court room, of admitting that he has shared his bed with under-aged boys, though he has insisted that this was all innocent;

c. Jackson’s own history of paying tens of millions of dollars to make child molestation charges “go away”;

d. Testimony regarding the wine, heterosexual pornography, and Vaseline; and

e. The apparently believable testimony of a boy whose mother is an acknowledged welfare cheat, and who has been charged by another witness with having admitted to being a shakedown artist and compulsive liar who has a history of using her sons to further her nefarious aims.

One TV court observer put things in the following extralegal perspective, which I’m sure is shared by some jurors and millions of viewers. To paraphrase, Jackson is not interested in sex with grown-up (or, apparently, even under-aged) females, and he’s not interested in sex with grown-up males. So, who does that leave?

Meanwhile, as MSNBC legal analyst and former Connecticut prosecutor Susan Filan wrote in a mock closing prosecution argument, Jackson would have an under-aged boy in his bed every night of the year.

What on earth do you think Jackson was doing with those children in his bed?

(This reminds me of the argument that convinced me that Mike Tyson was innocent of Desiree Washington’s rape charge: What do you think she was doing coming to his hotel room at 3 a.m., and lying on his bed? The argument came from a civilian, my mom, who had two advantages: She had never attended law school, and she had graduated from high school in 1947, back when a high school diploma meant something. My mom, however, did not prevail. Tyson was convicted and sent to prison in Indiana. That questionable conviction did not send me into paroxysms of outrage, however, because it was no secret at the time that, as one sportswriter noted, Don King and Tyson’s other handlers had been following him around for years, paying hush money to countless women who’d crossed the champ’s path.)

If Michael Jackson is convicted, I do not believe it will be on the basis of the prosecution’s case regarding the specific charges against him. Based on the testimony regarding the accuser’s mother (and thus the accuser and his brother), there is enough reasonable doubt for a top-dollar criminal defense attorney like Jackson lead counsel Tom Mesereau to get a hung jury (and thus a mistrial) or an acquittal.

I doubt that the jury will convict on lesser charges while acquitting Jackson of the major ones, because the “minor” felony charges are integral to the major ones. Jackson is charged with having given the boy alcohol, in order to molest him. And the conspiracy charge depends, more than anything else, on the credibility of the accuser’s mother, because the charge comes entirely from her.

According to MSNBC legal analyst >Dan Abrams, the jury could convict Jackson of a misdemeanor charge of giving alcohol to a minor, which would carry only probation and a fine. If the jury did that, I believe it would be because they were acquitting Jackson of all the felony charges, and were using the misdemeanor conviction as a fig leaf to cover up their embarrassment. Criminal trial juries today seem to feel a powerful inhibition against convicting celebrities, regardless of how strong the prosecution’s case is. Meanwhile, they have no problem throwing the book at ordinary Joes, regardless of how weak the prosecution’s case is.

That Michael Jackson believes that he is above the law, is clear from his behavior during the trial. Had a defendant lacking fame or wealth repeatedly appeared late for court dates, the judge would simply have revoked his bail and remanded him to custody for the duration of the trial.

In any event, juries have violated logic in the past, and could so again.

In New York back in 1974, black supremacist gangster Sonny Carson was convicted of kidnapping two men, one of whom was murdered in the course of the kidnapping, but Carson was somehow not convicted of murder. And Egyptian terrorist El Sayyid Nosair, who in 1990 assassinated Jewish radical gangster-politician Meir Kahane in broad daylight in front of witnesses, and was arrested while in possession of the murder weapon, was acquitted of murder, but convicted of possession of an illegal weapon. Nosair was later convicted, as well, for his role in planning the first, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, as part of a group led by blind cleric Sheik Abdul Rahman, that was affiliated with what would later become al Qaeda. (Ironically, Carson, Nosair, and Kahane all promoted ideologies that had much in common with Nazism.) 
 
 
Endangering the Welfare of America

Getting beyond the court room, it is a statement as to the decline in moral standards in America, that a man like Jackson, who had repeatedly paid millions in hush money to make molestation charges from other boys go away, could still get record and concert contracts, make millions off cd sales, and have a substantial following of fans. For that, we can thank the unlikely bedfellows of gay activists and the Nation of Islam; the former for eliminating the principle of sexual morality, and the latter for steadfastly defending Jackson, simply because he is black.

But what cannot be blamed on gay activists or the Nation of Islam is the fact that in an age in which taxpayers waste billions of dollars on social services which purportedly “protect” children, hundreds of parents across the country would permit their under-aged sons to share the bed of a grown man, none of whom, to my knowledge, has ever been charged with child endangerment for these acts. 
 
 
Jury Logic

If all twelve jurors vote to convict Michael Jackson, it will be because they have been convinced, in spite of any doubts they may have regarding the honesty of the current accuser, his brother, and his mother, that the defendant is a monster who has sexually abused boys in the past, and who must be prevented from striking again.

According to traditional legal theory and practice, that would be an unjust verdict. But would it be an unjust verdict, according to California law, such as it presently is? And would it be unjust according to a good sense respect for law and the prerogatives of jurors?

After weighing all of the above factors, I’ve concluded that the only just verdict in this case is none at all, i.e., a hung jury and a mistrial. Thus, if I were a juror, I would hope that I would watch which way the wind appears to be blowing, and vote the opposite way. A new jury deserves to hear this case, but without having to endure the incompetence of prosecutor Tom Sneddon and Judge Rodney Melville.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Markie

Don’t cry for me, Carolina,
The truth is,
I never left you,
All through my wild times,
My mid-life crisis,
I kept my promise,
Don’t keep your distance.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Inmate says Reyes raped her after teens attacked (1989 Central Park Jogger Case)

December 5, 2002


The rapist who now says he alone attacked the Central Park jogger once told a fellow inmate that a "group of kids" assaulted her first, law enforcement sources said yesterday.

The stunning account was revealed to the Daily News hours before Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau was expected to recommend clearing five defendants convicted of the 1989 attack.

Matias Reyes' lone-attacker story, which surfaced this year, has turned the jogger case upside-down.

But an inmate says that in 1999 he heard Reyes tell an entirely different tale, according to law enforcement sources, who gave the following account to The News:

Reyes, who was behind bars for murder and rape, became friends with the fellow inmate, a convicted killer. He reportedly told his prison pal he was in Central Park, riding high on angel dust and crack, the April evening in 1989 when the jogger was attacked.

Hearing a woman's screams, Reyes said he ran over to see a group of teenagers beating a jogger.

He believes he scared them off or they ran away. Left alone with the dazed and beaten woman, Reyes said he then continued attacking her. DNA evidence tested this year backs Reyes' claim that he raped her.

Law enforcement sources say they have been stymied in their attempts to corroborate the inmate's account by Manhattan prosecutor Nancy Ryan, a top aide to Morgenthau who ran the new investigation into the jogger case.

Ryan believes Reyes acted alone and doubts the inmate's account, the sources said.

The sources said she also barred two other inmates from speaking about Reyes, infuriating some investigators who believe the five youths also attacked the jogger.

"All this highlights why there should be a hearing where Reyes' credibility is tested in a court of law," said former prosecutor Linda Fairstein, who supervised the original jogger probe. "Let him be cross-examined on what he said."

In another development, law enforcement sources told The News that officials were able to talk with another inmate who said he carried a threat in prison late last year to Reyes.

The inmate said Reyes had been threatened with violence if he didn't take sole responsibility for the jogger attack.

WHY REYES ADMITTED RAPE (The 1989 Central Park Jogger Case)

With the five black and Hispanic men who, in 1989, confessed to beating almost to death, and who fingered each other for raping Trisha Meili, then known to whites as The Central Park Jogger, now seeking to mug the city's predominantly white and Asian tax base out of $250 million, it helps to recall what this case is really about.

Nicholas Stix

WHY REYES ADMITTED RAPE

New York Post ^ | 12/05/02 | ANDY GELLER and MURRAY WEISS

Posted on 12/05/2002 1:20 AM PST by kattracks


December 5, 2002 -- EXCLUSIVE

Cops suspect Matias Reyes confessed to raping the Central Park jogger to win protection from a Muslim prison leader who was serving time for the horrific attack, law-enforcement sources said yesterday.

Reyes, a convicted murderer and serial rapist, made the bombshell confession in January while he and Kharey Wise, one of the Jogger 5, were inmates at the Auburn Correctional Facility near Syracuse.

State records show Reyes, 33, and Wise, 30, were both at the lockup from Aug. 8, 2001, to March 4, 2002. They also had been in Rikers Island together in 1989 and got into a fight.

Two law-enforcement sources told The Post cops believe Reyes made the confession to score points with Wise, who has become a very powerful Muslim leader during his 11 years in prison.

Reyes, who has given a DNA sample, knew that under the state's expanded DNA data-bank program - begun in October 1999 - he would eventually be identified as having raped the jogger, the sources said.

"So he does Wise a favor and gets himself major protection in state prison," one of the sources said.

Reyes was transferred to Attica in March 4 and to the Clinton Correctional Facility in upstate Dannemora on June 19. Wise remained at Auburn until he was paroled Aug. 12.

Detectives had heard that Reyes and Wise had connections and spoke on the phone, although they were in different lockups.

So, two weeks ago, they went to Clinton to talk to Reyes' fellow inmates about his confession. But they got nowhere, the sources said.

The first inmate they interviewed told them that prosecutor Nancy Ryan, who is directing the new probe of the case, called and said, "I'm not to talk to you," the sources said.

Earlier, when cops went to talk to Reyes, they were cut off in mid-interview by Ryan, the sources said.

The Manhattan DA's office declined to comment.

In his confession, Reyes said he alone raped and beat the jogger on the night of April 19, 1989.

Reyes said he zigzagged behind the woman, then a 28-year-old investment banker, knocked her down with a tree branch, raped her and beat her with a rock when she tried to escape.

His DNA matched that found at the scene. As a result, Wise and four other teens, who were convicted largely on confessions they made, are now seeking to have those convictions overturned.

Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau, who reopened the investigation into the attack last January, is to respond to their motions today.

The jogger lay undiscovered for about four hours, oozing blood from cuts in her head made by a knife, razor or other sharp object.

Robert Kurtz, the doctor who saved the woman's life, says these cuts call into question Reyes' claim he acted alone because he never mentioned using a knife in his confession or a subsequent TV interview.

Central Park & Racial Profiling

By Nicholas Stix

November, 2000
Middle American News

Carefully leaking through The New York Times, in early October, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White’s office indicted the New York City Police Department for pervasive “racial profiling” of minorities. Reportedly as part of “negotiations” by Janet Reno’s Justice Department to “monitor” the NYPD, White’s office mindlessly repeated an unfounded report released on June 16, 2000, by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, chaired by Mary Frances Berry. Although Berry’s “investigators” did not bother collecting evidence, she had felt emboldened to call for federal monitoring, i.e., a take-over, of the department.

On October 6, Republican New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani responded, “The whole idea of racial profiling in the New York City Police Department is absurd ... and we’re more than willing to defend it in court, anyplace, anytime, anywhere.” To which the Rev. Al Sharpton countered, “There is something sick and dangerous about a mayor that would sit looking facts in the face and tell you that the facts don’t exist.”

Since the tragic shooting of Guinean immigrant Amadou Diallo on February 4, 1999, the mainstream media have devoted thousands of stories to “racial profiling,” based on the unquestioned assumption, shared by the media and Mary Frances Berry alike, that the Diallo case was one of racial profiling, i.e., a police lynching. Berry, the media, et al., conveniently ignored the fact that the NYPD officers who shot Diallo were hunting for his neighbor, the “Bronx Rapist,” whose description resembled Diallo. Isaac Jones, the worst serial rapist in the city’s history, later confessed to over thirty sexual attacks on women, and was sentenced to over 200 years in prison in his first trial alone.

And how do those charging racial profiling explain what happened in Central Park on Sunday, June 11, just five days before the release of the Commission’s report? I am referring to the daylight sexual attacks on 53 women carried out by a mob of over thirty young men, the majority of whom were black (the rest were Hispanic), in front of thousands of witnesses, during and after the annual Puerto Rican Day parade.

We only know about the attacks, because dozens of passersby filmed them, and sent their videotapes to local TV news operations. No video, no crime -- witnesses be damned.

If black and Hispanic men live in constant fear of being rounded up or shot by racist, white police officers, how could so many of them run fearlessly through the park, assaulting women with abandon, despite 4,000 police nearby on parade duty? And how does a department characterized by racist, “excessive force,” suddenly turn pacifist?

Not surprisingly, the media and the Justice Department alike ignored such questions.
In the days following the parade, dozens of veteran NYPD officers responded to scathing criticisms of the police by complaining that they had been handcuffed in doing their job by a long-entrenched racial double-standard at black and Hispanic ethnic parades.

Reporters at the Daily News alone interviewed some 28 NYPD officers. Speaking under condition of anonymity, the officers all maintained that, in the interest of avoiding confrontations with “minorities,” in contrast to the zero-tolerance enforcement at the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, “a softer tone has been taken at ethnic events like the National Puerto Rican Day and the West Indian Day parades, where public drinking and marijuana smoking produce more warnings than arrests.”

So much for Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s war on “quality-of-life” crimes and minorities.
There was just one flaw in the story’s reporting: Racial double-standards in law enforcement have been in effect in New York City, EVERY day, for years.

In January, 1991, when a black and Hispanic gang singled me out on a packed, virtually white-free, Brooklyn-bound subway train for an assault and attempted robbery, a Transit Police detective acknowledged that the attack was racially motivated, and thus a “bias crime.” The detective reported that such racial attacks on whites happened every single day in New York, “but there are some things you can’t say,” due to the political climate.

Since then, mayors and police commissioners’ fear of offending racist blacks, and need to show businessmen and tourists that New York is safe, have converged to give us a revolution, not in the FIGHTING, but in the REPORTING of crime.

After one of at least nine 1990s’ racial assaults and attempted muggings I (more or less) fought off, a white transit sergeant told me, “You fit the profile.” He mentioned that I was short and bespectacled, but left out the most important factor, my race.

But officially, none of the aforementioned crimes took place. Bloody stab wounds and corroborating witnesses notwithstanding, eventually all of the cases were “disappeared.”

Between 1995 and 1998, a series of scandals uncovered by reporters William Rashbaum of the Daily News (now with The New York Times) and Leonard Levitt of Newsday, respectively, showed street cops being instructed to define down violent felonies into misdemeanors or non-crimes, and police failing to report numerous serious felonies (first-degree rape and homicide).

One such crime occurred on December 8, 1995, when a black man on the Queens-bound A train I was riding, was shot at point-blank range. I saw the lifeless-looking victim on a gurney, and counted 39 officers at the crime scene. NYPD spokeswoman, Officer Kathy Kelly, later insisted to me, “There’s no shootings on the eighth.”

If the NYPD is “disappearing” thousands of violent felonies per year, minorities, who make up 50 percent of the city’s population, but who officially commit 89.2 percent of its violent crimes, are disproportionately benefiting from the undercounting. And yet, blacks complain constantly of “racial profiling.”

The blacks charging racial profiling see black criminals as allies in a race war against whites. Media reports that mindlessly repeat such charges intimidate the police out of doing their job, which in turn empowers black felons. Which is the point.

As black claims of racial profiling have gone national, so too has the problem of fraudulent police crime counts. The FBI has long refused to recognize official crime figures from Boca Raton, Florida; in September, the Bureau reported that in 1998, the Philadelphia Police Department engaged in a massive underreporting of felonies.

New York’s scandals culminated in January, 1998, when NYPD Transit Bureau Chief Kenneth Donoghue was caught fudging subway crime statistics, and forced to resign. One year later, Amadou Diallo lay dead in his building doorway.

The New York media immediately forgot all about fudged crime statistics, and switched to unfounded stories about “racial profiling.” After all, reporting both stories simultaneously would have opened up a credibility gap as big as Yankee Stadium.

Let us now return to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Although Chairwoman Mary Frances Berry had earlier written of her undying hatred of all white police officers, and been exposed as a contributor to Hillary Clinton’s senate campaign, she refused to recuse herself. Berry’s report saw the mere statistical frequency of arrest and “stop-and-frisk” rates for black and Hispanic males as “evidence” of racial profiling by white police officers, rather than as the raw data that it was.

Mary Frances Berry was initially permitted to convene her political kangaroo court, in order to help Hillary Clinton get black votes in her Senate race; the Justice Department is now giving Berry’s racist fantasies the power of precedent, in order to help the Gore-Lieberman ticket, as well.

Does racial profiling exist in New York City? Of course, it does -- the racial profiling of whites.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Letters from Jail Cont’d.: The Heretical 2’s Stephen Whittle

By Nicholas Stix

The Heretical 2 were deported back to not-so-merry England approximately one week ago, faced a judge on June 17, and are scheduled to be sentenced to prison on July 10.

The following letter, dated May 23, was sent from Santa Ana jail to a mutual friend, who transcribed and forwarded it to me on May 31. While that was only hours after I had posted a previous letter from Whittle, it was unfortunately also just a few hours after my pc had suffered the first of at least three crashes in the course of three weeks. (No foul play appears to be involved, just the respective legacies of Bill Gates and Carly Fiorina.) The links were added by yours truly.

Previously, on The Heretical 2:

“The Heretical 2: Asylum Seekers the Refugee Industry Won’t be Fighting for,” July 31, 2008, VDARE;

“The Heretical 2: Requests for Asylum and Letters from Santa Ana Jail,” September 17, 2008, VDARE;

“Another Letter from Stephen Whittle of the Heretical 2,” May 18, 2009, VDARE;

“Letters from Jail, Cont’d.: The Heretical 2’s Stephen Whittle Writes,” May 31, 2009, Nicholas Stix, Uncensored; and

“What The Heretical 2 Case Says About The Federal ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill,” June 4, 2009, VDARE.


0800006408

c/o Santa Ana Jail

P.O. Box 22003

Santa Ana, CA 92702

23rd May, 2009

Dear …….,

Thanks for your letter and for the help you've given us. We are appreciative of Nicholas Stix's postings at VDARE and I hope I'm out reading his articles before too long. We shall see.

I'm sorry I didn't respond properly to your arguments last time about an appeal. Yes, "it ain't over till it's over", but we had to take into consideration how long an appeal would take and how realistic we felt were our chances of winning. It would be six months, easily, and we didn't think we had any chance of winning. Judge Peters did her best to demonstrate that.

However, we have had the interview with the LA Times [see also here], who also sent a photographer a couple of days later. The journalist is called Dana Parsons (a male) and is apparently known for investigating the unsackability of LA teachers, which sounds like a topic the average liberal would not want to approach. I don't expect a panegyric for the two of us, but I hope it will alert more people to what's planned for the First Amendment. That's if an article does appear - I'm not counting any chickens, tho' I'd like the Orange County Register to be put on the spot. Whatever you think of the Heretical Two, ours is an interesting story, whether amusing, enlightening, grotesque, or a mixture of all three. Keeping quiet, it seems to me, was a way to avoid a debate. And the OCR claims to be libertarian.

We still have no deportation date, but altho' we could be told to "roll it up" at any time, I'm hoping we have some notice. Either way, gloating should appear in the British media when it happens: two hate criminals get their just deserts, etc. Some of those who are celebrating should think again, however. The race hate laws paved the way for religious hatred laws, which Muslims will be busily exploiting for their own, highly illiberal ends. There is another thought crime prosecution in my home town Preston, I've heard. Members of the British National Party were distributing leaflets pointing out that Muslims, i.e. Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, et al, ran the heroin trade in the U.K. It's an accurate claim, but "truth is no defence" and the Muslim Police Officers Association successfully asked for them to be prosecuted. What Marxists would (I think) call the inherent contradictions of liberalism will bring the current system down in the end, but there will be a lot of misery as it falls and no doubt a lot of misery long after.

Berlusconi's comments are hopeful and Italy may lead the way for Europe. One of the good things about Santa Ana Jail, at least in the immigration section, is the relative lack of "sub-Saharans" (as the DNA analysis of a "gerontophile rapist" in the U.K. termed them -- sub-Saharans are even more over-represented in that branch of violent criminal endeavour than they are elsewhere). Italy is also clearheaded about "Romanians", i.e. gypsies, and I remember a story by a female British journalist about a lesbian couple who ran a bar in Italy. The journalist mentioned the debate about gypsies and the lesbian couple agreed that it was "terrible". The journalist discovered to her horror that they meant the behaviour of gypsies, rather than the nasty right-wing desire to expel them. But gays and lesbians should be among those most opposed to mass immigration, because places like Pakistan and Somalia aren't outposts of liberal enlightenment. Neither is Mexico. Another inherent contradiction and I wish, for that among other reasons, that Pim Fortuyn of Holland were still alive to point it out.

Right, back to my magic squares. It's been an interesting experience to do recreational maths without a computer. Much slower, but that means you have to think harder and end up understanding the problem better. Thank you, ICE!

All best,

Stephen.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Countering the Conspiracy to Destroy Black Boys: Crime and Black Supremacy, Part II

By Nicholas Stix

Part I: How Profiling Saved My Life: Reflections on Black Supremacy and Crime

December 22, 2003
Toogood Reports
 

We are Family

When I was a teenager, it never would have occurred to me to blame the police, if I committed a crime or otherwise got in trouble, much less sue them. That´s probably because my mother never taught me to blame the police, and beat the hell out of me when I got in trouble; because I personally knew hero cops; and because no community of solidarity awaited me, if I sought to blame my troubles on the police.

A substantial proportion of the adults in most urban black neighborhoods today – in some areas, the vast majority -- expends great energy encouraging black boys to become criminals.

Those adults – parents, teachers, preachers, social workers, and even black cops —  tell black youngsters that they are the “victims of racism,” which is a code for, “You can blame everything on white people.” No specifics are necessary. Black youngsters quickly learn that they can find a community of solidarity among blacks of any age, including total strangers, if only they complain about their victimization by racist whites. And it´s almost always a lie. Heck, many of the complainers have few encounters with whites, and when they do, usually victimize the whites. I can confidently say what I just did, because racist harassment and crime is now such a one-way street.

But verbal expressions of racist solidarity aren´t the half of it. Over the past ten years in New York City, I have repeatedly witnessed “respectable,” middle-class blacks help violent, black felons avoid capture: From subway passengers to motormen to U.S. Postal Service managers to federal (postal) police officers.

 
Cincinnati: The Fall of the Queen City

For an example of the mentality of “solidarity,” in April, 2001, following the black race riots that besieged Cincinnati, the Rev. Damon Lynch III, who did much to instigate the riots, claimed that following the violence, white businessmen were suddenly “coming out of the woodwork.” The whites´ sudden interest in helping, was for Lynch somehow a sign of their moral turpitude. (But then, anything whites do is for him a sign of their moral turpitude.) Why hadn´t they been around before? Surely their previous neglect of black neighborhoods was proof of their racism. Actually, the white businessmen’s avoidance of such neighborhoods was proof of the racism of THE BLACKS living there, including community leaders like the Rev. Lynch, who don’t like seeing whites in their neighborhoods, and who see all whites as targets for racist violence and shakedowns. Indeed, following the 2001 riot, the Rev. Lynch publicly thanked the racist thugs for brutalizing white motorists.

The black leaders and the white, socialist media colluded to fabricate a story, such that the riots were caused by innocent blacks being murdered by white police officers. In fact, almost all of the 15 black males who had been shot and killed by police between 1995 and the 2001 riot, had attacked, and in some cases murdered police officers. And the April 7, 2001 shooting of Timothy Thomas that was the pretext of the 2001 riot, occurred when Thomas, who had a stack of 14 warrants for misdemeanors and a history of running from the police, ran yet again. In a dark alley way, decorated officer Steven Roach thought he saw Thomas go for a weapon, and fired to protect himself.

Thomas’ mother, Angela Leisure, spoke kindly of all the black men who had attempted to kill police officers, “These people might have been insignificant in y’all’s life, but they were significant in our lives.” Leisure rationalized her son´s behavior thus, “People keep asking me, why did my son run. If you are an African male, you will run.” An African male.

Things have gotten so bad in Cincinnati, that when a race riot broke out on April 15, 2002, most of the media refused to report on it.

(Last year, following my column on the unreported riot, the Rev. Lynch e-mailed me, “Nick you have a lot of anger misconceptions and hatred. I’m sorry justice is such a foreign concept. I wish you well in your struggle.”)

And now, we have the November 30 death of 350-400-pound Nathaniel Jones, who assaulted Cincinnati police while high on “pcp” (aka “angel dust”), and who got beaten to death. Did I mention that pcp is a drug that turns even 150-pounders into psychopaths who cannot be restrained by fewer than five police officers? Or that the pcp was mixed with cocaine and methanol? Thomas´ family, including a beautiful, young aunt, have told us what a wonderful, easygoing fellow he was.

(When I was a social worker, one of my supervisors once observed, “You only take pcp, because you want to become a violent psychopath.”)

In a case of déjà vu all over again, black community “activists” and civilians alike have emphasized that Nathaniel Jones was “unarmed” and condemned the police for acting like, er, police, when attacked by Jones, insisting that police must run away from black men who attack them, or act only with gadgets such as stun guns and “tasers.” (I contacted the Rev. Lynch to give him a chance to comment on the Jones case, but he failed to respond.)

I wish the Cincinnati P.D.´s critics would say what they really believe: That the police should be disarmed, and every black male who can prove that he is violent, psychotic, or both, issued a Glock semi-automatic and a few magazines of ammunition.

There is no such thing as an “unarmed,” 350-pound man in the midst of a drug psychosis. Jones´ body was his weapon. Second, while it is a civilian´s prerogative to defend himself or run away from an attack in a public place, for a police officer to run away, would constitute cowardice in the line of duty. Third, there is no guarantee that a psychotic, ultraviolent suspect like Jones would not have required so many electric stun gun charges, as to end up dead. And finally, the “activists” would be attacking the police, no matter what the latter did. That´s what “activists” do in Cincinnati. The term refers to people who want to aid and abet street thugs, but are either too old, too cowardly, or too opportunistic to actually be street thugs.


 
You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught

When I worked security at New York´s main Toys´R´Us store during the late 1990s, I encountered middle-class black mothers, who made a point of sending their young sons into the store without adult supervision, and later coming in and screaming at my colleagues and myself , when we – following store policy – refused the boys entry. With such monsters on the prowl – the mothers, not the boys – is it any wonder that, as Marc Mauer of the Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing Project writes, “Nearly one in three (32.2%) black males in the age group 20-29 is under some form of criminal justice supervision on any given day – either in prison or jail, or on probation or parole.”

Toys´R´Us did its part, by knuckling under, and refusing to enforce its own rules.

Note that: 1. Mauer has not revised his numbers since 1995 (All figures I was able to find on the subject merely repeated Mauer, who in 1990 reported that one in four black men from the cited age group were convicts. If his 1995 figures are correct, the percentage of black, 20-29 year-old convicts rose 30% in five years, which is as hard to believe as some of the statistics produced by urban police departments since 1995, showing miraculous declines in violent crime); 2. His figures, if correct, mean that 32.2% of all black men 20-29 years of age are CONVICTS (advocates often misrepresent parolees and probationers as “ex-convicts.” Only when convicts have completed their parole or probation, do they become ex-cons. It is because one is still a convict, that a violation of parole or probation can result in one´s having to finish one´s sentence in prison.); 3. The rate of black convicts cannot be reduced to being a function of poverty, since it is 33% higher than the current black poverty rate of 24.1%. Middle class black men are increasingly imitating street toughs from the projects; and most importantly, 4. Mauer speaks of black convicts as victims, rather than as perpetrators, as if they had suddenly been “hit” by crimes, as if by falling bricks from a building. Hence, when he notes that the white and Hispanic rates of 20-29- year-old convicts were only 4% and 16%, respectively, he suggested the other groups – particularly white men — were tremendously lucky.

Luck had little to do with it. At the age of 16, I made a conscious decision to stop stealing, because I didn’t want to go to jail. By contrast, many young black men see going to jail as a macho rite of passage. Fifty-two-year-old Charles “Roc” Dutton, who hails from Baltimore, and who killed a man before he became an actor, has reminisced on the desire of many a young black man to be the toughest man in the prison yard. And yet Dutton, who has no one to blame but himself for his early travails, is a rabid racist who seems to blame whites even for the rain. White Hollywood socialists respond by shoveling ever more work his way, and he responds by taking the work, and insulting them! Black comedian Chris Rock said in a 1994 interview, “Charles Dutton is always preaching. How can you say someone has a negative image? (Shouting) YOU’RE A MURDERER!”

Time was, white cops played an important educational role in the lives of many poor, urban black boys who might have been tempted to go wrong. In his masterpiece, The Rise and Fall of New York City, Roger Starr (1918-2001) wrote of the educational function of the urban police officer.

“Some [19th-century street urchins] were saved for the work force by the presence of a host of informal educators, of whom the most important in the late nineteenth century was probably the policeman with his billy club. Unrestrained by review boards and civil service regulations, the police were not trying to create angels or win the affection of their youthful enemies, but simply to enforce order. In some cases, a sharp rap on the shins with the nightstick must have been more effective than twenty sessions with a Youth Board Therapist would be seventy-five or a hundred years later.”

In the first half of the 20th century, such “insensitivity” and “excessive force” benefited many a black boy, as well, but was ended under pressure from criminals’ rights, er, “civil rights” activists.

(Evoking Aristotle, Roger Starr once wrote that urban planners must begin with “a sense of wonder.” Not only was Starr one of the great social thinkers, policy makers, and raconteurs of his generation, but he was an exquisite prose stylist. This brilliant neoconservative is now largely forgotten, due to his lack of nepotistic tentacles, while his philosophically and morally compromised inferiors expand their little empire.)

The weirdest thing of all, is that there was a time when white police officers routinely cracked heads on innocent black boys and men. And somehow, black crime was then a fraction of what it is today.

Is this a brief for racism? No; it´s a brief for letting cops keep order. It´s also an example of what I call Heller´s Law at work. According to Heller´s Law, which I named after the German democratic socialist political scientist, Hermann Heller (1884-1934), in a society, there will be an inverse relationship between public cries of oppression and real oppression. In the most liberal society, the media will broadcast constant criticisms, most of them specious, if not out-and-out lies, of alleged state “oppression”; conversely, in the most savage, totalitarian dictatorship, the media will echo the butcher-in-charge´s proclamations. Writing in 1931, Heller gave the example of the then (and since) prevalent myth, that Mussolini made Italy´s trains run on time. The trains didn´t run on time under Il Duce, Heller observes, but Mussolini simply had critics who pointed this out shot. Conversely, when Sheik Abdul Rahman, the blind mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was being tried, the media broadcast his complaint far and wide, that “In America, there are no civil rights.”

 
Countering the Conspiracy to Destroy Black Boys

As a Puerto Rican NYPD patrolman who lived and worked in different parts of Brooklyn told me a few years ago, “In a rough neighborhood, you gotta be rough with the people. Either they´re gonna be in charge, or you´re gonna be in charge.”

There are powerful forces, however, that seek to put and keep the criminals in charge. Not only have positive social forces affecting black society disappeared or been “disappeared,” but they have been replaced by negative ones. Power abhors a vacuum. Nineteenth-century street evangelists have been replaced by fire-and-brimstone riot preachers, such as Al Sharpton and the aforementioned Damon Lynch III. And an almost 40-year campaign has resulted in white police officers either being run out of black neighborhoods, or handcuffed in the execution of their duties. Black neighborhoods are now increasingly patrolled by black police officers who flunked the department hiring AND psychological exams, who are in fundamental sympathy with black criminals, and who are members of racially segregated, urban counter-police organizations, such as the Black Sentinels in Cincinnati and 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care in New York. These organizations conspire to obstruct justice, yet get loving media coverage, as they reach out to black youngsters, to teach them that they have more to fear from white police officers than from violent, black felons.

And yet, black crime ultimately comes down to the decisions black women make – about when they have sex, and with whom, and under what circumstances (e.g., within or outside of marriage), and what stories and principles they choose to impart to their children. Most importantly, it comes down to whether black women are willing to teach their children to restrain themselves, a lesson without which there can be no civilization. As gay activists well understand, it all starts with the family.

Instead, as liberal, white anthropologist Marvin Harris wrote in Why Nothing Works: The Anthropology of Daily Life, in words he probably wishes he could unwrite, urban black mothers increasingly tend to deliberately raise their sons to be violent. And that was in 1987! Sixteen years later, things are much worse, as middle-class, urban black women increasingly ape the lower classes.

I know that it is unfair to put such a burden on black women, but as Pres. John Kennedy famously said, “Life is unfair.” Besides, black mothers used to routinely teach their daughters to guard their virginity like a treasure, back when (until ca. 1950) over 80% of black children were born to married mothers. Today, 69% of black children are born to unwed mothers (until recently, the percentage was 70%). And today´s unwed black mothers tend to be grown women, not teenagers. The same women who let themselves be impregnated by “sperm donors,” as one charming, intelligent, pregnant 27-year-old black woman I knew five years ago jocularly referred to her boyfriend, are raising yet more felonious “sperm donors.”

In 1985, Roger Starr anticipated the “broken windows” theory of crime that George Kelling, Catherine Coles, and James Q. Wilson would later develop. But Starr had a more pessimistic understanding of the power of government, and more sober assay of human nature, which may be why he didn´t develop the theory. In discussing the explosion of “quality of life” crimes in the early 1980s (turnstile jumping, smoking in subway trains, etc.), Starr suggested what lay beneath such “nuisances.”

“It is all very well to adopt a self-righteously libertarian attitude and pretend that such breaches of normal civility are of no importance. Few would disagree with the police, who feel that an armed robbery deserves more of their time. Yet such nuisance behavior conveys the unmistakable impression that the quality of life, despite all the conscious agitation to improve it, has been soiled and damaged in far more crucial ways that none can control. Ignoring the nuisance offense opens the city streets to further testing: If I can get away with this, what may I not do next? Yet if the police can stop the nuisances only by making an arrest for violating the sanitary code, they are disproportionately applying excessive force and irking those who wish they paid more attention to life-threatening offenders. The very presence of police, of strangers, of anyone, should inhibit the nuisance creator. If it does not, if there is no inhibition, what has gone wrong is so fundamental that the police cannot correct it any more than they can correct flagrant bad manners.”

The problem of black America isn´t racist, white police officers, but — to paraphrase Golda Meir – black mothers who hate whites more than they love their own children. That hatred — rather than the much trumpeted black “self-love” — is the only common ground in most urban American black neighborhoods.

Friday, June 19, 2009

How Profiling Saved My Life: Reflections on Black Supremacy and Crime


By Nicholas Stix
December 14, 2003
Toogood Reports
Last revised, Saturday, June 20, 2009, 3:16 a.m.

Part II: Countering the Conspiracy to Destroy Black Boys

 
Gettin’ Paid

It was just after 9 p.m. on a school night, and Dennis, Steve, Michael, maybe another guy and myself were on the corner, by the parking garage of a fancy apartment building a block away from our slummy neighborhood. Dennis, the ringleader was 14, Steve was 15, I was 13 and Michael was 12.

Along comes an unmarked car, and Det. Kevan and some other plainclothes guys jump out, and hassle us. Stupid Det. Kevan, the jerk. Father of Jimmy, the bully, who was my age, and Jimmy’s oldest brother, who was an even crazier bully. (The two middle brothers were regular guys. I used to hang out with them, during my occasional visits to high school, before dropping out. They had nothing to do with Jimmy.) If Det. Kevan lived down South, you’d call him a redneck. Mean, stupid, and obnoxious.

Det. Kevan and his associates sent us on our way.

It never occurred to us to sue the Long Beach Police Department for abuse of authority and profiling. Maybe that was because when Kevan & Co. jumped out of their cars, we were just about to commit a felony or three, breaking into cars in that parking lot. Maybe because we hadn’t been taught to scream bloody murder, when we got caught doing wrong. Maybe because we were white.

And what if Kevan & Co. had left us alone? We would have broken into cars, and stolen stereos and such, as planned, sold our booty for a couple of dollars, and eventually shifted about to steal bigger and more expensive objects—like entire cars. Between the law of averages and our natural stupidity, we all would have ended up arrested multiple times.

And Dennis did, in fact, end up in the Berkshire School for Boys, a reform school in upstate New York, due to an early experiment in multiculturalism. He went on a mugging spree one night with two slightly older sociopaths—a Jew named David Kaiser and a black drug addict named Tyrone Huffman.

(One night, for no particular reason, Tyrone decided to stomp me to death, but was interrupted by a righteous, black Christian woman whom I remember only as “Darnell’s mother.”)

I know that Mike spent some time in Nassau County Jail as a teenager, because he bragged about it (“Nassau County’s eggs suck!”). And since Steve was unable or unwilling to go to school, show up even for a security guard job, stay off the booze or hold his booze, my guess is that he spent at least some time inside. (I didn’t hang around to find out.)

Eventually, I realized that I was unable to stay cool enough to avoid getting caught when the police were chasing me, had no bent for the violence that is inevitable even in a con man’s life, and didn’t want to get raped. And so, I changed my ways. Otherwise, I doubt I would still be alive.

That was 1971; this is now.

Now, when a group of teenage boys hangs out on the street at night, they think they have a right to be left alone by the police. At least they do, if they are black or Hispanic. And where do they get such notions? And why are they routinely out on the street—not at 9 p.m., but at 10, 11, midnight and later—on school nights?

These reflections were inspired by the New York City government’s recent settlement of a lawsuit, in which it agreed to pay a total of $167,500 to ten plaintiffs who alleged they had been targeted by police, merely because they were black.

The lawsuit claimed that the NYPD’s Street Crimes Unit, which during the mid-to-late 1990s cleared thousands of illegal guns off the street, engaged in racial profiling in its “stop-and-frisk” policies. As part of the settlement, which was finalized late last month, the NYPD has agreed to keep records with racial and ethnic breakdowns of every stop and frisk. The NYPD defended itself by pointing out that 50.9% of its stop-and-frisks were of blacks, a percentage that was considerably lower than the 59% proportion of black suspects identified by victims of violent crimes.

According to the Associated Press, Bill Goodman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said “in practical terms the deal mean [sic] that officers will no longer break up groups of kids on a corner merely because of their race.”

Goodman was being cute. What he really meant, was that officers will no longer be able to break up groups of black or Hispanic kids hanging out on the street at night. Officers will, however, be able to harass white kids, which black officers have been known to do for years. That should help stem the rising tide of white lawlessness... and be the death of countless thousands of black boys.

(A frail-looking, short, white former editor of mine who grew up in Brooklyn likes to tell of the two huge, black policewomen who stopped him on his way home from school one afternoon during the 1980s, threatening to arrest him for lack of personal identification. No one is legally obliged to carry personal identification in New York City, and police can only detain someone for lack of ID, if he has already been caught committing a misdemeanor.) [P.S. That is no longer the case.]

But that’s not the worst of it. The suit was initiated in 1999 by the Center for Constitutional Rights, it led to the NYPD eliminating the Street Crimes Unit, and the settlement gives the Center control of the records that the NYPD compiles on stops. An officer must now justify, as if he were on the witness stand, every stop-and-frisk he undertakes of a black or Hispanic. (He can stop and frisk whites all he likes.) And if the CCR doesn’t like the NYPD’s numbers, it can wreak continuing havoc with law enforcement in New York City. And if the NYPD does its job, the CCR is guaranteed not to like what it sees. So, in order to avoid trouble from the CCR, the NYPD will merely intensify its de-policing practices regarding blacks and Hispanics, which is what the CCR wanted, all along.

Based on its previous arguments, I expect the CCR to demand that the NYPD devote at most 24.5% of its stops to blacks, since that is the black percentage of the population. In order to play it safe, the NYPD will probably stop many fewer blacks than that, and compensate for the low black proportion of stops by terrorizing white and Asian men who match no victim’s description of a criminal. Never mind that at least 60% (officially, 59%) of the perpetrators of violent crimes in New York are described as having been black. (Note that leftists have for approximately 40 years claimed that white police cannot distinguish between blacks, and simply stop “any black male.” That claim goes under the category of “big lies.”)

In case you’ve never heard of the CCR, it is a non-profit law firm that never met a foreign terrorist, illegal alien, or minority criminal it didn’t like. It wants there to be as many armed, minority criminals as possible on New York’s streets, for like black supremacists, though for different ideological reasons, the CCR’s communist lawyers see street criminals as a revolutionary army. The organization is also committed to undermining U.S. immigration law and the War on Terror, and inventing “civil rights” for people who don’t properly have any, such as foreign terrorists and illegal aliens, while disenfranchising law-abiding, American citizens, especially white ones. The CCR seeks to turn the American legal system on its head, and is so far doing quite well, thank you.

 
The Racial Profiling Hoax

When Rudolph Giuliani was New York’s mayor (1994-2001), racist black leaders and journalists, aided by their white allies, fabricated the racial profiling hoax. The hoax received its current name in 1999, but is actually close to 40 years old. During the 1960s, black supremacists such as James Baldwin and Marxists insisted that policemen constituted an “occupying army” (Baldwin) in urban black slums. Had anyone challenged the racists and Marxists’ illogic, he could have pointed out that if blacks truly were a foreign nation, they would not be entitled to welfare payments, free medical treatment, schools, or any other American public services. (In those days, it was still understood that American public services were reserved for Americans.)

The history of Giuliani’s tenure was rewritten on the fly, the real history replaced by a fictional one, in which a racist, thuggish mayor who used the police to terrorize black men and boys, was being heroically stood up to by the black community.

The real story was that black New Yorkers were outraged that a white man had defeated the city’s first black mayor, socialist David N. Dinkins (elected in 1989 in the closest election in the city’s history, in which thousands of dead Democrats were on the voter rolls). Many local blacks were sure that New York would now forever be a “black” city, with black mayors, police chiefs, etc. That Dinkins was a corrupt, racist, incompetent did not bother the majority of black New Yorkers in the least, although black supremacists were visibly upset that he wasn’t corrupt, racist, or incompetent enough for their liking. One of Al Sharpton’s accomplices in the Tawana Brawley hoax, since disbarred attorney C. Vernon Mason, complained that Dinkins was “wearing too many yarmulkes” (read: was too friendly to Jews). (Note that contrary to widespread belief, Mason was not disbarred for his participation in the Brawley hoax, but for defrauding black clients.)

In late 1993, before Giuliani was even inaugurated mayor, Al Sharpton declared that he would make it impossible for Giuliani to govern. Sharpton should have been arrested for making terroristic threats, but you know those New York judges.

(And not just local New York judges. In 1998, when black supremacist leader Khalid Muhammad came to town for his first “Million Youth March,” promising to incite a race riot, and Giuliani sought to shut down the march, federal Judge Lewis Kaplan turned incitement to riot, into a First Amendment right. Perhaps Judge Kaplan thought it was spelled, “First Amendment riot.”)

Black leaders invited the mayor-elect to their annual leadership dinner, only to revoke the invitation, without any provocation from Giuliani. The monsters wanted to publicly humiliate a white man. Not only was the revocation of the invitation clearly planned, but black leaders repeated the stunt one year later!

Instead of doing their job, the local and national media (both of which are situated in Manhattan), not only refused to report on the racist campaign against Giuliani, but became active co-conspirators in it.

Giuliani had not yet enacted any policies. The attacks on him were the expression of nothing more than an all-consuming, black racism. I have been highly critical of many of Mayor Giuliani’s policies, but I am in awe of the personal strength he showed, in facing down the organized, concentrated hatred of not only almost two million racist, black New Yorkers, but the demagoguery of the local and national media. Who among those reading these words could have withstood such a daily onslaught of hatred, lies, and invective without physically or emotionally breaking down, dropping dead, or even committing suicide? And yet, Giuliani not only prevailed, but re-made New York’s image around the world—years before his celebrated leadership following 911—and in 1997, handily won re-election in a city where registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans five-to-one.

It is hard to exaggerate the outrageous character of the racial profiling hoax. As liberal, black, Harvard Law professor Randall Kennedy observes in his landmark, 1997 book, Race, Crime, and the Law, “Blacks have suffered more from being left unprotected or underprotected by law enforcement authorities than from being mistreated as suspects or defendants, although it is allegations of the latter that now typically receive the most attention.”

 
Nation-Building

You may well be asking, why I am devoting so much of an essay on racial profiling to Giuliani. That is because the 1999 racial profiling hoax was initially engineered as a campaign in the politics of personal destruction, aimed at one white man. But it was also yet another expression of black supremacy’s race war against white Americans in general, and white New Yorkers in particular. (In addition, it was part of the Democrat Party’s strategy to get Hillary Clinton elected U.S. senator from New York.) Giuliani was convenient, because he gave black supremacists like Al Sharpton, Sonny Carson, and the Rev. Herbert Daughtry a flesh-and-blood “Goldstein,” the mythical character in George Orwell’s 1984, who is used to focus the people’s hatred.

Other black supremacist campaigns have included the 1987-88 Tawana Brawley Hoax, 1996 Texaco Hoax, 1996-97 ebonics scam, 2000 Florida Disenfranchisement Hoax, reparations scam, etc. The common themes of the campaigns are the notions that no black must ever defer to any white authority figure (whether we are speaking of a white teacher, police officer, or employer); that every white must defer to all blacks, including white men deferring to black children; that whites must give or pay blacks whatever the latter demand, whenever they demand it; that laws that apply to whites may not apply to blacks; that blacks have a veto right over any election results they dislike; that blacks may violate the persons of whites at will; in short, that whites must be the de facto (and increasingly, de jure) slaves of blacks, who have the power of life or death over their white chattel.

Black supremacists are in the nation-building business, and every nation requires an army. In every young black man that a black supremacist helps on the road to becoming a hardened criminal, the supremacist gets a boost of self-esteem, as he fantasizes about the young man’s white victims, and counts the young man as a new recruit to the black revolutionary army.

As John Henry Wright, a member of a small black gang I briefly ran with, circa 1972, once told me, “All the white people gon’ die.” Even me? “Even you, Stix.”

I left that gang when John Henry and the gang’s leader, Alan “Poncho” Hankins, took to telling me, “Stix, you our slave,” and having me do all the shoplifting (such as a 20-lb. turkey before Thanksgiving), while they took all the proceeds.

From 1974-1976, I was a token white in a federally-funded, black youth program for juvenile delinquents, the Youth Justice Program (YJP). In 1975, the program was taken over by black supremacists who gave us Sam Greenlee’s unreadable novel, The Spook Who Sat by the Door, to read. Spook is a James-Bond-in-blackface fantasy of a bloody, racial revolution, which the middle-and upper-middle-class youth workers insisted presents a rational plan for action. In Spook, the nation’s first black CIA operative organizes black street gangs across the country. I guess my YJP buddies were supposed to die for the likes of the spoiled, Harvard psych major extolling the book’s virtues.

(Greenlee was the United States Information Agency’s first affirmative action hire. Now say after me: Our diversity is our strength!)

But the notion of turning black street criminals into an army of racial genocide was already by then a time-honored, black supremacist tradition. It went back at least to the Moorish Science Temple, founded in Newark in 1913 by “Noble Drew Ali” (Timothy Drew; 1866-1916); and was refined in New York by Marcus M. Garvey (1887-1940), the founder of the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) and “Back-to-Africa” movement; and in Detroit and Chicago by Elijah Muhammad (Elijah Poole; 1897-1975), the leader of the Black Muslims, which is now known as the Nation of Islam. The aforementioned men were genocidal cutthroats all.

 
Pick a Number, Any Number

Since blacks were being stopped and frisked, and arrested in numbers much higher than their percentage of the population, the story went, such police behavior was “proof” of the NYPD’s racism. In spring, 1999, every racist, socialist, or communist celebrity in town got himself arrested during a daily civil disobedience show in front of Police Headquarters, which as New York Post columnist Bob McManus pointed out, was clearly being jointly organized by the national, state, and local Democrat Party apparatuses.

At the time, Ted Koppel devoted at least one episode of his dramatic series, Nightline, to a hit piece by Kevin “I’m-not-a-reporter-I-just- play-one” Newman, attacking Mayor Giuliani. But Koppel’s racial intimidation tactics were no match for Giuliani, who, bless him, went on the offensive with Koppel, pointing out that the proportions of blacks stopped or arrested matched the proportion of crime suspects identified by victims as black. (Actually, the proportion of blacks stopped was lower than the black proportion of crime suspects.)

The race hoaxers and affirmative action pushers (if you’ll pardon the redundancy) have always played a shell game with numbers, constantly switching their frame of reference. When it’s a matter of the arrests or stops of blacks, the hoaxers use the black proportion of the population, rather than the black proportion of criminal suspects as their base. When it’s the number of blacks in a certain job, again the hoaxers use the proportion of blacks in the population as their base, rather than the percentage of people with the requisite qualifications. (E.g., while blacks comprise 12.5% of the general population, in academia, they hold only 3% of all Ph.D.s.) But when blacks are wildly overrepresented in a field, as they are in entertainment, and especially, in professional sports, the hoaxers avoid that issue. They complain instead about the lack of black coaches or managers, and instead of using the percentage of blacks in the general population, or the percentage of blacks seeking such jobs, they switch to the percentage of black players.

Such numbers games would never succeed, if white folks in high places weren’t such cowards, and simply called every racist, black hustler’s bluff.

In my story, I emphasized Det. Kevan’s stupidity, not because he was incompetent, but because he was competent, in spite of not being the brightest light. Police work isn’t rocket science. Kevan was a veteran cop, but you don’t have to be a veteran with a badge to know that a group of adolescent boys hanging out on the street at 9 p.m. on a school night, is a crime waiting to happen.

Why? Because if they had proper adult supervision, they would be home by then. Because there was no legitimate pastime they could have engaged in. Because boys that age, if they have any gumption, are incurably stupid, and prone to acts of often suicidal bravado, especially if they are together in a group, where they will seek to impress each other.

The funny thing is, the lawsuit was a case of kicking a dead horse. For years, New York police have avoided breaking up groups of black boys or men hanging out on the street at night. Too much trouble. The cops might find themselves the targets of a race riot, of complaints on the next day’s news by the local, racist, black preacher, and the local, racist, black elected official, a local, racist, black journalist, the head of the local, black non-profit, and the local, racist, black talk radio host, not to mention their elite, white allies. The punks will predictably be presented by the aforementioned, cookie-cutter racists and elites as victims of out-of-control, racist, white authority.

(Of course, the purpose of the lawsuit was also to shake down whites for money, at which it was moderately successful. Thus did it represent a new chapter both in the history of black race hoaxes and black racial extortion. The plaintiffs were “professional blacks,” in the phrase used by Jim Sleeper in his 1990 book, The Closest of Strangers: Liberalism and the Politics of Race in New York. “Professional blacks” expect to be paid simply for being black.)

And so, instead of breathing a sigh of relief at a close call, the punks in question will feel emboldened to go a step further next time. Eventually, they will go too far too many times, and land in prison.

To be continued in the next column: How Profiling Saved My Life, Part II.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Seiyo Scores First Round KO over MacDonald

By Nicholas Stix

Between here and Europe, I’ve attended four different colleges and universities, some of them world famous, but the finest one was New York State’s unheralded little Sullivan County Community College, where I got my start. But the story to follow is more about SCCC’s um, atmosphere, though that too contributed mightily to its greatness.

In the spring semester of my freshman year, I took Western Civ II with a man I’ll call “Willis Anderson.”

Anderson was a wild man. In class, he bellowed about his hero, Martin Luther, with a deep, booming voice that gave me headaches, when he was too close at hand. He was handsome and athletic looking, notwithstanding a slight paunch and a jaw (like my own) of Biblical dimensions, with a theatrical flamboyance which, I was told, had served him well in local amateur productions of Gilbert & Sullivan. I also once heard a tape of his comical, inebriated rantings at a saloon, when he did an unscripted “Rev. Billy Ray Hargis” (I believe he used Hargis’ name) standup shtick.

Entertaining fellow, and known to all the local barkeeps, who he may have occasionally spelled. He once threatened me in class, if I didn’t shut up, saying “After three straight nights in [saloon]….,” the implication being that he had tended bar, though I’m no longer sure one should make that assumption.

Prior to teaching college, Willis had taught high school history. Based on his widespread local reputation, I think that in addition to easier hours and better pay, he chose to jump to teaching college, because he would no longer have to worry about possible statutory rape prosecutions.

Although he was legally married, he and his wife seemed to lead separate lives. He would offer coeds with “incompletes” in his classes the opportunity to do “research” for him. At one point, he offered a girl I was dating (unbeknownst to him, not that it would have mattered) such an opportunity. She told me she’d take an “F,” before she’d do any of his “f-ing research.”

I’d never heard of Willis being sighted off campus sober. It was as if the moment he left campus, he hit a secret button, and immediately became soused.

Anderson gave me a B that semester; I thought I deserved an “A.” It turned out, he thought so, too.

During the summer, whenever I had a moment, I’d visit the local watering holes looking for Willis, to ask him why he’d given me a “B.” I always missed him, but one day, as I was riding my bike to my job as a restaurant dishwasher, I saw Willis stagger out of “Bum and Kel’s,” my own favorite saloon.

“Willis?”

“What the fuck you want?”

I’d like to talk to you about something.

[More of the same.]

“Why the fuck did I give you a B? You deserved an A.”

That’s what I’d like to know.

“Alright, if you take me, I’ll give you the A.”

Assuming the nine-inch taller man meant a round of fisticuffs, I put up my dukes. He shook me off, and put out his arms to signal we were to wrestle.

The place we were at was an inhospitable mix of sand and tiny pebbles, between some pickup trucks parked in front of the joint, but it would have to do.

We tangled, and went down in the sand and pebbles, and I pinned Willis on his shoulders, counting him out 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3. But he wouldn’t admit that I’d beaten him and continued struggling with me, our legs by now under someone’s parked pick-up truck. Finally, the beefier of the two owners came out, said “Boys, that’ll be enough,” and dragged us up from under the truck, and separated us, each in one of his meaty hands. Willis had bloody knees, due to wearing shorts (I was wearing jeans), but that was his choice.

I then went across the street to Ralph’s Pizza, where I triumphantly told the owner’s son, Ralph Jr., of my exploits.

“It doesn’t count, because Willis was drunk.”

“But he’s always drunk off campus!”

I don’t recall succeeded at bringing Ralph Jr. around to my way of seeing things. And Willis was no gentleman; he never changed my grade, and I had no intention of chasing after him like a bill collector, dunning him for a grade change.

These reveries were inspired by the thoroughgoing thrashing that Takuan Seiyo gave to Kevin MacDonald at Gates of Vienna, in “Critique of the Culture of Kevin MacDonald.”

MacDonald, who knows little about Jews, whom he understands not one bit, considers himself the world’s greatest scholar of all things Jewish. His “scholarship” is reducible to the statement, ‘The Jews are an alien race that is a cancer on the white race, and responsible for all that ails the latter,’ or more succinctly, ‘The Jews are our misfortune!’

Seiyo proceeds by showing that MacDonald’s “method” consists of finding anything negative about any Jews, and attributing it to all Jews; ignoring all Jewish contributions to Western civilization; ignoring any injustices committed by gentiles against Jews; and writing as though any defect observed among Jews were unique to them, rather than common to many other, and possibly all other religious and ethnic groups. The philosopher Walter Kaufmann called such sophistry, “gerrymandering.”

The only blemish on Tak’s victory is, of course, that it came against the slovenly thinking Kevin MacDonald.

However, sometimes a man has to fight “the Bum of the Month.” Contrary to Ralph Jr.’s criticism, if I’d waited to find Willis sober, I would have never had my day. Was I supposed to let him slide? I don’t think so. And in an admittedly imperfect analogy—aren’t they all?—was a high-powered intellect like Tak Seiyo supposed to say, “This pathetic excuse for an intellect is beneath me; I won’t dirty my hands on him”? Of course, not. America and the rest of the West are collapsing due to such snobbishness, which often is a front for intellectual cowardice and laziness.

Anyone who would consider himself an intellectual today must, perforce, join the Bad Books Club, and pummel the intellectual Bum of the Month, or pretty soon, all intellectual exercises will have been outlawed.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Guests from Hell: The NAACP's Shakedown of the Hospitality Industry

By Nicholas Stix

January, 2002
Middle American News

The race hustlers who have engineered race hoaxes and shaken down one American industry after another have found most hospitable hosts in the hotel and motel industry. Hotel and motel owners have responded to demands for payoffs to blacks by meeting every demand -- and have been rewarded for their troubles with frivolous lawsuits and public condemnation by the very groups whom they have so dutifully served.

Consider the case of Adam's Mark, a St. Louis-based, national chain of 24 hotels. Twenty percent of Adam's Mark executives are black, 60 percent of its employees are "minority," the firm forces all employees to undergo diversity training, and executives at its Daytona Beach hotel had for so long been involved in the planning of Black College Reunion weekend held annually in the Florida city, that BCR representatives made Adam's Mark the official BCR headquarters. And yet, all these initiatives failed to protect Adam's Mark from repeated law suits by black BCR guests seeking to shake it down, and a national boycott the NAACP organized against it, with the connivance of the federal Department of Justice and Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth.

On December 3, Adams' Mark agreed to a settlement that will cost it at least $5 million: The chain will pay $1,000,000 to be split among the five black plaintiffs -- Dante Gilliam, Jamie Morrison, Latoya Straughn, Napoleon Berrian and Mark Simmonds -- who initially sued it; $600,000 to four racially segregated, black Florida colleges; $400,000 to be split among the 400 black guests who were in the Daytona Beach Adam's Mark during BCR 1999; and the hotel chain agreed to forfeit payment on $3 million dollars in contracts that were broken by groups and individuals that had cheated the hotel, in support of the NAACP shakedown. (The four black schools are Bethune-Cookman College, $150,000; Florida A&M University, $250,000; Edward Waters College, $100,000; and Florida Memorial College, $100,000).

And so, all of the BCR celebrants whom the hotel had so assiduously reached out to, ultimately got to stay in the hotel for free, while five of them made a cool, $200,000 profit out of the weekend. Those free stays, shakedown payoffs, and broken contracts will ultimately have to be paid off by Adam's Mark's white guests.

The inspiration for such racial extortion was apparently born in 1990, during a racial love fest hosted for black South African leader, Nelson Mandela, by Miami's black leaders. When leaders from Miami's Cuban expatriate community criticized Mandela for his support of Cuba's communist dictator, Fidel Castro, black community leaders demanded apologies and reparations. (The concept of reparations is not limited to the white man's guilt for slavery and Jim Crow.)

Led by the Florida Conference of NAACP chapters, black activists organized a boycott of Miami, producing a film which they sent free to organizations around the country, telling them not plan events in Miami, irrespective of the fact that such boycotts would disproportionately harm blacks. As Jared Taylor recounted in Paved with Good Intentions, "A year later, the group estimated that it had managed to keep $27 million of convention business out of the city."

The activists demanded that the hospitality industry apologize and pay extortion to blacks, in the form of jobs, college tuition, and other protection money. Had white organizations engaged in such behavior, their leaders surely would have been arrested and tried for extortion and conspiracy; but since these were black extortionists, they were able to operate with impunity, and the targeted industry caved in.

The hospitality industry and its media rushed to serve its new masters. As Brian S. Lonergan put it in a celebratory 1999 article in USAE News, a convention and hotel industry magazine, "Facing the possibility of millions of dollars of lost tourism business, the Miami hospitality community rallied. It worked with [local NAACP leader, Adora] Obi-Nweze to develop a 20-point plan to improve opportunities for African-Americans in Miami.... To date, 115 scholarships have been awarded to students studying hospitality management at Florida International University and over $1 million in cash, on-the-job positions and in-kind services."

Observing the Florida NAACP Conference's winning formula, national NAACP CEO, Kweisi Mfume, decided to "wet his own beak." In 1997, Mfume started publishing an annual report on the hotel-motel industry, rating all major players. The problem is, Mfume's "rating system" provides no criteria, and he almost never gives any white-owned hotel or motel chain a good rating. Only the Cendant and Marriott hotel chains have ever gotten a rating above a "C." And caving in to black extortion demands has now inspired a spate of frivolous lawsuits against hoteliers.

The Adam's Mark hotel chain has been the target of shakedown lawsuits following each of the two previous annual Black College Reunion weekends. In each case, black guests claimed that by being required to wear orange wristbands showing that they were hotel guests, they were being racially discriminated against, and that they were charged higher rates than white guests.

In 2000, Adam's Mark agreed to pay an $8 million settlement, but the settlement was scuttled by a federal judge on technical grounds.

Apparently seeing that there would be no end to the lawsuits, last fall Adam's Mark's Fred Bossert decided to fight them. In early September, Adam's Mark spokeswoman, Sharon Harvey Davis, denied the charges. Davis told me, "No, they're not true. The higher rates are true for all special events -- any high demand event for the city -- Daytona 500, Oktoberfest. Requiring a security deposit is true for all special events that require advance registration. It's a demand that's not specific to Black College Reunion weekend.

"The ID bands are [for] when there are a lot of non-guests trying to enter the hotel, and to make sure that our paying guests have a chance to enjoy the facilities." Davis noted that the same practice is used "most notably in New Orleans during Mardi Gras week. So, it's industry-wide, and it's not just done to African Americans."

So, are you telling me that this is a frivolous lawsuit? "We are saying, that we are going to aggressively defend the lawsuit. Everything we did during BCR week were done to control crowds, and make sure our guests were able to enjoy the facilities of our hotel."

Why is the NAACP targeting Adam's Mark? "I'm not sure," Davis responded, "but I know that we are working hard to keep the doors of communication open to the NAACP, and to find a common ground."

In December, Adam's Mark surrendered.

Hoteliers are learning the hard way, what happens when you lie down with dogs. However, it is most likely the white hotel and motel guests who must subsidize racist black extortionists, who will be waking up with fleas. And that is most inhospitable.