Friday, November 16, 2007

Color Schemes

By Nicholas Stix

Have the media induced political colorblindness in you? We provide therapy.

While “a rose is a rose is a rose,” it is not necessarily the case that “red is red is red.”

By long-standing tradition going back to Europe, political movements have colors. For instance, when I lived in then-West Germany (1980-1985), “green” referred to environmentalist-anarchists, as it does here (though today in America, “environmentalist” groups are often communist fronts); “black” referred to conservatives; “brown” to Nazis; “blue” to libertarians; and “red” to socialists and communists. Indeed, “red” had long been the worldwide expression and color of communism, by agreement of both Marxists and their enemies, though Marxists hated their enemies identifying them as such.

(When I lived in West Germany, it was only socially acceptable to refer to Austrians in general as “brown”; living, West German Nazis were powerful and had great legal privileges, such that calling a real Nazi “brown” could lead to a ruinous civil suit. Practically everybody who was anybody was a “former” Nazi, and even old workingmen Nazis were heroes to many of the postwar-born German men they worked with.)

A competing, contemporary use of “red” is by genocidal black supremacists, who wear clothing, buttons, and such in the red-black-green “pan-African flag” designed by Marcus Garvey (1887-1940), the Jamaican-born founder of the back-to-Africa movement. While the black stands for the “black” race, and the green for the land, the red is for the blood of whites that the wearer hopes to shed.

Garvey sought to lead blacks in a worldwide racial Armageddon, in which they would kill all whites, and take their place as the world’s dominant race.

“The Red, or the blood, stands as the top of all things. We lost our land through blood; and we cannot gain it except through blood. We must redeem our lives through the blood. Without the shedding of blood there can be no redemption of this race.”

Notwithstanding their wearing of black-green-red accessories in the shape of Africa, the land that genocidal “Africans” seek to gain is that of the good, old USA.

(Though I no longer see it used as much, during the 1990s, the black, green, and red were typically joined with yellow, as an expression of tenured City College of New York black supremacist Leonard Jeffries’ teaching that blacks are the “sun people,” the moral, intellectual, and biological superiors to the racially inferior, white “cave people.”)

* * *

“Brown” also has an interesting contemporary significance. It is the political color of Reconquista, of the pan-Mexican, mestizo racial supremacy of groups like MEChA and “La Raza” (“The Race”). Note that the Reconquistas seek not just land that Mexico lost to America in the first Mexican-American War (and for which America compensated Mexico), but vast lands to the North and West of those, including Colorado and Washington, which they claim to belong to “Aztlan,” an ancient Hispanic/Indigenous nation. And since “Aztlan” exists only in their fevered imaginations, I suppose that those lands do belong to it.

And that’s what they admit to. Like the black supremacists, the Reconquistas aim to conquer all of America and kill off all whites, or as the Reconquistas say, send them back to Europe.

Keepin’ It Red

But my primary color of concern is traditional red.

Since at least the Great Depression, American reds have sought to manipulate “blacks” into fighting their revolution for them. (Most American “blacks” would more accurately be termed “browns.”) In Woody Strode’s (1914-1994) autobiography, Goal Dust (as told to ghostwriter Sam Young), the legendary athlete-turned-actor told of his folks warning him against getting sucked into the communist vortex. The reds would sponsor mixers at which pretty white girls would seek to seduce promising young black men into the movement.

(One generation later, the reds would succeed, when they joined with black preachers in creating the so-called Civil Rights Movement.)

White American socialists and communists—I call ‘em SCWs (socialist/communist/whatevers)—have no more regard for blacks than does your average WS/NN/W (white supremacist/neo-Nazi/whatever).

Twenty years ago in Brooklyn, I rented a room from a well-to-do, white political operative. I suspect he was a communist, because while socialists occasionally lapse into honesty, this guy could lie in his sleep. Anyway, he lived in an integrated, luxury co-op, with blacks who hated whites, Asians who hated whites, and whites who hated whites. The street around the corner from the building was all black, and variously working-class and poor. Although that street was dilapidated and desolate, with a numbers parlor hiding behind a phony fried chicken storefront, it had a lovely little Sinclair’s bakery (no longer there), a seedy (since buppified) supermarket, and even a butcher (I’m not sure if that’s still there).

If I was hungry, and knew that there were stores open, I went to that street and got something to eat, day or night.

Not so, my landlord. (He called the set-up a “share,” but the sharing went one-way. What was mine was his, and what was his was his. While claiming to be against private property, reds are as greedy as your average venture capitalist.) Although he was almost a foot taller than me, unlike me was trim and athletic-looking, and had all the right beliefs about treating blacks better than whites (whereas I said that blacks should be treated just as lousy as whites), this guy was so terrified of blacks that he wouldn’t set foot on that street at high noon, accompanied by his dog, even though the next overpriced, yuppy shopping area was almost a mile in the opposite direction. Eventually, he hired a black West Indian woman to do his family’s shopping and cooking.

In the late spring of 1988, long after it was obvious to everyone that Tawana Brawley and the Three Stooges (Alton Maddox, C. Vernon Mason, and Al Sharpton) had engineered the most despicable race hoax in modern American history, many blacks, their media sycophants, and non-media reds still refused to admit it. At the time, another red political operative I used to know (based on her rare lapses into honesty, I’m guessing she was only a socialist), remarked to me in private, “You can’t expect blacks to participate as equals in public discourse.”

Translated into English, she was saying that blacks are mentally retarded. Of course, had the operative made that statement publicly, her professional career would have been over, and she would have had to leave New York and change her name. (And that was 19 years before James Watson!)

In mixed company, that operative would ape black supremacists, with phrases like, “We need unity against those who would divide us.”

As Tonto says in the apocryphal joke, “Who is ‘we,’ Kimosabe?”

Since the 1960s, reds have likewise sought to conscript “browns” into the revolution, notwithstanding that blacks and Hispanics (excepting many New York Puerto Ricans) have always hated each other. The solution to overcoming black-Hispanic hostility was to engage in ever more intense anti-white rhetoric and practices. It never seemed to occur to the reds that: 1. Racism is evil; and 2. They are white!

If you spend years indoctrinating blacks (who need no invitation to hate whites, in the first place) and Hispanics in anti-white racism, and giving them incentives to violently assault whites, at some point, they are going to notice that you are the same color as the “racist” whites. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the regimes of apartheid and genocide well underway in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Even then-82-year-old, “anti-apartheid” (read: red) writer Nadine Gordimer, who was rewarded for her literary activism with a Nobel Prize for literature, was targeted last year by racist black thugs, who robbed and beat her in her Johannesburg home. Or just take a look at America’s cities.

America’s reds think that the “blacks” and “browns” they seek to exploit politically are simple-minded and easily manipulated. Unfortunately for the reds, the blacks and browns know this.

Towards the end of the Weimer Republic (1919-1933) and the beginning of the Nazi Era (1933-1945), reactionary, “black” monarchists who helped the Nazis ascend to power, thought the same way about Hitler and his henchmen. Hitler saw through their vanity. By the time the “blacks” realized their folly, they were climbing the steps to the gallows.

* * *

According to Democrat Party legend and the New York Times, if you’ll pardon the redundancy, the 1950s were an age of McCarthyite “red-baiting” and “hysteria.” On June 19, 2003, a New York Times house editorial commemorated the 50th anniversary of the execution of communist traitors and Soviet spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, for instance, by fabulating in Marxist language that they were the “victims” of “anti-communist hysteria” and “McCarthyism,” and called their case, including the execution of Julius, an “injustice.”

In other words, giving our mortal enemies atom bomb secrets which helped them build their own bomb was not a crime.

But then, the Times has since 1992 been run by “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr., who during the War in Vietnam supported the North Vietnamese communists, and who has never changed. And long before Sulzberger’s time, Timesmen Walter Duranty wrote propaganda for Stalin, covering up his Ukrainian Holocaust (for which Duranty was rewarded with a Pulitzer Prize), and Herbert Mathews provided similar services for Castro.

Also typical of the left was Turner Classic Movies host Robert Osborne’s August 18, 2005 assertion that people merely “alleged” that the Hollywood Ten were communists. Such claims are on a par with Holocaust-deniers saying that Jews merely “allege” that the Holocaust occurred. But that’s what the Left has been engaging in for over 40 years—communism-denial.

It can be hard, at times, to say where Marxist evil leaves off and Marxist ignorance begins. But if someone repeats a lie out of ignorance, he’s still a liar. For instance, for over fifty years, leftists have repeated the lie whereby Richard Nixon coined the term “the Pink Lady,” in referring to Democrat California Rep. Helen Gahagan Douglas, his opponent in the 1950 U.S. Senate race. As historian Irwin Gellman showed in his exhaustively researched Nixon-biography, The Contender: Richard Nixon: The Congress Years, 1946 to 1952, Nixon did not coin the term, Douglas’ Democratic primary opponent, Ralph Manchester Boddy, the publisher of the Los Angeles Daily News, did.

If anything, calling Douglas, then one of the two most radically left members of Congress “pink,” was too gentle a description. “Red” would have been more accurate.
The other congressman I alluded to above, East Harlem communist Vito Marcantonio, also lost the 1950 election, to Democrat James Donovan, who had stressed Marcantonio’s refusal to vote in favor of war against communist North Korea. (Marcantonio’s claim, “I vote my conscience,” was a code phrase for his following the Party – as in, Communist Party — line.)

However, the leftwing campaign against Nixon, continued by dead-enders even today, 13 years after the man’s death, was always based less on his electoral victories over congressmen Jerry Voorhis (in 1946) and Helen Gahagan Douglas, than on his successful 1950 prosecution of Alger Hiss, who had earlier been the number-two man in the State Department, for perjury. Hiss had in fact been a traitor and a Soviet spy, but the statute of limitations precluded prosecuting him for those hanging offenses.

Leftwing ignorance is so pervasive, that in an unintentionally comical moment in the 2005 propaganda film, Good Night, and Good Luck, director/screenwriter/communist sympathizer George Clooney felt the need to have his character, CBS News producer Fred Friendly, point out to another character—without irony—that the House Un-American Activities Committee is in the House, while Sen. McCarthy is in the Senate.

But leftist propagandists have always worked hard to ensure that everyone in America is as ignorant and confused as the average lefty. Thus, they have since the 1960s labeled any political action or criticism opposing them, “McCarthyism” or a “new McCarthyism.”

The tactic of calling opponents “McCarthyites” serves the dual purpose of making them look evil, and of reinforcing a fictional history, according to which, on the one hand, Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were victims, rather than traitors, and the State Department was not, as McCarthy revealed, lousy with communist infiltrators.

Conservative writer Ann Coulter returned to this issue in her 2003 book, Treason, vindicating the memory of McCarthy. Conservative journalist M. Stanton Evans has just published his 672-page swan song, blasting the leftwing, anti-McCarthy tradition, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight against America's Enemies.

Republicans and conservatives have aided and abetted the Left by referring since circa 1989 to leftwing totalitarianism on college campuses and in the nation’s schools as a “new McCarthyism.” That unfortunate rhetorical habit is a form of surrender that it will take more than Evans to overcome.

Another form of surrender long practiced by Republicans and conservatives is in referring to “liberal bias” by the mainstream media. The media figures in question do not think of themselves as “liberals,” they think of themselves as socialists or worse.

But the socialist MSM’s ultimate victory in table-turning was in monolithically imposing, during the 2000 presidential election, the usage of the phrase “red states,” in referring to Republican-majority states, and “blue states,” in referring to Democrat-majority states.

Socialist MSM types no doubt cluck, whenever they get a non-leftist to speak of Republican areas as “Red America,” or “red-state America,” but “Red America” rightfully refers to America’s newsrooms and faculty lounges.

Memo to TCM's Robert Osborne: Dalton Trumbo was a Communist!

By Nicholas Stix

Men’s News Daily, August 22, 2005

On Thursday night, Turner Classic Movies showed the wartime picture, A Guy Named Joe (1943), starring Spencer Tracy, Irene Dunne, and Van Johnson. Tracy plays the ghost of a dead flier who is assigned by his commanding officer, Lionel Barrymore (yeah, even heaven had Army Air Corps squadrons!), to be the guardian angel of Johnson, a hotshot flier. Matters are complicated by the fact that Johnson is falling in love with the girl Spence left behind, spunky, accomplished flier, Irene Dunne, and Spence, though dead, is jealous. (Steven Spielberg remade this in 1989 as Always, which I have not seen. Starring Richard Dreyfuss, Holly Hunter, and John Goodman, Always became one of Spielberg’s rare box-office bombs.)

TCM’s resident film historian and host, Robert Osborne, said that Joe’s screenwriter, Dalton Trumbo, “was accused of being a communist.” Osborne, who never followed up by saying whether the charge was true, suggested that Trumbo was yet another of the legions of victims of “red-baiting.”

But the historical record shows that Trumbo was indeed a communist. In fact, he joined the Party in 1943, the same year A Guy Named Joe was released. So, why was Osborne dishonest?

The “McCarthyism” myth has always functioned the same way: By saying that legions of creative people were the “victims” of rightwing “paranoia,” and were blacklisted for their leftwing “leanings.” Heck, according to the New York Times, even spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who passed on atom bomb secrets to our Soviet enemies, were “victims” of “hysteria.”

Things look a lot different, once one determines that the blacklisted Hollywood Ten were in fact communists, who believed in the armed overthrow of the American government, and in replacing that government with a communist dictatorship, in which people who disagreed with them would not only be blacklisted, but thrown into gulags, tortured, and/or murdered.

Beginning on May 8, 1947, under subpoena, some 41 Hollywood figures appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which was investigating communist infiltration in Hollywood. HUAC members asked each witness if he was or ever had been a member of the Communist Party, and if he knew the names of other people who were Party members. Thirty-one witnesses cooperated with the committee; ten refused to cooperate. Those ten became known as the Hollywood Ten: Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Robert Adrian Scott and Dalton Trumbo. The Hollywood Ten were ultimately charged with contempt of Congress and jailed for 6-12 months each. All but Dmytryk were officially blacklisted in Hollywood for years. Most worked under pseudonyms until the early 1960s, when the blacklist ended. Dmytryk came back after serving his sentence, cooperated with the committee, and picked up his career where he had left off.

Today, “historians” of “McCarthyism” tell us that those Hollywood figures, such as Elia Kazan, who testified before the HUAC, were willing to name people who had been members of left-wing groups, rather than go to prison for contempt of Congress. As the saying goes, a half-truth is a whole lie. HUAC wasn’t interested in “people who had been members of left-wing groups,” it was interested in people who had been members of the Communist Party. At the time, there were many “leftwing groups” that were not openly communist; the majority were Communist fronts, while others were run by socialist anti-communists. Yes, leftwing anti-communists existed at the time; some of them founded the movement that is today known as neoconservatism.

We are also frequently told, by leftwing propagandists who do not know the difference between the Senate and the House, that in 1947 Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R, WI) was a member of or the chairman of the HUAC, or somehow working with it. But McCarthy was not a member of the House, had only been sworn into office in January, 1947, and did not begin his crusade until 1950.

Such propagandists also do not tell us of the threat of communists and Soviet spies in high places at the time (Julius Rosenberg, Alger Hiss), or of the threat of war with the Soviet Union. Forty years later, the release of the Venona Tapes showed that the domestic communist threat was indeed as widespread as charged in the “rightwing hysteria.”

The cover-up of the truth behind the Hollywood Ten and domestic subversion at the time is so pervasive that the leading web pages cited by google for members of the group compete with each other as to who can censor more of the truth. Under Herbert Biberman, for instance, the first of 3,870 entries is that of Spartacus,” a British communist group. (It is named after the Spartacus Group, founded in Wilhelmine Germany by communists Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.) Spartacus censors the fact that Biberman had been a member of the Communist Party.

The anonymous entry for Biberman at Wikipedia, which is reprinted verbatim at, goes Spartacus one better, in censoring even the reasons why Biberman was subpoenaed by HUAC in the first place. (Wikipedia’s anonymity does its readers no favors.)

“Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to a Jewish family, he is best known for being one of the Hollywood Ten, a group of MPAA members working in various jobs in the Hollywood film industry who were cited for contempt of Congress during the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947. The contempt conviction earned Biberman six months in jail, and he was blacklisted by the Hollywood movie studio bosses.”

Someone who didn’t know the truth would think that Congress had been randomly sending out subpoenas to poor sods, and then throwing them into jail, when they didn’t comply with the subpoenas.

The funny thing is, the Hollywood Ten supported tyrannies that did randomly arrest and imprison poor sods!

Communists, both those who lived through the period, and their latter-day supporters, paint anti-communists as paranoid and unjust, and the communists as “victims.” But such propagandistic revisionism won’t wash. Depending on the retelling, the Hollywood Ten invoked the First (freedom of opinion and association) or the Fifth (freedom from self-incrimination) Amendment, before the HUAC. Neither strategy makes any legal sense to me. Congress was not criminalizing them for their opinions or for associating with certain groups. And self-incrimination wasn’t at issue, because membership in the Communist Party was not illegal. Thus, no one who testified that he was presently or had been a member of the Communist Party would be incriminating himself.

That people who had contempt for the entire Bill of Rights should invoke it is nothing new; however, it was poetic justice that for once such an attempted abuse failed.

The Hollywood Ten refused to testify based not on fear of legal retribution, but based on the orders of the Communist Party itself. In 2002, F.X. Feeney wrote of director Edward Dmytryk,

Dmytryk felt that the Hollywood Ten's first confrontation with Congress (which rapidly deteriorated into a shouting match) might have had a more peaceful outcome–that indeed there might have been less furor and no blacklist–except that the Communist Party, pressuring Dmytryk and the rest of the Ten, wanted the propaganda advantage of a defiant martyrdom. “The Ten had been sacrificed to the Party's purpose,” he writes in Odd Man Out. “If I were going to be a martyr, I wanted the privilege of choosing my martyrdom, and making my family suffer to protect American representatives of a foreign agency would certainly not be it.”
As Michael Mills wrote in 1998 in Blacklist: A Different Look at the 1947 HUAC Hearings,

In his autobiography Inside Out: A Memoir of the Blacklist, Walter Bernstein, contributing writer for The New Yorker, and former screenwriter, claimed that while he was working at Columbia Pictures, he and Director Robert Rossen, would set out deliberately to include some leftist point of view in a particular scene. They left it up to studio head Harry Cohn to delete the unwanted scenes. Rossen, an overt Communist, was perturbed at his exclusion as one of the original Hollywood Ten! He never got over “being snubbed in such an unsavory manner!” Here, for the first time, one of the key players of the Hollywood left admitted purposefully and deliberately to including pro-Communist messages in movie scripts.
It was a point of “honor” for the Hollywood Ten to follow the orders of the Communist Party, and not denounce fellow communists, so that a totalitarian dictatorship could be imposed on America, in which people would be forced to denounce their friends – or die. (For an immensely readable history of secret police, including the role of denunciation in Russia, Nazi Germany, and other countries, see historian Robert J. Stove’s The Unsleeping Eye: Secret Police and Their Victims.)

Initially, a group of Hollywood luminaries, the Committee for the First Amendment, which included Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, and John Huston, supported the Hollywood Ten, but they were so embarrassed by the Ten’s theatrics in the House, that they renounced them.

The continuing claims that the Hollywood Ten were “victims” ring false. Only someone who believes in and practices tolerance and “live and let live,” can credibly defend them. Someone who believes in jailing, torturing, and executing dissenters can not honestly complain when one of their number gets subpoenaed. But that’s one of the problems with communists — they’re compulsive liars!

Thus, it is very difficult for leftists to defend the Hollywood Ten without lying and/or obfuscating. In such defenses, they are speaking to comrades and to people who don’t know the score. And since communists and their sympathizers in education, academia, and the media have had so much success over the past forty-plus years misrepresenting the postwar communist threat, the majority of the population doesn’t know the score. And so, the propagandists don’t tell you that the Hollywood Ten were communists. Meanwhile, the defenders of the Hollywood Ten themselves believe in persecuting and blacklisting anyone who disagrees with them.

To get an idea of the breadth of the Left’s hypocrisy, since at least the late 1980s, the Leftists who control the media, schools, and higher education, have terrorized and blacklisted colleagues, not for seeking to destroy America, but for seeking to preserve her. Historian Alan Kors and lawyer Harvey Silverglate, the authors of The Shadow University, founded the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in 1999 expressly to fight such persecution in higher education.

I have never heard any of those who speak compulsively of “McCarthyism” regarding the 1950s, take a stand against such repression, which, in the case of public institutions, is illegal. (In 1998, this writer was politically blacklisted by York College and Baruch College, both of the City University of New York system.)

Instead, they rail against non-existent “rightwing” repression. E.g., last spring, Frank Rich of the New York Times charged that the White House had engaged in repression by saying, a few days after the 911 attacks, that people should watch what they said. Conversely, I have never read Frank Rich take a stand against real political repression in America.

An exception to the above rule regarding the Left is Kirk Douglas, who bucked the Hollywood blacklist not only by hiring Dalton Trumbo to script Spartacus (1960), but by giving him screen credit, as opposed to the usual practice of either not hiring a blacklisted writer or having him write using a pseudonym. But then, Kirk Douglas – my favorite lefty — was always an exception to the rules. Douglas later hired the native Coloradan to script one of the screen’s greatest Westerns, the romantic, wistful, Lonely are the Brave (1962). Lonely … was the story of “Jack Burns” (Douglas), a 19th century cowboy, with a cowboy’s sense of honor, in a mid-20th century world that has no place for him — a stranger in a strange land. Nothing collectivist there. (Trumbo and Douglas both should have been up for Oscars for Lonely… but though the picture is now recognized as a classic, it was made on a shoestring, and made little splash at the time.)

To get an idea of how much trouble communists were and are, sixty and seventy years ago, leftists who were not communists – e.g., democratic socialists – initially permitted communists to join their organizations. But eventually, they had to throw them out, and bar any communists from joining, because they discovered that the communists only joined organizations, in order to take them over, and turn them into communist fronts.

In this regard, I had some experiences of my own. For most of the two years I attended SUNY Stony Brook (1978-80), I was the manager of the vegetarian, student cooperative restaurant, Harkness East. (The founder, Peter Hickman, I believe his name was, had been an undergrad at lefty Antioch College in Ohio, back when the phrase – lefty college — was not redundant. Antioch had a cooperative Harkness dorm, if I recall correctly.) I was briefly friendly with Mitch Cohen, the leader of the communist Red Balloon group. I was only friendly with Mitch briefly because, good communist that he was, he was constantly double-dealing, manipulating, and stabbing people in the back.

Once, following some sort of political demonstration we had both attended, Mitch accompanied me to Harkness as my guest. Immediately, he started musing aloud about taking over the place. Fortunately, he decided against trying a power play. He wouldn’t have succeeded, but the already shaky operation might not have survived a power struggle. Indeed, when I left a few months later to attend school in then-West Germany, Harkness went under.

As Michael Mills has observed, it was a leftwing Democrat president, Harry Truman, who required loyalty oaths of government employees.

Mills has also argued that one must distinguish between the 1947 Hollywood Ten, and the blacklisting of over 300 Hollywood figures (some of whom were not communists) that began in 1951, when Joseph McCarthy was at the height of his influence.

And yet, consider the testimony, or rather lack thereof, of producer Paul Jarrico, as recounted by Mills. Asked by the committee, “In the event of a war between Russian and America, would you support the United States?,” Jarrico remained silent. His silence wasn’t out of reverence for the Bill of Rights, but out of allegiance to the Soviet Union.

People speak of rightwing “hysteria,” but the truth of the matter is that during the twelve years of FDR’s reign, communists had taken an ever stronger foothold at the highest levels of American life. FDR is once supposed to have responded to criticism of communists by saying, “Some of my best friends are communists.”

And as Lowell Ponte has noted, Roosevelt’s “New Deal government, as liberal journalist Carl Bernstein of Woodword [sic] & Bernstein fame acknowledged in his autobiographical book Loyalties, was overflowing with thousands of Communist Party members, including Bernstein's parents.”

And the American people were fed up. If rightwing hysteria was a problem, it was in response to years of leftwing hysteria, subversion, and intrigue. And today, things are 1000 times worse in academia, the schools, and the media, than they were in 1947.

The best argument against the work of the HUAC isn’t that it violated the law or “victimized” people who were themselves seeking to destroy America, but that it encouraged a culture of denunciation, the same sort of culture that the communists and the Nazis had brought about in the nations they tyrannized.

And if you don’t like the blacklist, don’t get mad at the House or the Senate. The blacklist was entirely the creation of the Hollywood studios. And it was supported by the vast majority of the American people.

Dalton Trumbo was a communist, but he was a great writer and some kind of propagandist. He was so gifted, that he could sing hymns on behalf of the Western capitalist democracies he despised. In A Guy Called Joe, Lionel Barrymore tells Spencer Tracy that the guardian angels’ job is to protect the fliers, who are fighting for a man’s right to be free.

Thursday, November 01, 2007

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

By Nicholas Stix

(See also “Remember Wichita—One Year Later,” by James Fulford)

Shortly after midnight on January 7, the most controversial crime of the year (hopefully) was committed in Knoxville, Tennessee. A young white couple—Channon Gail Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom Jr., 23—were carjacked, kidnapped, gang-raped (both of them), tortured and murdered. Five suspects, all black, are in custody.

I gave more of the appalling details in my May 14 American Renaissance online article. (See also the much longer, revised version that is the cover story of AR's July issue.)

The crime I have dubbed "The Knoxville Horror" has raised grave questions

• About the credibility of the media, police, and prosecutors, who continually lie to whites about the dangers facing them, and, in the media's case, simultaneously propagate fictions about "white racism";

• About America's perverted dialogue on race, in which citizens are presented with a false alternative between crypto-Marxist "anti-racism" and "white supremacism"; and

• About a society in which whites are hunted like prey by black racists.

The Knoxville Horror is no aberration. At the end of this article, I will set it in the true context of black-on-white crime. And I will discuss two further subsequent cases perverted by
America’s “anti-racism” dominant ideology.

Read the rest here.