Black Columnist Tells Whites, ‘Leave Obama and Wright Alone!’ An Exercise in Reading Black

By Nicholas Stix

Having spent most of my life surrounded by black racism, and having begun scientifically studying black racism in 1990, sometimes I’ll be reading black, and a writer’s meaning will be obvious to me, but will prove to have eluded (as I suppose it was meant to) other white readers, even really astute ones. And so, I am going to conduct a little exercise in reading black, using as my text the March 20 Chicago Sun-Times column of Mary Mitchell, “Wright caught in undeserved political glare.” My comments will appear in brackets, following quotes from Mitchell.

Subhed: “Whites don’t get it, blacks do -- and it’s time to move on”

Lede: “We get it. A lot of white people were offended by snippets of sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.”

[Mitchell is saying ‘critics took Wright’s words out of context.’ And in what context could the words, spoken in September 2001 in support of Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack not be construed as black supremacist, and as what in a more sensible time would have been called treasonous?]

“But frankly, critics and those who are supporting a candidate other than Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination have gotten all of the mileage they can out of this debate.”

[Mitchell” ‘It’s whites who are the racial demagogues.’ Ms. Mitchell, critics have not even begun to drive.]

“The aftermath of this racially polarizing incident is predictable. Instead of rising to the challenge to move away from the racial rhetoric that Obama talked about in his historic speech, we the media will continue to fan its flames.”

[Mitchell: ‘Drop the matter now, and leave him alone.’ But the MSM has given Obama a free pass. What Mitchell is saying is that none of the protection the MSM has given Obama counts for anything in her eyes. As far as she is concerned, Jim Crow has never ended.

Approximately forty years ago, every big newsroom around the country began hiring racist loons like Mary Mitchell, and giving them a veto right over the reporting on race. They abused that power, in order to censor any honest reporting on black racism, corruption, and social pathologies, and at the same time to impose a policy of race-baiting, dishonest reporting on whites, including the promotion of one outrageous black race hoax after another. At the time, a phrase was popular for describing Black Panther-type revolutionaries: “People who won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer.” The phrase was also an apt description of the new cadres of racist black newsroom enforcers, and in part due to their agitations, came to describe most of urban black America. Sometime during the 1990s, aging black supremacist Les Payne, then one of the top editors at Newsday, remarked that he owed his job to the 1960s’ race riots. That may be one of the few honest statements Payne ever made.

But now that the MSM policy of protecting black supremacists like the Rev. Wright has broken down, due in part to the Internet, and in part to cable TV news, Mitchell is outraged. Isn’t there a discrimination law against telling the truth about blacks?

How will Mitchell’s white colleagues, who had done everything in their power to cover for Obama and Wright, feel about Mitchell turning on them? Actually, I think her condemnation of the media and demand that whites drop the matter, together comprise a warning directed at just those colleagues. And given thoe white colleagues' total lack of self-respect in dealings with blacks, I suppose that for a month or so they’ll respond by raging even louder than usual against “white racism.”]

“And, of course, the vote in Pennsylvania, where that state’s governor, Ed Rendell, has already said ‘conservative’ whites will not vote for Obama because he is black, will be dissected to prove that Obama’s relationship with Wright cost him white votes.”

[Mitchell: ‘Only racist whites who were never going to vote for Obama anyway were affected by this racist brouhaha orchestrated by the media, who continue to fan its flames.’]

“At this point, Obama has done all he can do to put this matter to rest.”

[The hell, he has. In his speech, he tried to flip the script, and turn his and Wright’s racism into an indictment of white Americans, calling for whites to be impoverished by having endless trillions more of their hard-earned income confiscated, and handed over to blacks, as if they hadn’t already paid reparations of five trillion to ten trillion dollars.]

“At this point, Obama has done all he can do to put this matter to rest.

“He has condemned Wright’s controversial sermons as ‘wrong’ and ‘divisive,’ even though he knows as well as I do that after 9/11, you could have walked into several activist churches in Chicago and heard a similar sermon delivered from the pulpit.

[In other words, as I have been writing since 1990, while being variously ignored or condemned as a “racist,” black supremacy is anything but a fringe phenomenon among American blacks. And Mitchell fails to see what the big deal is, in the first place. Whites should be happy that Obama condemned the speech, and shut up.]

“And he has given many black people reason to pause by distancing himself from a man he once introduced to the world as his spiritual leader.”

[‘Watch it, Barack. You’ve pandered to them way too much, already. You’re in danger of becoming a Tom.’]

“But the one thing he has not done is give his critics the satisfaction of seeing him ‘disown’ Wright by leaving Trinity and letting stand the false notion that

Trinity is the ‘separatist’ and ‘racist’ institution it has been made out to be.”

[Of course, it is separatist and racist. The fact that the vast majority of urban blacks are racial separatists and racists doesn’t mean that one cannot condemn them or Trinity in such terms. When evil spreads, it is not somehow transubstantiated into good. Mitchell denies that Trinity is racist, because for her, black racism is virtue incarnate. Hating whites is not racist, but righteous. And she denies that trinity is separatist, because she considers blacks a separate nation; thus, for her, when blacks stand apart and against white Americans, they are engaging in unity, not separatism.]

“Nowhere to be found

“For many blacks, such an act would have been seen as a betrayal.

“As it is, the political warfare has thrust Wright, a man with a charismatic leadership style, a big-hearted nature, and grass-roots organizing skills, into an undeserved spotlight.

[He supported the 911 attacks on America, exhorted other blacks to share his treason, and exhorted other terrorists to attack America, as well. His organizing skills have been employed in the service of the Devil. And as for the spotlight, he was protected from the glare of scrutiny that should have blinded him six-and-a-half years earlier. The question is not, why was he now “thrust into the spotlight,” but why was he not in 2001? How much does he owe to the protection of black racists like May Mitchell, and how much to white media leftists who either shared his treasonous sympathies or were too cowardly to do the right thing?]

“Yes, undeserved.

“Where was that spotlight when Wright, whose church was no less Afro-centric than it is now, led Trinity to be among the first in the nation to take the fight against South Africa’s former racist government to the streets?”

[The spotlight was on Wright! But who is taking South Africa’s present “racist government to the streets”?]

“Where was that spotlight when Wright took a small but devout membership and grew it to an estimated 8 ,000 members that include some of the most respected citizens in Chicago?”

[The spotlight was on Wright! But who would dare then to tell the truth about his black supremacy? Who would warn the country about this growing menace?]

“Where was that spotlight when Wright launched one of the earliest responses to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the black community right here in Chicago?”

[The spotlight was on Wright! But who would then dare to tell the truth about his repeating of Chicago black supremacist Steve Cokeley’s blood libel, claiming that whites invented AIDS to infect blacks? The fact is that for over 30 years, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah T. Wright enjoyed a free ride, just like countless racist black public figures across the country, including scribes.]

“Where were we?

“We were nowhere to be found.”

[You were everywhere, you damned liar.]

“I have not spoken to Wright, who will retire in June as the church’s senior pastor, but I imagine his heart is broken.”

[Heart? What heart?]

“After all, he didn’t labor in the vineyard for 36 years among the mighty and the low to be demonized by white people who not only don’t have a grasp of the black church experience, but apparently don’t have a desire to understand why that experience is rife with emotions.”

[For 36 years, he has sown the seeds of hatred, and reaped the grapes of wrath.

“Emotions” is a euphemism for racial hatred. And why don’t whites have “a grasp of the black church experience”? Because black racist newsroom enforcers like you and your white leftist sycophants won’t tolerate it. And when whites finally got a “grasp” of that experience, you engaged in sophistry and race-baiting, claiming that what whites saw was taken out of context—”snippets”—and somehow was mitigated by all the good Wright did out of church. But it wasn’t out of context, and if he were such a great churchman, you wouldn’t have to change the subject by talking about the good he supposedly does outside of church (in the same manner of apologists for the genocidal Nation of Islam), and even misrepresent that work!]

“Despite all the hoopla, Wright is revered on the South Side of Chicago and is treated as a gifted theologian across the country.”

[So much the worse for the South Side, and for anyone who reveres him as a “theologian.”]

“Politically astute

“Indeed, many would consider it a great honor to be nurtured spiritually at the feet of a man like Jeremiah Wright.

[Many more would consider it an abomination, but who’s counting?]

“He has two master’s degrees, including one from the University of Chicago Divinity School, and earned his doctorate from the United Theological Seminary.”

[This is supposed to impress me? Under the regime of affirmative action, which already in Martin Luther King Jr.’s day existed unofficially in academia, any unprotected black walking on or near a university campus is in constant danger of getting plunked on the head by a flying, framed graduate degree. University administrators throw these things at every black they see. It’s quite a dangerous situation.

The true significance for Mitchell is that Wright is black and has those degrees. See if you can find Mary Mitchell swooning over a white man, because he has similar credentials. This is a common behavior among black racists: Having fancy degrees makes a black the cat’s pajamas, but in the case of a Republican, heterosexual, white man are just signs of racial privilege. Having spent more years institutionalized in higher education than I care to admit as an undergrad, graduate student, and college instructor, fancy degrees don’t mean much to me, even when white guys have them.]

“Besides his four earned degrees, Wright has received eight honorary doctorates from acclaimed universities and colleges."

[Mitchell just cited eight additional scandals, as if they were points of pride. How’s that for turning lemons into lemonade?]

“Abraham Lincoln once said: ‘To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.’”

[True enough. For over 40 years, Americans have sinned in silence, in the face of black supremacy. I do not intend to one day find myself on my deathbed, full of regret for having likewise remained silent.]

“But in this case, those who have held their peace about Wright aren’t cowards. They are politically astute enough to know that this battle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers.”

[Who are the “astute” ones to whom she refers, and who the “principalities” and “powers”?]

“As for Obama and his wife, Michelle, this episode must have been devastating.”

[The crocodile tears are rolling down my cheeks.]

“There are few places in this world that one can find the kind of peace and camaraderie that is found among those of the same faith."

[Which faith might that be? Christianity, it ain’t.]

“Yet at a time when Obama and his family needed it most, their sacred relationship with their church was tossed adrift by people who couldn’t care less.”

[There’s nothing sacred about Trinity United Church of Christ, which is a political and racial supremacist organization that, were it run along similar lines by a white, would have lost its non-profit status a generation ago for violation of the tax laws governing houses of worship, and whose pastor might very well have landed in jail. And what is true of Trinity is true of most large black churches. Mitchell is despicably trying to turn scrutiny of Trinity and Obama into a violation of the privacy of the candidate and his racist wife. Note that, aside from the general issue of it being perfectly fit and proper to inquire into Obama’s church, the Rev. Wright has made a fortune off the sales of his political speeches from the pulpit, or as he calls them, “sermons.”]

“Like I said, we get it.”

[You don’t get anything. What Mitchell is sarcastically saying is, ‘You racist whites will do anything to thwart a strong black man.’]

“Now let’s move on.”

[That was an order. No, we’ll not be moving on. Who died, and made you dictator, Mary Mitchell?]

* * *

In 2006, many black Chicagoans sought to rename a street in honor of Fred Hampton. Hampton was a young, charismatic leader of the Black Panthers. The Panthers were a black supremacist, domestic terrorist group that engaged in extortion and drug dealing, but there was nothing distinctive about that, or there’d be 100,000 American streets named after black drug dealers and extortionists. What made the Panthers truly distinctive was their pioneering work in black supremacist pedagogy, by teaching black children that they were in a race war against whites, and in their systematic, national campaign assassinating policemen. Although they preferred murdering white policemen, they occasionally murdered black policemen, as well.

Fred Hampton was responsible for the ambush murders of white CPD patrolmen Frank G. Rappaport and John J. Gilhooly, who were shot by his henchmen, Spurgeon Winters and Lance Bell, on November 13, 1969.

Whether Hampton actually ordered the specific murders of Rappaport and Gilhooly is immaterial. As the leader of a terrorist organization, he was responsible for all killings carried out by his followers. (Although the analogy is imperfect, because John Gotti ran a criminal organization, while Hampton ran a terrorist organization, Gotti was responsible for every murder carried out by members of the Gambino crime family.)

In the early morning hours of December 4, 1969, Hampton and his lieutenant, Mark Clark, were shot to death in their apartment by a city-county-state-federal task force.

Mary Mitchell has grieved for Hampton and Clark ever since, and passionately supported the naming of a Chicago street “Fred Hampton Way.”

Mitchell and other Panther supporters (e.g., Hugh Pearson, in his book, Shadow of the Panther) frequently refer to the shootings of Hampton and Clark as “murders,” while rationalizing away Hampton’s culpability for the ambush murders of Rappaport and Gilhooly. (Actually, while Pearson has condemned the killings of Hampton and Clark as “murder,” he airbrushed the white policemen’s murders out of existence.) Meanwhile, I have never read an MSM writer of any race defend the killings of Hampton and Clark.

Fred Hampton was leading the Panthers in a race war, but he refused to honor the laws of war. His soldiers did not wear uniforms, separate themselves from civilians or, except when they were putting on a media show, brandish their weapons openly, making he and them “unlawful combatants.” Hampton’s favorite phrase was “Off the pigs!” and his followers responded in kind. He was also teaching the ways of race war to poor black children.

Not only do unlawful combatants not enjoy due process under civilian law, they don’t enjoy the minimum of legal protections under the laws of war. And I am speaking, based on the Geneva Conventions.

I realize that many readers will doubt that I speak based on the foundations of the Conventions, but that is because the latter have been so thoroughly misrepresented by treasonous supporters of al Qaeda.

As unlawful combatants, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark received battlefield executions, in what was the most righteous extrajudicial shooting in the history of the City of Chicago.

Mary Mitchell is so obsessively supportive of the Black Panthers and wistful in her longing for Hampton, that she finds the oddest pretexts for invoking their names.
In her February 10, 2004 column, “Trust fades as war cry rings too hollow,” she somehow managed to leapfrog from President Bush’s speech admitting that we had not yet found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to Hampton and Clark!

“I listened to Bush on Sunday and thought about Fred Hampton and Mark
Clark, the Black Panther leaders who were gunned down in their West Side
apartments during a police raid in 1969.”

My black supremacist readers will surely complain that I have quoted mere snippets of Mitchell’s words out of context. To which I say: Read her column. There is no context that would give sense to her words.

Mitchell complained, among other things, about the law enforcement officers (LEOs) having fired 100 shots to Clark’s one. Citing the number of shots LEOs fire at black suspects is now a pillar of the Black School of Rhetorical Bombast, according to which one shot fired at a racist, ultra-violent black is one shot too many. The only situation that would have satisfied Mitchell would have had Hampton and Clark shooting all of the LEOs dead, getting away without a scratch, and receiving a ticket tape parade and the keys to the city.

The point of the raid was to kill Hampton and Clark. It was not to give them an opportunity to murder still more LEOs.

Mitchell has claimed, among other things, that it was mere coincidence that Winters and Bell were Panthers and that they murdered two cops. You see, the current story is that Winters and Bell hadn’t actually planned on murdering two white cops that night; their real plan was to murder a black prison guard, and the white cops just popped up. According to Mitchell, they were two cop-killers who just happened to be Panthers. And it was just a coincidence that their fearless leader constantly called on them to murder policemen.

Mary Mitchell lives in a world of coincidences.

Somehow, whites managed to successfully beat back the “Fred Hampton Way” proposal.

In Mitchell’s March 7, 2006 column, “Blacks, whites unlikely to see eye to eye on sign,” she led with,

“Sometimes black and white Chicagoans need to agree to disagree -- and move on. This is one of those times. After all, most white people will never understand what Black Panther leader Fred Hampton’s life and death meant to black people. They did not live with the brutality that most black people endured at the hands of police in the late 1960s.”

“Most black people”? At that point, my b.s. meter exploded, and I had to go to the supply closet for a new one. (I run through them so quickly that I have to buy ‘em by the gross.)

Mitchell’s opening sounded almost diplomatic, but that was mere pretext. In her closing, she told “white people” to get out of black people’s business. Imagine a white columnist addressing blacks that way. His editor would kick him down the stairs. And as far as Mitchell and her ilk are concerned, ruling America is black people’s business.

I say, let’s not move on. And no, we can’t all get along. And when will blacks ever get out of whites’ business?