Tuesday, March 31, 2009

“Lovelle Mixon: Murderer, ‘True Hero’”

At Freedom Eden, Mary has done a tremendous job exposing the Oakland black supremacists who have lionized racist mass murderer and serial rapist, Lovelle Mixon.

“Lovelle Mixon: Murderer, ‘True Hero’; Do you want to see pure hate?”

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Channon Christian-Christopher Newsom Trials Update

“Knoxville County (TN) Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner had better get a grip. This jurist, who since early 2007 has been presiding over all four state murder trials in the Knoxville Horror (KH) case—the January 7, 2007 carjacking-kidnapping-gang-rape-torture-murders by black criminals of white couple Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom—is in danger of losing control of his courtroom....”

Read the rest at VDARE.com.

Is Pat Oliphant Due for Another Pulitzer?


Oliphant’s newest “contribution” to debate on the Jewish Question.

A tip o’ the hat to Mark Finkelstein.

Kevin MacDonald: The Jews are Our Misfortune!

By Nicholas Stix, GED

On March 18, someone named Kevin MacDonald republished his article on the Jews, under the title of “Memories Of Madison—My Life In The New Left.” MacDonald keeps republishing his article under different titles, and with slightly different openings, but it’s always the same thing: “Blah blah blah, blah blah blah…,” to fill out the requisite word count, and then, “It’s all the Jews’ fault!”

Like Leonard Jeffries, David Duke, and many other contemporary intellectual giants, MacDonald is the possessor of a Ph.D.; their followers always refer proudly to them as “Dr. So-and-So.” (This writer is guilty of no such offense, though I do have a few friends who are convicted Ph.D.s, and once stood under indictment for one.)

MacDonald identifies himself as an “evolutionary psychologist.” “Evolutionary psychology” used to be known as sociobiology, but got a bad reputation (I can’t imagine why!), and its proponents then rebranded it as “evolutionary psychology.” The project of sociobiology is to apply Darwinian evolutionary theory to the explanation of society.

While a more naturalistic approach to the social sciences sounds great in theory, I haven’t been all that impressed by sociobiologists,’ er, evolutionary psychologists’ explanations, which typically sound like just-so stories in the style of s-f-loving geeks who used to play Dungeons and Dragons. Not that there’s anything wrong with s-f-loving geeks, D & D, or just-so stories in their proper places, but the combination should not be confused with science.

Unless “survival of the fittest” is a circular notion or contains hidden moral (and thus unscientific) imperatives, Darwinism does not do well at explaining how humanity’s most sorry specimens seem to thrive in the welfare state.

Kevin MacDonald’s claim to fame is due to the campaign of my good friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center to have him fired from his position as a tenured professor at California State University–Long Beach, where he holds the Alfred Rosenberg Chair in Jewology, in which he is the world’s reigning expert. (Note that although the SPLC’s co-founder and boss of all bosses is named Morris Dees, and may be taken by some SPLC contributors to be a Jew, Dees is not Jewish. Indeed, MacDonald himself, seems at times to use “Jewish” and “liberal”--not to mention, "Jewish" and "neocon"--as synonyms, has insinuated that the SPLC is a Jewish organization. Of course, if you go back far enough, billions of people are Jews! The same statement cannot be made of “liberalism” or "neoconservatism.")

MacDonald’s science has the following components:

1. The Jews are not a religion or a people, but a race;

2. This race pursues “a group evolutionary strategy” (GES), in which it is a cancer, always seeking a non-Jewish host society, in order to destroy it from within;

3. Due to the Jews’ racial GES, they are a. ethnocentric, which explains their refusal to help anyone but themselves; b. “a people that must dwell alone,” which explains their refusal to engage in social relations with non-Jews, or live among them, let alone engage in (racial) intermarriage; and c. Must perpetuate a “culture of critique,” with which they destroy the host society, i.e., perpetrate a Holocaust; and

4. There is no possible refutation of this theory, and only a Jew would even try!

The conclusion is clear: In order to survive, a society must either refuse entry to anyone with any trace of Jewish blood, expel any citizens or residents already within its borders with any trace of Jewish blood, or kill anyone and everyone within its borders with any trace of Jewish blood. After all, how do you deal with a cancer?

MacDonald, the Dialectical Logician

In consecutive passages without a break, MacDonald says:

Several authors have pointed out that radical Jews saw themselves as participating in a universalist movement to establish a classless society for all people; and because of this universalist veneer, they thought that their Jewishness would be invisible to others, or at least irrelevant. Obviously, it wasn’t invisible, nor was it irrelevant.


The radical Jews I knew seemed to realize that non-Jews saw them as Jews....

I see that logic isn't his strong point.

Racial Purity

Incidentally, this is a very useful thing to know about Jews....

My view is that it’s the other way around: The Jewish concern with racial purity can be seen in the Old Testament and throughout Jewish history.

By George, I think he's got it! Christian societies in Europe begged the Jews, "Please come join with us in our communities," but the evil Jews responded to their humble entreaties, "No, we insist on living in ghettoes, not being permitted to own land, or to be civil servants, teachers or professors, being forced to practice hated professions like shylock, and on enjoying second-class legal status. We'll settle for nothing more!" (Never mind that racial ideas wouldn’t be formulated for thousands of years.)

From time to time, Western societies have attacked or erected defenses against Jewish elites and their non-Jewish allies. Since the 19th century, important anti-Jewish movements have been racialist (National Socialism in Germany), but this racialism was not the basis of Christian anti-Jewish movements (Christianity in the 4th and 5th centuries and during the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal). As Shahak points out (p. 64), the general pattern throughout European history was for popular uprisings against Jews as components of oppressive elites—and for the non-Jewish elements of the elites to come to the aid of Jews.

"Important anti-Jewish movements." That's priceless!

He left out the part about how Hitler was merely defending himself against the Jews, who had attacked him first.

[Mark] Rudd sees Israel for what it is: A racialist, militarist, expansionist state:

Ah, if only it were so! He must be thinking of the Jews’ 1967 plot to attack and take over Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, which was only averted by their Arab Moslem victims’ tenacious defense.

That’s why I think the real explanation of Jewish involvement in the Left includes an additional component. It’s certainly true that, as Cuddihy wrote, Jews emerged from the ghetto with hostility toward the culture around them. This fits with modern psychological data on how people with a strong ingroup identity, like Jews [and the Irish, Italians, and every other identifiable group, at some time or another; "modern psychological data" -- gimme a break], perceive outgroups. Jewish hostility toward the culture of non-Jews has been a constant throughout Jewish history.

Cart, horse?

This group of Jewish radicals became an integral part of the machinery of mass murder and oppression in the USSR. In doing so, they displaced the older non-Jewish elites of Russians and Germans.

Translation: Their machinations are inexorable; stop them, before they kill us, too!

(Why is it that so many Jews who fled the USSR in the early days, had had all of their possessions robbed, and family members variously murdered and raped by the Bolsheviks?)

How is it that almost all of the Jews this man knows are radicals, while among all of my Jewish relatives, at most only two have been radicals, and aside from them, among all of the many radicals I've personally crossed paths with in America, few were Jews?

I've got it. It's because he's an expert on the Jews, while I'm stuck in the delusional false consciousness of the Jewish oppressor!

MacDonald blames Jews—whom he also condemns, you’ll recall, for ethnocentrism—for supporting the open borders policy which is destroying America. But Third World immigration has brought in scores of millions of exuberantly anti-Semitic Hispanics and Moslems, and thus is destroying the Jews’ safety and position in America. That’s not “ethnocentrism,” it’s group suicide!

The blogger latté island (she’s one of the Tribe, so watch out!) points out that if MacDonald were consistent, he would be supportive of Israel.

Wouldn't it make more sense to support Zionism, so Jews will have a viable place to go? I mean this literally: if Israel were a viable place to live, I'd move there now. One less Jew! and I'm sure I'd have a lot of company. But, in opposing Israel, MacDonald and Co. keep Jews here. Maybe that's what they want. Jewish liberals and anti-Semites deserve each other. Too bad everyone else has to smell them.

MacDonald and his allies are obsessed with delegitimizing and demonizing Israel by any means necessary, and supporting Arab attempts to destroy it and drive out or kill all of the Jews of Israel, thus making life more dangerous and thus unattractive there. The only consistent point to MacDonald is his hatred of the Jews, and wish that they suffer anywhere they should find themselves. For MacDonald, the Jews are not “a people that shall dwell alone,” but a people that shall not dwell … anywhere.

If I weren't standing up to my armpits in the blood of lynched whites, and had all the time in the world, I might consider doing a "kehraus" (German for something like a once-and-for-all Fisking) of this "scholar." He should be a professor of dialectical ("heads we win, tails you lose") ethnic studies. And if I were to give in to hysteria, as this man has—though not quite the same brand—out of spite, I would resolve to become America's most ruthless multiculturalist and open borders propagandist. Fortunately for me, my morally and intellectually superior Jewish genes preclude my sinking to his level.

What’s Up, Bill Baby? (Bill Gates as Hitler Satire)



In the tradition of What’s Up, Tiger Lily, in which Woody Allen dubbed new dialogue about the hunt for a secret egg salad recipe onto a conventional Japanese spy thriller, comes this satire of the collapse of Führer Bill Gates’ reich, due to the misbegotten Vista Campaign, with hilarious, Vista-oriented dialogue slapped onto a “Hitler in the Bunker” movie scene.

A tip ‘o’ the stahlhelm to Latte Island.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Oakland: Lovelle Mixon’s Town

Nothing is worse than getting murdered on the job, but for four stout-hearted men to die protecting the sort of citizens that people this video …

Four tips of the bloody policeman’s hat to Larry Auster and YouthOutlookMedia.

Obama says longer school days and years will bring the US up to par

By Nicholas Stix

About two hours ago, I made the mistake of visiting an Amazon.com discussion on education, whose title I used for this post.

Initial post: Mar 11, 2009 9:47 AM PDT

Zacksmom says:

I would enjoy reading your thoughts on this proposal from our President.

Currently, our students leave the house at 7:30 a.m. and return at 3:30 p.m. with backpacks filled with homework assignments that (on average) take anywhere from 1-2 hours to complete each evening. Adding this time up, and allowing a full hour for bus ride to and from school room, it seems our students are getting 8-9 hours of "schooling" per day. (40-45 hours per week)

With that being said...is the answer really spending more time in the classroom? Will that really improve our rankings in education as compared with the rest of the world? Will that prevent 20-25% drop out rates? Increase the enrollments in our colleges and continued learning facilities?

Is it really that our children don't spend enough time learning? or is it the cirriculum? or is it lack of focus of our teachers to teach the "3 R's"?

And finally, is it really up to the federal government or the individual states to improve our youth's learning?

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2009 8:53 PM PDT
Nicholas Stix says:
Nothing will improve our world educational rankings which, if the Usurper-in-Chief has his way, will further sink. Our world educational rank has sunk, due to our sinking national IQ.

In 1960, when America was 88 percent white and 10 percent black, the national IQ was just under 99. Today, America is 12.3 percent black (85 IQ), 14.2 percent Hispanic (89 IQ), and has at least six million Arabs and South Asians who have a common IQ of about 89. The national IQ is thus now about 96, and dropping like a rock. Our world educational rank is correspondingly dropping.

If "Barack Obama" realizes his dream of importing tens of millions of black Africans with an average IQ of 67-70, and Latins from Indian tribes with IQs even lower than 89 (while keepig out white immigrants), in order to demographically dispossess and politically disenfranchise America's white majority, in 10-20 years, America will be intellectually just another third world country, with an IQ in the 90-92 range.

"Obama's" talk of education reform is just a scam with which to rob the taxpayers of billions more, and transfer the money to his education cadres. In Chicago, when he and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers ran the Annenberg Project, they wasted $159 million on a school reform which failed to boost test scores not one iota. Of course, they couldn't boost IQs; no one can. But they weren't interested in boosting test scores. For "Obama," the schools exist for the political indoctrination of children, the rewarding of comrades, and the punishing of patriots.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2009 8:54 PM PDT
K. Skerpon says:
As a high school teacher of 5 years I totally agree. Accountability is so key. I teach in a Catholic high school so obviously I approach this from a different perspective, but ultimately parents are children's first and primary educators. If a parent doesn't value education - shown through attentiveness to the student's grades, encouragement to do better (we can always improve), and support of the teacher - then why should the kids? Are there bad teachers, sure, of course - just like there are bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad police, bad office managers, etc. However, when a bad experience with one teacher turns into a parent never supporting the teacher and always believing that their child is in the right, that is a problem.

I had one parent who refused to believe that their child wasn't turning in any homework and accused me of throwing their students' work out. Why would I do that? Instead I was able to get the child to "come clean" about it, that they weren't turning in any homework, and the parent still said that they could no longer trust me because the situation had even occurred.

Regarding homework, I will 100% agree that busy work is a waste of time and unfortunately some teachers use it too much. However, not all homework is busy work and studies have again and again showed that in many subjects (such as math, many sciences, and even arts like music - it's called practice) is the key to long term mastery. And repetition needs to happen on many levels, thus homework. For example, if my math teacher husband never gave homework and instead had all that repetition happening in the classroom.. 1) he would not be actively teaching, which is something that many posters have complained about, 2) he physically could not cover all the topics required by state and federal exams, and 3) students could not work on differentiated assignments (meeting them at their learning level) that homework allows. Homework is a necessary part of education.

Finally, when parents comment to their children that "teachers are people who couldn't do anything else, so they became teachers" what do you think that does to the authority of the teacher? Until teachers are respected as professionals, and payed as such, no amount of planning and active learned is going to change the situation. We respect doctors, lawyers, etc. because of the valued work they do - and they are justly compensated and given esteem for the amount of education that it takes to hold that position. If we treated teachers the same than perhaps the results would reflect that.

Nicholas Stix says:

K. Skerpon: "Finally, when parents comment to their children that `teachers are people who couldn't do anything else, so they became teachers' what do you think that does to the authority of the teacher?"

NS: American parents said the same thing, back when American education ranked higher in the world than it now does.

KS: "Until teachers are respected as professionals, and payed [sic] as such, no amount of planning and active learned [sic] is going to change the situation. We respect doctors, lawyers, etc. because of the valued work they do - and they are justly compensated and given esteem for the amount of education that it takes to hold that position. If we treated teachers the same than [sic] perhaps the results would reflect that."

NS: Unless they are my students or writers whose work I am editing, I don't usually point out people's writing errors, but when someone identifies herself as a teacher and a "professional," I make an exception.

Prior to the hyperbole that set in circa 1980, there were only four "professions": Doctor, lawyer, clergyman and architect. Do you really believe that the average teacher is intellectually on a par with the average doctor or lawyer? Many public school teachers are semi-literate; in many urban districts, the overwhelming majority are racist ignoramuses who often come to school unprepared, and teach their charges insane nonsense.

In the matter of pay, if the government suddenly increased teacher salaries several fold, to reach parity with doctors, how would the results reflect that? Would semi-literate teachers suddenly become literate? Would racist ignoramuses suddenly become tolerant lovers of knowledge? How would such alchemy take place? It can't be that the semi-literate, racist ignoramuses would be fired and replaced with scholars, because the former are overwhelmingly blacks and Hispanic, and would sue and win; and urban schools would not hire the latter, because they would be overwhelmingly white, with a few Asians thrown in.

KS: "However, when a bad experience with one teacher turns into a parent never supporting the teacher and always believing that their child is in the right, that is a problem.

"I had one parent who refused to believe that their child wasn't turning in any homework and accused me of throwing their students' work out. Why would I do that? Instead I was able to get the child to `come clean' about it, that they weren't turning in any homework, and the parent still said that they could no longer trust me because the situation had even occurred."

NS: Your description of the specific case does not support your description of the general problem. How could a parent justify not trusting you, based solely on your having caught his child lying to him? The parent didn't have a bad experience with you, he had a bad experience with his child. The rational response would be for the parent to distrust his child. If your description holds, the parent was lying, and simply rationalizing his own hostility and lack of morality.

Readers interested in obtaining a more accurate picture of what ails American education are invited to read my chapter on it in the following free report.


In reply to your post on Mar 25, 2009 9:59 PM PDT
Legendary Swordsman says:

Holy f*** you are one dumb person. I think you are dropping the nations average IQ.

To which I responded:

I can’t possibly compete at your level of wit and erudition. You must be either a school administrator or a tenured professor of teacher ed.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Meet Two More Monsters: Robert Williams and Anthony Kirkland

By Nicholas Stix

Larry Auster calls modern liberal society “a factory for producing young female murder victims.” I believe Auster was referring to white female murder victims, or at least, I would make that qualification.

Last July, I wrote the blog essay reprinted below (“Assailant Gets 422 Years for Attack on Raceless Victim”) on some of the crimes of racist, persistent felony offender Robert “Pooh” Williams. Blogger Nivius Vir, however, just found and posted a powerful AP video on the story, “Sadistic Attack, Torture and Rape Revisited,” including compelling trial testimony by the victim, who through great pluck, just barely survived her ordeal. The video tells, which the stories I read about the case in the New York papers did not, that Williams raped the victim anally, and sodomized her (orally) “until she vomited.”

The case sounds ever more like a replay of the Knoxville Horror, from three months earlier. But Robert Williams wasn’t necessarily imitating the horrors committed against Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom; he may not even have heard of that particular crime. Rather, ever increasing numbers of black boys and men aspire to rape white females in every orifice, torture them, and murder them. But it wasn’t racial; it never is.

Investigators and prosecutors are careful, in such cases, never to ask any questions regarding what the assailant said to the victim which might elicit forbidden responses, like say, “He said, ‘You white bitch!’”

Note that AP’s honchos insisted on assigning exclusively “persons of color” to cover this black-on-white racial attack. I guess that means we’ll be seeing all-white crews and commentators for AP video stories claiming blacks’ victimization by whites.

Anthony Kirkland

Nivius Vir posts a great deal on black-on-white crime, typically including videos, and it is at his blog that I learned of the murder—and though the first several news stories said nothing about it, likely rape—of 13-year-old Ohio girl, Esme Kenney. (I can’t recall the last case of a savage murder of a white female by a black man that did not involve rape, as well. Note too the history of the suspect in this case.)

Convicted murderer and sex criminal Anthony Kirkland, 40, has been charged in Esme’s murder, and on Tuesday was charged with two additional 2006 murders, of Casonya Crawford, 14, and Mary Jo Newton, 45, as well as attempted rape and “gross abuse of a corpse,” in the case of Esme Kenney.

Victims and witnesses have also charged Kirkland with a spree of additional violent felonies, but he has not been indicted in those cases, and since he is already facing the death penalty for the Crawford, Newton, and Kenney murders, he will likely never be formally charged for his other alleged crimes.

Assailant Gets 422 Years for Attack on Raceless Victim
By Nicholas Stix
July 27, 2008

Robert Williams, convicted on “44 counts of attempted murder, kidnapping, arson, rape, sodomy and burglary” for his 19-hour reign of terror against a then-23-year-old Columbia University student, was sentenced on Thursday to 422 years in prison. Under New York State law, Williams will be eligible for parole after serving 50 years.

Justice Carol Berkman called Williams’ acts “extraordinary evil.” The Daily News reported,

“The remorseless rapist, who had to be forcibly dragged into court, showed no emotion, sitting shackled at the defense table, his hands draped in protective mitts to prevent him from scratching anyone.”

“Monster gets 422 years for 19-hour rape and torture of Columbia student,” by Barbara Ross and Bill Hutchinson, July 25.

Williams had gained access to the victim’s apartment building near Columbia’s campus, taken the elevator with her, followed her down the hall, and forced his way into her apartment. The victim was then a graduate student at the nation’s most influential journalism school—run by racial propagandist Nicholas Lemann—which trains aspiring writers to refrain from reporting honestly on race and crime.

In a crime with echoes to the Knoxville Horror, Williams repeatedly raped the victim, repeatedly orally and anally sodomized her, poured bleach in her eyes, boiling water on her body, cut up her face with a carving knife, and slit her eyelids. At the end, he pumped her full of pills to make her helpless, tied her to her futon, and before leaving, set the bed on fire, in order to kill her. Using the fire to free herself from the bed, the victim heroically escaped, her hands still bound.

The victim, who did not attend Williams’ sentencing, wrote a letter to the judge, asking for the max. The victim had testified for two days during the June trial, days on which Williams refused to attend his own trial. I suspect that he sought to make it impossible for his victim to identify him in open court as her tormentor.

Justice Berkman praised the victim, “Every decent person who witnessed [her] testimony in this courtroom was impressed by her bravery, her intelligence and her extraordinary grace in the face of the horror that this defendant inflicted upon her.”

When Williams was still at large, he was identified by the Daily News as “black,” but his victim’s race was never mentioned. At the time, NYPD spokesman, Detective Dennis Laffin, informed me that the victim was white. I left a message on Daily News Metro Editor Dean Chang’s answering machine, asking him why the newspaper failed to mention the victim’s race, but Chang never responded.

Race politics also clouded the News’ coverage of the trial. While understandably blotting out her face, the News’ court artist [Jane Rosenberg] depicted the testifying victim as having light brown skin, suggesting she was not white. In the same story, reporter Barbara Ross may have sought to counteract the paper’s censorship/deception, by referring to the victim’s “pale face.”

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Happy Second St. Patrick’s Day!

By Nicholas Stix

Happy (belated) St. Patty’s Day to all my readers. On St. Patrick’s Day, everyone is Irish. (Full disclosure: I am actually one-quarter Irish, via my late paternal grandmother, who was lace-curtain Irish—maiden name Corey—and who was born and raised in New Brunswick, Canada.)

I spoke of this being the “second” St. Patrick’s Day, because, as I explained in “The Wild Colonial Boy” at The Critical Critic, my neighborhood is so Irish, that we have our own St. Patty’s Day, replete with our own grand St. Patrick’s Day parade. That was ten days ago. And so, on both nights, you can forget about getting a taxi.

I celebrated the (second) holiday by picking up Irish soda bread at the local Italian bakery—the bakers* there otherwise make it every Friday—and watching The Quiet Man with the family, which is developing into a St. Patty’s Day tradition in the Stix household.

How Maureen O’Hara failed to be nominated for best actress for that picture for her portrayal of hot-tempered Mary Kate Danaher, remains one of Hollywood’s enduring mysteries. In fact, she was never nominated for any Oscars; not for The Hunchback of Notre Dame, How Green was My Valley, or The Miracle on 34th Street. At 86, Miss O’Hara is still with us, and still more beautiful (and in most cases, more talented) than today’s Hollywood “beauties,” no matter how much makeup they use or surgery they get.

*Funny thing about the current bakers, whom I just met for the first time a few weeks ago. They look kinda Salvadoran. They must be "black Irish."

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Why is James Paroline Dead?

By Nicholas Stix

Would you like to take a current events quiz? Be careful how you answer this one, however. The wrong answer could cost one man his life, and another a few years of his precious time.

If the entrance to a traffic circle you sought to drive into in a residential neighborhood were blocked by a man who had set up traffic cones, while he watered a garden in the middle of the circle, and the man told you to drive past him and enter through the opposite end (the exit), would you:

1. Do as he told you, while grumbling to yourself;
2. Do as he told you, while yelling something at him as you drive past, to indicate your displeasure; or
3. Stop your car, blocking traffic, get out, start throwing the cones away, scream at him when he responds by splashing you with water, pursue him, screaming and throwing a water bottle at him, and then go fetch a friend to kill him?

On the evening of July 9, 60-year-old James Paroline was watering the traffic circle garden at the intersection of 61st Avenue South and South Cooper Street, in Seattle’s Rainier Beach area, just as he did every day. The garden had only recently been built by the city, after years of prodding by Paroline, a retired Vietnam veteran who took it upon himself to do that sort of thing. Paroline placed the cones to keep his water hose from getting crushed, and presumably to protect himself from getting crushed, as well.

Well, that evening would be the last time Paroline ever watered the garden. For the rest of the story, as the recently departed Paul Harvey, may he rest in peace, would have said, please turn to my American Renaissance exclusive, “Three Race Murders in Seattle,” on the racially motivated murder of Paroline, as well as the racially motivated murders of his fellow Seattlites Kristopher Kime (during the 2001 Mardi Gras black race riot) and “the Tuba Man,” Edward Scott McMichael.

Although an entry was up at Wikipedia/The Pretend Encyclopedia (TPE) about Oscar Grant, the felon who was shot to death in the wee hours of New Year’s Day on an Oakland subway platform by BART policeman Johannes Mehserle, less than five days after Grant’s death, and Google just returned 1,020,000 hits for “Oscar Grant shooting”; eight months after James Paroline’s murder, you won’t find any TPE entry at all devoted to, or so much as mentioning him, and his name returns a paltry 1,770 hits at Google, including references to my article.

And that is not at all surprising, in this day and age. After all, by contemporary, politically correct standards, there are four reasons not to have a TPE entry for, or any national news coverage of Paroline’s death: 1. Paroline is a dead white guy, so his life had no value; 2. Paroline was a Vietnam vet which, except for traitors and con men, is yet another invisible demographic to the MSM; 3. He was a law-abiding citizen, which is so bor-ing; and 4. He was murdered by a black man, something that the lefties at TPE and the national MSM want no whites to know about. By contrast, those same lefties found the Grant shooting newsworthy, because: 1. Grant was black, his life thus intrinsically more valuable than James Paroline’s; 2. Grant was a felon, and thus an object of sympathy; and 3. Grant was shot to death by a white policeman, which made his life politically of use.

* * *

If you find my article of value, I urge you to please consider subscribing to American Renaissance, the magazine that is the gold standard for journalism and scholarship on race, and making a tax-deductible donation to the New Century Foundation, AmRen’s non-profit, sponsoring organization. I can’t do my work without the support of AmRen’s brilliant, courageous editor and publisher, Jared Taylor, and Jared can’t publish AmRen without the support of thousands of people just like you.

I realize that times are tough, but they are going to get much tougher, and without AmRen, you won’t have an accurate gauge of just what is going on… until it’s too late.

* * *

And will someone please post an article on James Paroline at TPE? Attention must be paid!

Google vs. The Irish Savant

By Nicholas Stix

The Irish Savant is on Google’s Index.

Google is trying to scare people off from reading the brilliant, often funny blog, The Irish Savant, by semi-blocking it. If you try to access the blog, you’ll instead get stopped at a cyber-checkpoint saying,

Blogger: Content Warning

Content Warning

Some readers of this blog have contacted Google because they believe this blog's content is objectionable. In general, Google does not review nor do we endorse the content of this or any blog. For more information about our content policies, please visit the Blogger Terms of Service

Pass “Go,” and collect your $200. Do not be intimidated.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Am I a Moderate?

By Nicholas Stix

Identifying oneself as a “moderate” is all the rage these days among folks who until fairly recently identified themselves as “conservatives,” like Davids Brooks and Frum. (Frum isn’t very “frum” these days; his name is Yiddish for “orthodox.”)

Let’s see. I:

• Frequently criticize the Republican Party;
• Do not presently refer to myself as a “conservative”; and
• Did not vote for John McCain for president.

How long will it be before the New York Times and Newsweek, PBS and ABC are kicking my door down, shoving greenbacks in my face?

“In our studio squaring off tonight, are racial socialist analyst Michael Eric Dyson, and moderate analyst, Nicholas Stix.”

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Mr. Brooks

By Nicholas Stix

A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. And a recovery begins when David Brooks loses his job.

Robert Stacy McCain on the “useless idiot” thick in the competition for the dubious distinction as the nation’s most duplicitous, deceitful sophist, in “It’s David Brooks Fisking Day!”

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Ethnic Genome Project

A blogger has asked me to mention his new site, Ethnic Genome Project.

EGP covers exactly the material implied by its name: The genetics of race and ethnicity. (Scientists increasingly use the term “ethnicity” as embracing race, as well.) So, if you enjoy reading the work of thinkers like Steve Sailer, Henry Harpending, Gregory Cochran and the GNXP crew, it should be right up your alley. And if you don’t know who the aforementioned gents are, go to Ethnic Genome Project, and if you find it interesting, you’re bound to find them interesting, too.