Sunday, May 31, 2009

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

By Nicholas Stix

I have previously published letters from Santa Ana (CA) Jail by Stephen Whittle (nom de plume, Luke O’Farrell), one half of the Heretical 2, on September 17 and May 18. See also this July 31 VDARE blog essay and this March 14 Hoover Hog essay. Whittle’s publisher, the writer Simon Sheppard, is being held in the same jail.

Whittle and Sheppard were convicted in the U.K. in July of thought crimes, fled that month on the eve of sentencing, and sought political asylum in Los Angeles. The acquaintance whom the pair and I have in common has forwarded another letter from Whittle, which the former was kind enough to transcribe for me, and for which I thank him.

* * *


c/o Santa Ana Jail

P.O. Box 22003

Santa Ana, CA 92701

19th April, 2009.

Dear ……….,

The judge [immigration judge Rose Peters] doesn't ignore the possibility of imprisonment for political speech: she supports it. To quote from her ruling:

According to evidence presented before the Court, Applicants have been arrested, tried, and convicted under legitimate laws of the United Kingdom. Generally, legitimate prosecution cannot be considered persecution for asylum purposes...In the present case, Applicants were tried and convicted by a highly developed and sophisticated legal system. As such, it cannot be said that their conviction was arbitary or lacking due process of law. (pp. 7-8) [Emphasis added.]

Michelle Myers, the DA [federal prosecutor], made no attempt to rebut any of our claims about persecution: her entire reply consisted of a report on the European Community's efforts to crush free speech. She and the judge were obviously fully in support. I repeatedly made the point in my testimony that one of the chief reasons for our flight was to warn Americans of the implications of our conviction for speech on an American-based site: Namely, that American citizens too were liable to arrest and imprisonment if they entered British/European jurisdiction. The judge and DA are obviously quite happy for that to take place. Free speech and free enquiry are white male values and both are marked for destruction under the present Marxist diversitoids. That's not to say all white males support free speech or all non-whites and non-males oppose it, simply that it will not survive if white males lose power.

I think the Orange County Register is a case in point: we've written to it twice and had no response, altho' our case would seem perfect for a self-proclaimed libertarian paper to report on. Steve Greenhut recently made the (ludicrous) equation of Obama's government with fascism, but he won't devote any time to the Heretical Two, it seems. The LA Times reporter Christopher Goffard is still interested in our case, but we've heard that the jail has been denying him access to us.

The Kvetscher's comments on Baal HaShoah were spot-on, I thought. Larry Auster did a good piece a few years ago explaining that Jews irrationally saw highly philo-Semitic white Christians as a greater threat than Muslims, which is why they supported mass immigration by the latter.

On to happier thoughts... Clark Ashton Smith is a good illustration for the maxim that "only the mediocre are always at their best." His horror and science fiction are usually weak, but his fantasy contains some of the best prose ever written in English, in my opinion. H.P. Lovecraft did not write as well as CAS, but it increases my respect for Sam Francis to learn that he liked HPL.

I see from the paper today that the U.S. is "reluctantly" boycotting a conference on racism because it criticizes Israel and seeks to undermine free speech. I personally support Israel's status as a "racist" state à la China or India: each people should have and defend a homeland, and most peoples are allowed to do so by the "anti-racists." The white peoples are the exception. Racism, so-called, is like the immune system of the state: it prevents alien elements invading the body politic. California and its budget deficits, etc., are a good example of what happens when an immune system doesn't work, or rather is suppressed by Marxism.
I would like to stay in touch: your letters and support have been one of the few positive aspects of our sojourn here. But I suspect Santa Ana Jail will prove a lot pleasanter than any jail we end up in back home. We'll see sooner or later, tho' it could be two months or more before we're deported.

All best,

Stephen W.

* * *

Although it is late in the day, Hoover Hog and one of his readers urged contacting Amnesty International, which claims an interest in freeing political prisoners, the ACLU of Southern California, which feigns an interest in freedom from state coercion (when it isn’t commissioning racial profiling hoaxes), the Orange County Register and the Los Angeles Times.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Non-Criminal “Violator” or Felon? What’s in a Word? Sometimes, Everything

By Nicholas Stix
February 19, 2009

An unsigned news item running all of 111 words provides a lesson in the world of open borders propaganda, in which any given word may be a tactical opportunity.

Customs officers in Hidalgo found a fugitive wanted on a child-molestation charge hidden in a commercial bus heading for Mexico, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman said Monday.

Domingo Vazquez Rodriguez, 29, of Saltillo, Mexico …

Officers who found him used fingerprints and photo records under the US-Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program to identify him as a fugitive wanted by Edinburg police, CBP spokesman Felix Garza said.

Records showed Vazquez Rodriguez had been deported in 2007. He will be turned over to police after adjudication for the immigration violation.

[“Fugitive found hidden on bus to Mexico,” San Antonio Express-News, February 10, 2009.]

Coming to America on a legal visa, and overstaying that visa is a non-criminal “violation.” Crossing the border illegally, i.e., without a visa and at an unauthorized border point, is a crime, but only a misdemeanor. Illegally re-entering America after one has already been deported, is a felony. Thus, it is an immigration felony, for which Domingo Vazquez Rodriguez is to be adjudicated. Whether he is properly adjudicated in either the immigration felony or child molestation felony case may be another matter entirely, but it was not the place of the Express News’ anonymous, alleged reporter to usurp the prerogative of Congress in passing and repealing laws.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

The Media’s Gay Mafia “Queers” the News

By Nicholas Stix

July, 2003
Middle American News

In their quest to “queer” America, radical homosexual activists in the media destroy lives, as they manipulate the principle of privacy, and make war on traditional masculinity, sports, and even the truth.

In late April, Sen. Rick Santorum (R, Pa.) got a taste of what awaits anyone who opposes the gay agenda. After explaining to Associated Press reporter Lara Jakes Jordan (who is married to Sen. John Kerry’s (D, Ma.) campaign manager, Jim Jordan) his opposition to any pro-gay laws or court rulings that might weaken the family, gay activists demanded that Santorum resign.

But the Santorum case was only the tip of the iceberg. For as Sandy Koufax, Mike Piazza, and countless others will attest, in recent years, gay activists have graduated from protesting against public figures to controlling news rooms. The activists do not care if their stories are even true, and suffer no consequences for lying.

In February, Hall of Fame pitcher Sandy Koufax ended his 48-year relationship with the Los Angeles Dodgers, due to a defamatory story a reporter planted in the New York Post, insinuating that Koufax was a homosexual. The Dodgers and the New York Post both belong to News Corp., the conglomerate owned by Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

The story, a “blind item” in Richard Johnson’s Page Six gossip section, referred to “an unidentified ‘Hall of Fame baseball hero” who was secretly gay. The December 19 item claimed that the baseball great “cooperated with a best-selling biography only because the author promised to keep it secret that he is gay. The author kept her word, but big mouths at the publishing house can’t keep from flapping.”

Since the bestselling biography, Sandy Koufax: A Lefty’s Legacy by Jane Leavy, had appeared only three months earlier—published by News Corp. subsidiary HarperCollins!—many observers concluded that the “blind item” referred to Koufax. On February 21, the New York Post’s management
confessed that the piece had indeed been about the 66-year-old pitcher. “A two-sentence blind item we ran here on Dec. 19 about a ‘Hall of Fame baseball hero’ has sparked a series of unfortunate consequences for which we are very sorry.... We apologize to both Koufax and Leavy for getting it wrong.”

The New York Daily News reported on February 22, that “Daily News columnist Michael Gross tracked down the twice-married Koufax and his current girlfriend and made clear that the Dodger great is heterosexual.”

The report went beyond even the radical homosexual “outing” of famous closeted gays, a practice which was pioneered in 1989 by editor-in-chief, Gabriel Rotello, and violent “reporter,” Michelangelo Signorile, of the short-lived magazine Outweek. In 1990, Rotello sought to rationalize the practice, writing that, “social workers pointed out that gay teens grow up without support networks of parents, relatives or even ‘out’ gay and lesbian friends. Such kids, who are taught the lie that gays are pathetic, sad and hopeless, desperately need positive role models. Despite the fact that thousands of society’s most famous, respected and successful people are gay, gay kids grow up without that knowledge.” Rotello considered his tactic vindicated, when supermarket tabloids soon began imitating it.

The gay mafia—openly gay activists who pass as journalists—seeks to “out” high-profile, professional athletes as homosexual, in order to mainstream a sexual orientation which most Americans consider perverted, and apparently as an assault on the last preserve of the traditional masculinity they have declared war on. And if no gay superstars are handy, activists will invent some.

Once the preserve of despised storm troopers like Rotello and Signorile, the practice of “outing” has since gone mainstream, as activists have taken over major media outlets. However, even bigger problems with the “queering” of the news involve the willful misreporting or outright silencing of important stories.

In June 2000, media watchdog Reed Irvine reported in on the celebratory speech given at the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association by New York Times national political correspondent, Richard Berke. “Now, there are times when you look at the [Times’] front-page meeting and ... literally three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals.”

In a whispering campaign last year, reporters portrayed New York Mets catcher Mike Piazza as homosexual. Piazza, widely considered a surefire future Hall of Famer, eventually felt the need to call a press conference, to announce that he is “not gay.”

Gay media activists have also succeeded at perpetrating hoaxes, according to which heterosexuals are just as much at risk of contracting HIV as homosexuals, and that gays comprise 10% of the population, and are victimized by rampant anti-gay attacks.

In 1990, investigative journalist Michael Fumento’s book, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, meticulously proved that AIDS was a gay disease. Fumento revealed that public health officials, in league with homosexual activists, routinely lied about the danger of AIDS to the heterosexual population, and thus misused scarce resources, costing many lives that could have been saved. Gay activists felt so threatened by Fumento, that they intimidated his publisher into killing the book’s PR campaign, thus ensuring that it was a commercial failure, and succeeded at marginalizing one of America’s finest journalists.

In seeking to mainstream homosexuality, the gay mafia has for years spread the fiction that “every tenth” person is homosexual. More sober calculations, such as those of SUNY Stony Brook sociologist John Gagnon, put the prevalence of homosexuality at 2%.

In 1991, New York Newsday columnist Jim Dwyer wrote of the near-lynching of a heterosexual man by a homosexual mob at the annual New York City Gay Pride parade. The man had muttered to his girlfriend about the aggressive attitude of the “fags” at the parade. A nearby spectator overheard him, and organized a lynch mob, which chased after the man. A police officer saved the man, by putting him in a taxicab that sped from the scene. No members of the mob were arrested.

Dwyer alone reported on the incident. Local media outlets all reported, however, on three thugs who were arrested at the parade, for attempting to attack homosexuals with baseball bats. And so, instead of showing that homosexuals were both attackers and victims that day, the media portrayed them exclusively as victims.

During the 1990s in New York State, thousands of babies and their mothers died horrible, preventable deaths due to AIDS, because the gay mafia, which controlled AIDS coverage, refused to report on a gruesome policy that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had adopted, under pressure from the gay lobby. All newborns were routinely tested for HIV infection, but contrary to established public health practice, CDC officials refused to inform their mothers of the results. While only 25% of the children of HIV+ mothers were born with HIV antibodies, thousands more were then infected via their mother’s breast milk. As State Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn wrote in 1997, “Only in the world of AIDS has privacy and secrecy been given a higher priority than prevention and treatment.” But then, gay activists do not have children.

Another dramatic case of the gay mafia’s ability to skew the news came following the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, in Laramie, Wyoming. Posing as gays, Aaron J. McKinney and Russell Henderson lured Shepard away from a bar, robbed and pistol-whipped him, and tied him to a fence. Shepard was found alive, but died five days later. Henderson and McKinney are serving life sentences.

As William McGowan points out in Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism (which the New York Times refused to review), no less than 3,007 stories on the Shepard case were published in the first MONTH after the murder. Across America, pro-gay and gay reporters, and gay activists seized upon the case as typical of rampant “homophobia,” exploiting it to win political privileges for homosexuals, including “hate crime” legislation giving gay crime victims special status.

In 1999, a young boy was heinously murdered, but since the crime was carried out by homosexual pedophiles, most Americans never heard about it. Don Carpenter and Joshua Macabe Brown lured 13-year-old neighbor Jesse Dirkhising into their apartment in Rogers, Arkansas, where they tied up, gagged, and drugged him. As Allyson Smith reported in World Net Daily, for five hours, Brown anally raped the boy with sausages and cucumbers, “three fingers, his penis, a frozen banana, and a urine enema laced with the sedative drug amitryptiline while Carpenter watched, masturbating ...”

Leaving their victim face down, the men took breaks to eat, shop for more rape implements, and nap, while he slowly succumbed. According to Medical Examiner Dr. Stephen Erickson, young Jesse died of “suffocation, positional asphyxiation and acute amitryptiline intoxication.”

As William McGowan reports, in the month after Jesse Dirkhising’s murder, only 46 stories were devoted to his fate. “The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC ignored the story altogether and continued to do so through the March 2001 trial of one of the murderers, which resulted in a conviction. (The other assailant later pled guilty.)” Dirkhising’s murderers are now fighting their convictions.

Ultimately, the gay mafia does allow for one last preserve of “privacy”: Keeping important but unflattering stories about homosexuals very, very private.

How Elites Impose Gay Marriage from the Top Down

By Nicholas Stix

July, 2004
Middle American News

May 17 was, in the words of Ron Crews of the Massachusetts Family Institute, “a day of mourning.” For on that day, Massachusetts officials began marrying man to man, and woman to woman. Those who brought about this state of affairs claim to believe in “equality” and to be “democrats,” but in fact are elites who will have nothing of equality, let alone democracy. Five elite groups brought about same-sex marriage, which is however not an unalterable condition: Activist judges, the establishment media, ultraliberal elected officials, gay activist organizations and the homosexual activist, “shadow government.”

In the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2003 “Lawrence” decision overturning the Texas sodomy law, it went beyond the claims of “privacy” that homosexual activists had always previously made, with some justices already leaning in their decisions towards same-sex marriage. In a game of judicial “can you top this,” on November 18 in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, led by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court projected a non-existent right to same-sex marriage onto the 200-year-old, Massachusetts State Constitution. And beginning on February 12, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials, in clear violation of California state law, to illegally marry people of the same sex, for weeks, California state judges found every specious excuse imaginable (including “punctuation”) to refuse doing their jobs.

According to its own archive, in the past year the New York Times has published 305 articles on same-sex marriage, virtually all of them with a one-sided, pro-same-sex marriage slant. The Times and the rest of the elite, establishment media hammer away, claiming that homosexuals are in the same situation that blacks were during the civil rights movement, and that to deny homosexuals the right to marry members of the same sex, would be to treat them as second-class citizens. As Sen. Rick Santorum observed prior to Lawrence, the same argument would justify incestuous and multispousal marriages. The elite, politically correct media have, however, “won” the argument via their usual method -- by variously silencing, caricaturing, and demonizing their opponents. And through threats: A house editorial in the March 11 New York Times made a veiled threat to politically destroy Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg, if he did not commence performing illegal same-sex weddings, and direct city officials to do the same.

Beginning in February, rogue political leaders, most notoriously San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and New Paltz, NY Mayor Jason West, demagogued the issue, spitting on their respective state laws, while wrapping themselves in imaginary flags of “equality,” illegally marrying same-sex couples. As professor of law Vikram David Amar of the University of California’s Hastings College of Law in San Francisco pointed out, Mayor Newsom violated no less than three provisions of California State law, as well as the California state constitution’s ban on officials refusing to uphold laws with which they disagree. “Finally, and perhaps most importantly, section 308.5 of the Family Law Code -- which was enacted by the voters themselves as an initiative (Proposition 22) in the 2000 election -- says that ‘only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’"

Homosexual activist groups have been among the most influential players in the same-sex marriage campaign. Working behind the scenes with political leaders, news editors, public and private managers and educators, these groups have for the past thirty years wielded increasing power over what Americans may see and hear and say and do. Often at taxpayer expense, they have imposed a situation in which gays and their agenda must always be depicted in a positive manner, and their critics demonized. Some activist groups have increasingly hijacked public institutions, which they use for gay political organizing, same-sex marriage politicking, and most importantly, sexual recruitment.

One such powerful activist group, GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, pronounced “glisten”) has developed a curriculum promoting same-sex marriage to schoolchildren. One of the lesson plans instructs educators, “Elicit laws or customs that students feel are reflective of current marriage practice and … the underlying attitudes/beliefs. These practices reflect the ideas that marriage requires compatibility, economic interdependence, and that marriage is first and foremost about love – not procreation.”

But promoting same-sex marriage is just the tip of the iceberg for GLSEN, which functions in the schools through homosexual teacher-activists. The group, which was founded in 1990 by Kevin Jennings, was originally named GLISTN, as in the “Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teachers Network.”

GLSEN Los Angeles sells a homosexualist curriculum that starts in kindergarten, “cootie shots” (which as a traveling “play” has also reached tens of thousands of young school children), whereby it seeks to impose homosexuality on all subjects.

In “Play Wedding,” designed for K-2, “Two little girls play dolls and talk about a wedding between two men one of them attended.” In “La Peluca de Su Mama,” which is also promoted for K-2 pupils, “A Latino boy is mocked and teased by his classmates for trying on his mother’s wig.” In “Billy Tipton,” for grades 3-6, “Billy, a jazz musician and heartthrob, who lived her/his entire life as a man, shares his/her story.” In three other lessons, little boys are encouraged variously to wear dresses, don their mother’s high heels, and paint their fingernails bright orange.

GLSEN activist and “Cootie Shots” co-editor and theater director Norma Bowles claims, “We started hearing from parents and teachers that something like this was needed for elementary schools. As young as first and second grade, kids are calling each other names like sissy and queerboy. Long before kids even know what it means, the put down of the day is ‘That’s so gay.’”

First and second graders speaking that way? Parents calling for a pro-gay curriculum? I don’t think so. In fact, in 2002 parents in Novato, CA sued to protect their children from being exposed to “Cootie Shots.”

According to World Net Daily reporter Diana Lynne, Fringe Benefits Theatre’s Web site has said that it is "dedicated to building bridges between gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) youth and their straight peers, teachers and parents."

However, in news reports, the group sells its productions as simply “promoting diversity.” And the group has since made it impossible to reach it directly. Now, although Fringe Benefits is supported by taxpayer dollars, one must use intermediaries such as the radical leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center's Web site to reach the group.

GLSEN activists have preyed on sexually confused (which many adolescents are) children as young as 12, and have told 14-year-olds that the latter are “transgenders,” an incoherent notion that claims that one can have a sexual identity that contradicts one’s body. The “therapy” for such confused souls involves chopping off a child’s sexual organs, constructing useless facsimiles of the sex organs of the opposite sex, and counseling the mutilated child that he (it?) is what he is not.

GLSEN’s most powerful organizing tool has been “Gay-Straight Alliances” that homosexual activist-teachers organize and manipulate at their schools. GSAs operate under the ruse that children as young as 12 have not only full-blown sexual identities, but a political consciousness of conflicts involving sex and sexual orientation.

Homosexual activist groups have parlayed their power into the creation of a fifth group, which I call the homosexual “shadow government.” Thus do some states and municipalities have homosexual activist advocacy institutionalized as part of government -- "Commissions for Gay and Lesbian Youth," “Commissions on Sexual Minorities,” etc.

In Massachusetts, in what has become known as “fistgate,” thanks to the dissident Web site MassNews, state education officials have joined with activists to push homosexual practices on school children. Two parents, Brian Camenker and Scott Whiteman, publicized a March 25, 2000 talk by state education and health officials, at a GLSEN-sponsored conference, who graphically described and praised any number of homosexual sex acts, most notoriously “fisting” (forcing one’s fist and in some cases, forearm into another person’s rectum or vagina), and who downplayed the need for safe sex (forget about chastity), before an audience of children and educators. The officials had indoctrinated children as young as 12 to talk about homosexual acts. A 12-year-old girl said of homosexuality, “Don’t knock it, til you’ve tried it,” “How do you know you don’t like it?,” and that it “has a glorious history.”

One homosexual teacher-presenter had her seventh-grade students prepare a film to convince administrators that homosexuality was normal, and “not about sex.”

When Camenker and Whiteman played their tape on a local radio show, the education officials, Julie Netherland and Margot E. Abels, were fired. Netherland sued Camenker and Whiteman, arguing that they had violated her “privacy.”
Note that while the taxpayer-sponsored talk took place at Tufts University, the officials said that its content was identical to what they typically taught in the public schools.

As the Seattle-based group, Parents and Teachers for Responsible Schools (PTRS) reports, “The City of Seattle and the Seattle School District have created departments, paid for with public money and staffed by public employees, to advocate for homosexual civil rights, which include the right to marry, adopt, conceive children through artificial insemination, and to receive legal status equivalent to that afforded race under law. These departments, the Seattle Commission on Sexual Minorities (‘SCSM’), and the District's Sexual Minority Advocacy Council (‘SMAC’) are part of their respective Office of Civil Rights.

PTRS reports that homosexual activists first used “AIDS education” as their Trojan horse, to get a foothold in the public schools. Since then, GLSEN has fabricated problems, including abuse and discrimination, encountered by allegedly homosexual children, as a pretext to spread its publicly-funded “safe schools” program across the nation. “Safe schools” is a second Trojan horse, which GLSEN uses to push homosexuality and same-sex marriage on school children at ever younger ages.

Homosexual activists have also used programs funded for gay “suicide prevention” to promote homosexuality and same-sex marriage. In short, all public funding for homosexual-oriented programs is used to promote homosexual sex and same-sex marriage.

It is hardly coincidental that same-sex “marriages” were performed in Massachusetts, beginning on May 17, the fiftieth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ruling, in which the justices rode roughshod over the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions and referenda, and the Court’s own precedents, thereby establishing the tyranny that ever since has marched over the will of the American people and its laws with jackboots.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Leftist: Telling “Obama” Joke = Assassination Threat

By Nicholas Stix

Ever since the election, President-for-Life Soetoro’s (aka “Obama’s”) supporters have been demanding that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney be imprisoned. Those who are inexperienced or soft in dealing with these specimens of humanity might think, “We’ll, they say it’s for supporting torture.”

No. “Obama’s” base believes that all public opponents must be jailed and/or killed. They will provide the pretext du jour. After all, these people consider Communist Cuba, where Fidel Castro murdered thousands of dissenters, the ideal model for America.

For over 20 years, the Left has promoted the idea, through the universities and MSM, that any disagreement with its lies and hoaxes constitutes “hate speech” and “verbal assault.” Leftists have shouted down their opponents, stolen and destroyed their newspapers, forced them to publicly apologize, take “sensitivity training,” and fired, expelled, whitelisted and yes, arrested them (see here, here, here and here).

Thus, it was no surprise that when I posted a link to “The Top Ten List of Things to Know about President-for-Life Barack Obama” in the comments section at Village Voicer Roy Edroso’s blog, Runnin’ Scared, an Obamaton calling himself “Atheist” responded, “‘President for Life’ Obama? What, are you going to assassinate him or something?”

Don’t try to grammatically or logically parse “Atheist’s” response; it’s not possible. Atheist, like the rest of the Left, lives in Bizarro World, which is governed by the “logic” of the non sequitur, in which no conclusions logically follow from premises. (Besides, he has nothing against “Obama” being president for life, indeed he loves the idea, just not my saying so publicly at this point, where “Obama” has yet to suspend America’s Constitution and laws.) Instead, conclusions flow from political will, logic and the facts be damned. Dissent is a crime, but since we still live officially in a nation of laws, upon observing dissent, instead of simply saying, “He’s an enemy of the people! Let’s kill him!” the Leftist must conjure up some crime, no matter how implausible.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Race-Blindness is a Social Construct

By Nicholas Stix

I wish I could take credit for the brilliant insight above, but it is in fact the contribution of Vanishing American, in an essay, “Stranger than Fiction,” in which she draws an analogy from people acting as if race didn’t exist to the Hans Christian Anderson story, ''The Emperor's New Clothes.''

One of the giveaways that race-blindness is a fraud, is that it only goes one way. The same people who insist that "race is a social construct" demand that whites be "race-blind," while encouraging blacks and other non-whites to be race-obsessed. That is because they know damned well that race is real, but seek to aid blacks, at whites' expense, in the same zero-sum game racist blacks are playing.

As the saying goes, "Race for me, but not for thee."

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Brian Nichols in Atlanta: PC Kills… Again

By Nicholas Stix

(Part II: Aiding and Abetting: Feminism and the Brian Nichols Case)

March 16, 2005
Last updated 6:50 p.m., March 20, 2005.

It wasn’t a tragedy. We’ve been hearing about what a “tragedy” Brian Nichols’ “alleged” murders of four people and brutal beatings of several others were. Bull. According to the ancient Greek definition, tragedy is what happens when a great man’s strength turns into his own worst enemy and undoes him, e.g., pride. A more modern definition is of a terrible incident that was no one’s fault, and could not have been avoided. Say, a driver following the traffic laws loses control of his vehicle, and kills a pedestrian crossing the street.

When people use the term “tragedy” to describe a heinous act, they often seek to diminish its moral significance, as per the second definition. Thus, ever since 911, anti-American lefties have described the terrorist attacks of that day as “the tragedy of 911.” There is nothing tragic about what Brian Nichols “allegedly” did on March 11. If anything, the way he “allegedly” carried out his deeds suggests a diabolical criminal mastermind out of a novel, who painstakingly planned out his escape and his initial murders. And yet, we can lay four corpses and several brutalized though living victims at the feet of incompetence that was the product of feminism and racism. For had the Fulton County district attorney’s or sheriff’s office shown any professionalism, as opposed to being guided by feminist and racist practices, Brian Nichols would never have been in the Fulton County Superior Court on March 11, and Judge Rowland Barnes, court reporter Julie Ann Brandau, Sheriff’s Deputy Sergeant Hoyt Teasley and ICE Agent David Wilhelm would all still be alive today.

To get a preliminary look at the role of the politically correct mentality at work in the Nichols case, let’s contrast the depiction of the case as it unfolded on Saturday, March 12, between CNN and the Fox News Channel.
Cable News Follies

On March 12, I bounced back and forth between CNN and Fox News’ coverage of the case. On CNN in the early afternoon, the on-air personalities were concerned as to how Nichols could have “snapped.” They emphasized that he came from a “good” (read: middle-class) family, had a “good” job at UPS, was intelligent (he had supposedly taught himself a high level of computer savvy and how to play a musical instrument), and polite. CNN’s personalities spoke of Nichols having been guarded by only “one deputy,” taking pains to avoid the issue of the deputy’s sex.

At the Fox News Channel, a very different profile emerged, of a man who had been involved in crime, albeit petty crime, his entire adult life. Nichols was a linebacker at Kutztown State University, but was caught stealing, arrested, and expelled. He had been arrested several times over the years. Rather than saying Nichols had a “good job,” the Fox hosts noted that he had bounced from job to job. And Fox News’ personalities repeatedly asked how a woman could have been charged with guarding a tall, powerfully built man charged with violent crimes.

Eventually, the Fox News personalities also got around to the “how did he snap?” nonsense.

Fox News reporter Geraldo Rivera saw a strong parallel to the DC Sniper case in how a shooter terrorized an area, but the parallel was frivolous. In the DC Sniper case, initially no one knew the identities of the shooters, but Montgomery County Police followed a false lead that the shooters were white males. When Montgomery County Police Chief Dr. Charles Moose was able to determine through a telephone conversation with one of the killers that the latter was black, he withheld that crucial new information from law enforcement and the public alike. And so, while everyone looked for the wrong people, more victims were murdered.

In the Nichols case, law enforcement did the opposite: They broadcast the best information they had. (In both cases, the police officials were black.) The problem was that Nichols cleverly misled law enforcement into thinking that he was driving Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Don O’Briant’s green Honda Accord. (Nichols carjacked the Accord, parked it on another level of the same parking garage, walked across the street and boarded a MARTA (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) subway train to a nearby shopping center.)
Funny Papers

But if CNN was guilty of politically correct coverage of the Nichols case, they were pikers, compared to alleged reporter Beth Warren, also of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, who embodies what I call the banality of bias.

In an article in which Warren listed one example after another of Nichols’ racism, she concluded that his crimes were not racially motivated. Right. Just like with Colin Ferguson, the Long Island Railroad mass murderer.

Brian G. Nichols considered himself a “soldier on a mission” the day he terrorized a courthouse and a city with a gun, according to a law enforcement official who witnessed Nichols first statement to authorities.

The official said Nichols, who was being tried in a rape case when Friday’s deadly shooting spree occurred, considered himself a wrongly accused man in a legal system unfair to African-Americans….

In an interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the official said Nichols described how he had been stewing in jail while awaiting retrial on charges that he held his ex-girlfriend hostage and sexually assaulted her. The first jury couldn’t agree and the judge declared a mistrial.

Nichols said he was angry that many of the inmates around him were also black and he wondered how many were innocent.

[Based on what former Fulton County Assistant DA Denise A. Sorino told me in a telephone interview, one could more accurately conclude that Nichols had been surrounded by violent, persistent felony offenders, who typically had “over a page of priors.” ]

“He called it systematic slavery,” the law enforcement official said.

Nichols didn’t feel he was mistreated by deputies at the jail or courthouse, the official said. But he also didn’t care that the deputies he would soon hurt were black. His anger was focused more on the legal system than race. And the main target was Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes, who was preparing to resume hearing Nichols’ rape trial.

But Warren admits that Nichols said that “the attack [on Judge Barnes] wasn’t personal. In fact, he told authorities he thought Barnes had been fair to him during court proceedings.”

Warren hears ‘race, race, race,’ but concludes, ‘not race.’ Why, if Nichols felt that Judge Barnes had been fair to him, would he kill him anyway? Because the judge was a white authority figure. Why would he kill the white court reporter, but none of the blacks in the room with her? Because she was white. And she wasn’t even an authority figure!
Atlanta: A Felons’ Paradise

As for Nichols’ claim that criminal justice is a case of “systematic slavery” against black men, in reality, Atlanta is closer to paradise for the city’s predominantly black felons, though not for their majority-black victims. In recent years, tens of thousands of crimes have gone unprosecuted due to “lost” 911 calls, “disappeared” crimes by police, and incompetence and preferential treatment given certain classes of suspects (athletes and clergymen) by DA Paul Howard. Denise A. Sorino, who worked in Howard’s office for three years, and who supports the movement to have him recalled, told me that in 1999, she and her colleagues were working on thousands of cases going back as far as 1994, all of which were dropped, and thousands of which never even reached the indictment stage.

There are over 80 ADAs, and each one of them has over 100 cases to plea and arraign…. This is a guess, but 90 percent of these indictments, each of these defendants had more than one page of priors, and it was incredible that half of these people were still walking out on the street.

Why the backlog? When Howard was elected DA in 1996, most of the DA’s staff consisted of experienced, white attorneys. According to Sorino, who is white, Howard fired most of the whites, and replaced them with blacks who were inexperienced, and often incompetent.
Other critics of Howard have made the same charge, though in more circumspect language. Local white talk show host and former Atlanta Journal Constitution writer Dick Williams says, for instance, that “the District Attorney’s Office under Paul Howard has fallen apart, ‘cause he replaced all the old guys and brought in his people.”
The Magic Word

Note Brian Nichols’ claim that one of his white carjacking and assault victims, AJC reporter Don O’Briant, called him a racial epithet. O’Briant said in his defense, “Nichols pistol-whipped him because he refused orders to get in the trunk.

The only other thing I said besides “No” is “Please.” When someone has a gun pointed at you, the last thing you’re going to do is taunt them. All I was trying to do was get away.

Don O’Briant is a middle-aged, white reporter at a politically correct newspaper, in a majority-black city ruled by apartheid. He is more likely to sprout wings and fly, than to call a large black man pointing a gun at him a racial slur. Why did Nichols make such a claim?

In New York, where I have lived since August 1985, such phony claims by black racists have long been an everyday occurrence. Black racists call whites racial epithets, harass them, and assault them. (In 1991, a white NYPD detective confirmed that black-on-white racial assaults are a daily occurrence, adding that the NYPD covers up the attacks racial character.) Then, should a white victim complain or call the police, the black perpetrator says that the victim called him a racial epithet. Even if a witness should corroborate the white victim’s story, the phony charge functions as the black perpetrator’s get-out-of-jail-free card. Never mind, that everyone in New York knows that whites virtually never call blacks racial epithets, or that, as a matter of law, it would be irrelevant, even if they did.

I have only witnessed a white calling a black a racial epithet twice, and can recall hearing whites use a racial epithet to describe blacks in private only three times. All five times involved the “n” word. During the same period, I have heard the “n” word uttered in public approximately one million times—at least 95 percent by blacks, and perhaps five percent by Puerto Ricans.

The first white who I heard publicly call a black the “n” word was a teenaged drug dealer in Far Rockaway, Queens, one of America’s most racist, violent slums. That was in 1995 or ‘96. Interestingly, no blacks in the neighborhood who heard the white thug shouting the term down the block at a black competitor from outside the neighborhood, accused the white of racism or assaulted him.

The second case was in 1998, and involved a wheelchair-bound, septuagenarian patient in the nearby nursing home, Rockaway Care, where I was moonlighting as a certified nurse aide. The elderly patient only used the epithet after his powerfully-built, approximately 30-year-old black roommate had terrorized and assaulted him for three days, often in front of the staff. When I asked the black registered nurse in charge (though the patients were predominantly white, the staff was almost entirely black) whether she was going to protect the old white man, she muttered that he had used the n-word, so he was getting his due. (In New York, just about any time a black racially assaults a white, black witnesses will say that the white “deserved” it, even when they don’t claim that the white said a racial epithet. Conversely, the 1989 Yusuf Hawkins racial murder was only solved because white witnesses immediately cooperated with police.) The assaults finally (to my knowledge) ended after I had a confrontation with the black attacker, he complained about me to the aforementioned nurse, and she gave the white victim his own room.

The first time I encountered the “he-called-me-the-n-word” defense, was in 1993. At 1:30 a.m. on a Manhattan subway platform, an 18-year-old black girl called ME the n-word, as a prelude to stabbing me with a scissors. Unbeknownst to me, someone called the police, whose officer in charge of the crime scene later told me that a witness (the same person?) had corroborated my story.

And yet when I was interviewed, weeks later, by a white assistant DA named Kunkel, Kunkel denied that I was a crime victim at all. Kunkel ignored the witness report, the fact that someone else had called the police, the police photograph of the bloody defensive wound on my hand, and the report by the crime scene officer. Instead, he acted as if the girl’s incredible charge that I had called her the “n” word were gospel, and insinuated that I was a racist who went around getting innocent young blacks arrested. “Because of you, two black girls spent a night in jail!” he thundered at me. (The attacker was accompanied by a girlfriend.)

During the mid-‘90s, a spate of such phony claims by racist New York blacks actually made it to the SMSM (socialist mainstream media). In each case, the white “racist” in question was supposed to have called blacks the “n” word not in a white racial redoubt, but in a black-dominated environment.

One case was initiated by school staffers, teachers, administrators and parents at P.S. 80, in Jamaica, Queens who were followers of black supremacists the Rev. Al Sharpton and the late extortionist-kidnapper-murderer Sonny Carson, in an attempt to get white teacher Rita Altman fired. Another case was a shakedown attempt by two black businessmen, who made the charge against a white waiter at black ex-model Barbara Smith’s restaurant, B. Smith. A third case was manufactured by black aide Marshall Mitchell, who worked for black then-New York City Cong. Floyd Flake (D-Queens).

The institutionalized understanding in New York at the time (and since) was that all a black racist had to do was claim a white had called him a racial epithet, in order to get the law, morality, and common sense suspended. The whites who play this particular game, use it to wage class war against white crime victims. For instance, the one bit of honesty I got out of ADA Kunkel, was his admission that he never took the subway at night. He lived out of taxicabs.

For New York’s Kunkels, white guys like me, who have to ride the subway, are “losers.” The Kunkels take taxicabs driven overwhelmingly by non-whites, who avoid picking up black men. The Kunkels take cabs in order to avoid black men, who scare the bejeesus out of them, while publicly condemning taxicab drivers as “racist.”

The following year, when I told the above story to a black New Jersey (NJTransit) bus driver who had recently fled Brooklyn, he asked rhetorically of my encounter with Kunkel, “Did you bring a lawyer?” The driver knew better than I did, that a crime victim must show that he has a well-paid attorney, thus signifying his social class. When the Kunkels see that they are dealing with a class peer or even superior, they take pains to respect one’s rights as a crime victim.

While New York is 25 percent black and already a bastion of black apartheid, Atlanta is much worse. According to the 2000 census, Atlanta is 62 percent black and 34 percent white, and as conservative commentator and radio host Dick Williams put it in his genteel way on the March 14 O’Reilly Report on the Fox News Channel,

[Atlanta] is mostly concerned with things African-American. Ever since Mayor Jackson was elected mayor back in the ‘70s, everything has swung toward the political correct idea, the black idea. You gotta have a black police chief, you gotta have a black sheriff, and they won elections to the Sheriff’s Office on their own merit, but, but everything, like Paul Howard’s comment [that a woman can guard a male suspect charged with violent crimes just as well as a man can], which was just silly, of course, that’s the way the world works in the City of Atlanta, aided and abetted by the newspapers.

Williams also noted that while “the jury is out” on Atlanta police Chief Richard Pennington, “The police departments been in chaos” for years.

Also appearing on the show, Michael King, of the black conservative group Project 21, concurred with Williams’ appraisal.
Absolutely. Atlanta has been portrayed as this black Mecca of black development, of black leadership around the country, and as a whole, especially on the business side, that’s certainly correct. But when you extend that into the government sector, and when you ignore competent individuals, in place of or in favor of making sure that someone black is in place, then you end up with situations like this, you end up with Paul Howard, you end up with a sheriff like Myron Freeman sitting there, twiddling their thumbs, if you will, as opposed to things getting done properly.

Prof. Moriarty vs. the Keystone Kops?

Already on March 12, “experts” began blaming the Atlanta PD for not finding the green Accord or catching Nichols sooner, saying police were “too reactive, and not pro-active enough.” Aside from the imbecilic thought processes and redundancy of such clichés, given the rank incompetence of the Fulton County Sheriff’s and District Attorney’s offices, and Nichols’ combination of brilliance and ruthlessness, I don’t see how someone can talk that way. Nichols did everything but eat his victims’ livers.

It turns out that Chief Richard Pennington’s men did screw up, though not in the sense of the slogans being bandied about. If anything they were overly aggressive.

As attendants at the parking garage recounted to AJC reporters Bill Torpy and Stacy Shelton, they called police when Nichols showed up at the parking garage. A police motorcycle and two squad cars quickly arrived, but the officers ignored the attendants’ pleas (and Policework 101) to guard the street level, which the attendants explained to police was the only way out of the garage. Instead, all three vehicles sped up the ramps, allowing Brian Nichols to walk down the stairs to freedom.

And how could Don O’Briant tell police that Brian Nichols asked for directions to a nearby shopping mall, where the latter then spent hours meandering about without police, who had his picture, catching him? Note that leftwing and black nationalist journalists, academics, and activists have long spread the canard, according to which all black men look the same to white police and security personnel, while arguing that blacks have no problem distinguishing between different black men.

Other critics have also argued that the Atlanta PD should have shut down MARTA (or indeed, all traffic in the immediate vicinity), and sealed off the parking garage and searched for the green Accord. But I’m going to be modest, and will settle for the 20/100 hindsight of criticizing police for their failure to guard the parking garage’s exit.

The havoc that a highly intelligent, cunning, ultraviolent prisoner can wreak once he has escaped is why it’s so important for everyone at each point along the line to do his job. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or Superman in order to catch a bad guy again, if you don’t let him get away in the first place. But it does help to have an IQ above that of a ditch digger.

When Richard Pennington took over the Atlanta PD in 2002, he formed a non-profit organization which had the department’s 911 calls for 2002 audited. (Pennington had made his name as New Orleans police chief, where he reportedly reformed what had been the nation’s most corrupt force.) Chief Pennington determined that the reports from 22,000 911 calls had been lost during that year alone. Atlanta only has 416,000 residents.

Chief Pennington has admitted that his department screwed up, but his idea of reform is to dumb down the method for calling in incidents. Instead of the shorthand that police departments across the nation use to save time in notifying dispatchers, Chief Pennington is calling for using “plain English.” So, instead of simply saying, “10-13!” officers would presumably say, “Officer in need of assistance!” Why not instead hire men who can understand what a “10-13” is?

The Atlanta PD’s problems run deep, and largely have to do with hiring incompetents based solely on the color of their skin. Like other departments across the country, it has apparently been hiring black applicants who are functionally illiterate and/or personally unsuited for police work. Somehow, I don’t see Chief Pennington or anyone else in Atlanta calling for confronting the department’s real problems.
Shoot the Sheriff

Fulton County Sheriff Myron Freeman, wounded Deputy Cynthia Ann Hall’s boss, ought to be recalled by voters post haste. At the Saturday afternoon press conference following Brian Nichols’ arrest, Sheriff Freeman said “My first priority was the families … my second priority was getting Mr. Nichols back in jail.” That was designed to show his compassion, but if Sheriff Freeman hadn’t been so incompetent, he wouldn’t have had to console the victims’ families. The sheriff kept repeating that he had only been on the job for two months, but the problems with the sheriff’s office had been public knowledge in Atlanta for years. There was no need for four murders to serve as a wake-up call, and Freeman is unlikely to change for the better.

The sheriff’s lack of urgency regarding catching a heinous criminal, is unfortunately typical of an entire city, in which police officials have long seen their job as not fighting, but covering up crime, so as to help the tourist trade, and where in an opinion survey of Atlantans, much to Chief Pennington’s chagrin, “only 27 percent saw crime as the city’s No. 1 problem.” Meanwhile, Atlanta vies for the dubious distinction of being known as the nation’s most violent city. I think racial solidarity is the reason so many Atlantans claim to be relatively unconcerned about crime.

Sheriff Freeman kept emphasizing that he had only been on the job for two months. That’s two months too long. At first, I thought that perhaps the Sheriff was in shock or exhausted. After hearing him a while, however, I realized he’s simply a dim bulb. If Brian Nichols had the sense to figure out the holes in courthouse security, but Sheriff Freeman didn’t, maybe the authorities need to switch the two men. Put Freeman in jail and charge him with murder, etc., and make Nichols sheriff. If that sounds insane, it’s no crazier than a world in which a Myron Freeman can be responsible for court security.

DA Paul Howard should also be recalled, along with Sheriff Freeman.
Indeed, there is already a movement afoot to recall Howard, who was first elected in 1996. The DA’s office botched the first Nichols prosecution, leading to the retrial. Although Nichols was found to be in the possession of ten pounds of marijuana and two assault weapons when he was arrested, he was tried for rape, sodomy, and kidnapping. The jury never heard about the weapons or the drugs, and Howard’s incompetent, lazy ADAs provided them with little corroborating evidence, even though they had access to massive amounts of evidence. As a result, the jury almost acquitted Nichols, deadlocking with eight jurors out of twelve voting to acquit. As Brian Nichols’ defense attorney Barry Hazen noted, the state put on a “much more muscular” presentation in the retrial: “In the second trial, there was a lot more evidence that was corroborated,” which is why Nichols knew he was going down. (To do justice to DA Howard’s documented incompetence and venality would require much more space than I have at present.)

Thus, Brian Nichols wasn’t fighting injustice; he was fighting justice!

(Some people are convinced that Nichols was innocent of the rape charges against him. Note that AJC reporters Cameron McWhirter, Bill Rankin, and Steve Visser have suggested that the method that March 12 hostage Ashley Smith reported that Nichols used in binding her with duct tape, and initially putting her in the shower, matched the method that his ex-girlfriend charged him with using during his alleged kidnapping and rape of her on August 19.)
Nichols: Breaks with Criminal Stereotypes

I am convinced that while not all of Nichols’ plans worked out, he nonetheless put a great deal of planning into his crimes. The safest thing for him to do, in terms of escaping the court house, would have been to flee immediately, once he had disarmed Deputy Hall, after perhaps handcuffing and gagging her. That way, using his method of rapid, serial carjacking, he might well have made it out of the state on Friday. Instead, he made a point of GOING to Judge Barnes’ chambers, and proceeding to murder Barnes and Julie Ann Brandau. Sgt. Hoyt Teasly’s killing clearly was unplanned. The sergeant just got in Nichols’ way; he was “collateral damage.”

When criminals seek to escape from the police, they tend to think with their feet, not their heads, which is one reason why they usually get caught so quickly. Often, the panic starts before the crime has even been completed. How many times do you hear, in what journalistic boilerplate calls “botched robberies,” of a mugger who panics and kills his intended victim, running off without even getting the latter’s money or valuables? Some of those cases were surely racial murders, in which robbery was a secondary or non-existent goal, and the “botched robbery” cliché was a journalistic diversion tactic to avoid reporting the truth, but many were cases of criminals who simply lost their heads. As a rule, violent crime has never attracted a particularly high-class sort of individual. In contrast, Nichols’ defense attorney Barry Hazen described Nichols as “very analytic” and a “very quick learner.”

However, many procedures broke down, providing Nichols with one opportunity after another:

• The office of District Attorney Paul Howard provided no serious additional security, despite a request from presiding Judge Rowland Barnes for additional “beef,” after Nichols had been caught with two “shank” weapons in his shoes that he had fashioned from hinges. (Judge Barnes was more concerned with the dangers posed to Nichols’ defense attorney, Barry Hazen, than with his own protection.) In a telephone interview, Denise A. Sorino told me that the only reason Nichols was in that changing room, was because DA Howard’s office had so thoroughly botched the first trial. Sorino’s judgment of Nichols’ first trial was implicitly supported by Nichols’ attorney, Hazen;

• Sheriff Myron Freeman had entrusted a 5’1” female deputy with guarding a former college linebacker whose body was “solid muscle,” who was charged with violent felonies, and who was facing a possible life sentence; and

• The deputies entrusted with monitoring the changing room via closed circuit TV were criminally negligent. They were absent or off doing God knows what (one report has them fetching breakfast for a superior), while Deputy Hall was getting beaten half to death on camera, and when Nichols was running out of the court building.

Sheriff Freeman, DA Howard, and Chief Pennington might just as well have given Nichols a law enforcement escort out of the city.

(Part II: Aiding and Abetting: Feminism and the Brian Nichols Case

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Lawrence Auster’s Notorious Speech

By Nicholas Stix

Soon, Lawrence Auster will be imprisoned for thought crimes, his blog shut down, and his Web archives deleted. People won’t even be able to talk or write about what Auster did that was so terrible. Thus, I suggest you download this version of the speech he gave, “A Real Islam Policy for a Real America,” at Michael Hart and Mike Berman’s “Preserving Western Civilization” conference in Baltimore on February 8, and which I was honored to have heard, firsthand.

Since your download of the speech may one day be confiscated or deleted, I suggest you read it more than once, so that you can remember as much as possible of what Auster said, and whisper it to your children, behind closed doors.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Nelson Mandela and South African Blacks Sing, “Kill the Whites!”



Old Nelson Mandela leads his young Xhosa admirers in a hearty rendition of a Xhosa song about killing whites.

“We, the members of Mkhonto, have pledged ourselves to kill them—the “ama bhulu” (whites).

Mandela’s Western apologists insist that the phrase “ama bhulu” means “Boers,” rather than “whites,” a distinction utterly lost on Mandela and his young Xhosa admirers. If such sophistry were true, why would Mandela need to play such different tunes, depending on his audience of the moment, speaking of racial “reconciliation” in English before white audiences, and racial murder before blacks in Xhosa?

Funny, that method reminds me of another terrorist leader.

The Mkhonto was (is?) a terrorist unit that Mandela founded before he was imprisoned by the evil, white apartheid regime, and that would murder whites, er, “Boers,” through bombings and such, on Mandela’s orders.

A tip ‘o the hat to Blaney’s Barley.

What Killed Arafat?

By Nicholas Stix

A Different Drummer
December 2, 2004

After Arab terrorist Yasser Arafat died on November 11, at the age of 75, USA Today, among other outlets, talked about how “enraged” the Arabs in the territories in Israel were. You may ask, “How could they be enraged?” USA Today supplied no answer at the time, but I can. Many of Arafat’s supporters have spread a blood libel, according to which the Mossad, in league with some of Arafat’s own goons, poisoned him. All over again, the refrain rings: “The Jews did it!”
Hamas leader Khaled Mesha’al said, "I do not hesitate accusing Israel of killing Yasser Arafat and I call on my brothers in Fatah and in the PNA not to keep silent in this regard.”

For over thirty years, Israel was in a position to snuff Yasser Arafat like a cockroach, anytime it pleased. Not only was the Israeli government not responsible for his death, if anything, it was responsible for him living as long as he did. If only the Sabras had killed him!

Meanwhile, Arafat’s widow, Suha, has run off with his French medical records, and her lawyer has made the fantastic claim that Arafat’s French hospital and doctors have no other copies.
Mrs. Arafat clearly does not want the truth known, whatever it may be. Supporters of Israel’s right to exist have a rumor of their own, as to how Arafat died, which is more likely than the Arab blood libel: AIDS. Supporters of Israel have long claimed that Arafat was a homosexual, arguing that that was why his now loving, bereaved widow had long stayed as far from him as possible, consoling herself in her estrangement from her husband and the couple’s “people” with million-dollar shopping sprees in Europe’s swankiest department stores. (A less satisfying explanation of the estrangement, for Arafat’s enemies, is that the man who cold-bloodedly sacrificed young Arabs on homicide bombing attacks, had no intention of permitting the violence he had unleashed to touch his own family.) Yet another, more commonly held explanation of Arafat’s death, is that he died of cirrhosis of the liver, which if true, would strongly suggest that he was an alcoholic.

Note that homosexuality and drinking are terrible sins in Islam (though what, pray tell, outside of killing “infidels” isn’t?).
(In a particularly vitriolic, intolerant, delightful rant, “Firehat” (Norman Liebmann) quipped, “It’s still not known what Arafat died of except that his nurses had to get into moon suits to take his temperature with a thermometer affixed to a robotic arm.”)

With a little white-out, some photocopying, a typewriter and a skilled forger, I’m sure Mrs. Arafat can come up with a “useful” cause of death. But why bother? We’re talking about people whom you can’t trust to give you the correct time of day, and now they’re going to imitate CBS News?

Meanwhile, the French have done their part for the Arabs, by lying on Arafat’s death certificate, in claiming that he was born in Jerusalem, when he was, in fact, born in and largely raised in Cairo.

When I lived in Tübingen, West Germany, there was a group of some 20 wealthy Arab Muslim students from Tunisia, in North Africa. Virtually none of them studied, preferring to pass the time engaging in promiscuity (exclusively with white, Western women, with whom they were obsessed, even as they held them in contempt), heavy drinking, and gambling. It’s a wonder they didn’t cause an outbreak of venereal disease.

Friday, May 08, 2009

The Top Ten List of Things to Know about President-for-Life Barack Obama

By Nicholas Stix

Revised at 8:05 p.m., Sunday, May 10, 2009.

In The Year One of Our Messiah, in The Nation Formerly Known as America, we have open borders for pandemics; however, under orders of Minister of Propaganda David Axelrod, and his deputy ministers, David Letterman, Jon David Stewart, and David Brooks, we quarantine jokes.

I must be some sort of pervert; I support quarantines for pandemics, but open borders for jokes. The following is my contribution to breaking the comedy blockade. If you don’t like it, do better!

10. Black politicians have larger teleprompters than white politicians.

9. The New York Times is going to write a bill making it a hate crime to criticize President-for-Life Obama, just as soon as its bailout check clears.

8. Those federal tax refunds? Paid out in Monopoly money.

7. Be careful what you say about his wife: She has bigger shoulders than you do!

6. Don’t speak Austrian? That’s ok, neither does he!

5. He will be having Congress pass a law officially declaring that America has 60 states.

4. Jokes making fun of the President will be permitted, just as soon as Barack and presidents-for-life-in-waiting Michelle, Sasha, and Malia and their descendants are all dead.

3. A black guy, a white guy, and an Asian guy walk into a bar—hey, that’s not funny!

2. David Letterman is his bitch!

1. (This joke has been confiscated by the Obama Cabinet Secretary of Diversity.)

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Former ACLU National Board Member, Wendy Kaminer, Joins Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy

By Nicholas Stix

Say what you will about Wendy Kaminer, but she’s her own woman. And yet, she’s also a longtime woman of the Left.

Houston, we have a problem.

While one can argue about how much independence of spirit the Left could tolerate in the past, the answer regarding the present is, “None.”

Kaminer, a lawyer, social critic, and author of seven books, was from 1999-2006 a member of the ACLU’s national board, and is still a member of the ACLU of Massachusetts board.

In a 2007 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kaminer recounted how the organization, whose reputation has long been based on its defenses of freedom of speech, had switched to supporting censorship, even of the legal variety, as long as it was imposed on conservative Christians, critics of homosexuality, and even critics of Islam. Kaminer quoted ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero’s self-contradictory 2006 statement to the New York Times. "Take hate speech. While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities."

The phrase “hate speech” is part of civil rights speak. It refers to anyone who opposes the war on (non-leftist) white heterosexuals. Thus, anyone who says he is opposed to “hate speech” is saying that he opposes free speech. Romero was simply too dishonest to admit it.

Instead of condemning Romero’s corruption of the organization, including his practice of censoring and ostracizing internal critics, ACLU President Nadine Strossen has served as his “amen corner.”

An odd organization, that. Founded in 1920 by communist Roger Nash Baldwin (1884-1981) to help bring about the revolution,
Reflecting on his early years as the ACLU's Executive Director, Baldwin candidly revealed his original motives and objectives: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.”

["Roger Baldwin," Discover the Networks, undated (Accessed on May 2, 2009).]

In spite of the circumstances of its founding, and the bad it has done, the ACLU has in the past done some good. Over the past generation, however, its emphasis has increasingly belied its name, trading an emphasis on civil liberties for one on politically correct civil rights and the harassment of Christians in the public square, as the recently departed Richard John Neuhaus might have put it.

While some writers, such as Nat Hentoff, have tried to square the circle and reconcile the one thrust with the other, no can do. Civil liberties are about freedom from government coercion. Conversely, the civil rights movement was and is a blend of black racism and communism. There’s no room for liberty at that particular inn.

Thus, the organization’s latter-day stress on civil rights is a coming home of sorts. And yet, there remains the problem of its name, which advertises support of civil liberties, and thus over the years has naturally drawn civil libertarians, albeit increasingly as moths to a flame.

Kaminer is one left libertarian who got burned. Her cri de coeur is the book Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity, and the ACLU, published by the radical left Beacon Press—good for you, Beacon!—and which was released on May 1.

In John Leo’s Wall Street Journal review, he writes,
It is a short, vehement book. Even the cover photo is vehement: It shows a densely packed herd of sheep -- stand-ins for the "easily herded" board members and donors who, Ms. Kaminer says, have allowed the ACLU to unravel under the leadership of Anthony Romero. The board and donors, she says, have willfully overlooked the "skullduggery" that has beset the national office since Mr. Romero's installation as executive director in 2002….

[Romero] is dishonest and secretive, she says; he withholds crucial information from the board of directors and misuses the organization's now vast wealth, which was largely built on anti-Bush donations and handouts to encourage "diversity" work. Mr. Romero's management style, she claims, is to reward personal loyalty, deter internal dissent and tighten control over the ACLU affiliates around the country….

The criticism by Ms. Kaminer and Mr. Myers failed to gain traction, partly because the money kept rolling in, partly because other board members imagined that the ACLU was so besieged by the Bush administration that it couldn't tolerate internal squabbling. Another factor in the futility of protest: Mr. Romero is gay and Latino, an irrelevancy to most of us but on a diversity-minded board a useful inoculation against criticism or removal….

In 2006, the ACLU descended into self-satire by drawing up a gag order to cover its own board members -- no public criticism of policies or personnel, because speaking out might hurt fund raising. When word got out, a storm of ridicule forced the withdrawal of the plan. But Ms. Kaminer notes that only six of the 53 ACLU affiliates protested the no-dissent policy; the ACLU apparently couldn't be bothered to defend its own right to free speech….

…the many troubling decisions and strange moves undertaken during Mr. Romero's tenure actually reflect a decisive shift in the ACLU's sense of mission. "The ACLU," she writes, "began describing itself as a 'social justice organization,' and its non-partisan commitment to civil liberty shrank -- especially its commitment to free speech -- while its vision of equality expanded."

New organizations with a stronger commitment to free speech and freedom of assembly now do the jobs that the ACLU declines to do. These groups include the Alliance Defense Fund and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. [Kaminer sits on FIRE’s board.] Ms. Kaminer sums it up: "The ACLU is becoming just anther liberal human-rights, social- justice advocate that reliably defends the rights of liberal speakers." The trajectory is a common one, affecting once-neutral organizations, including the Sierra Club, the Ford and MacArthur Foundations, the Modern Language Association, Amnesty International and, now, the ACLU.

["A Limited Love of Liberty," by John Leo, Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2009.]

Was Kaminer writing about the ACLU or the SPLC? The criticisms could just as well apply to the latter, except that the $PLC does not even pay lip-service to civil liberties.

A tip ‘o the hat to Paul Nachman.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Champion of the Gridiron, and of Racial and Ethnic Pandering: Remembering Jack Kemp

By Nicholas Stix

On Saturday night, 73-year-old former AFL quarterback and Republican congressman, HUD secretary, presidential and vice-presidential candidate, Jack Kemp, died of cancer in his Bethesda, Maryland home, surrounded by his family, and with his pastor at hand.

In “In Memoriam: Jack Kemp—His Moment Came and Went. What about America’s?” my editor at VDARE, Peter Brimelow, wrote that Kemp was an unthinking supporter of open borders and affirmative action, and openly hostile towards anyone who questioned such dubious positions.

My earliest memory of “Jackie” Kemp, as I believe he was then called by football announcers, was during the 1969 football season, the last for both Kemp and the old American Football League. Kemp, the quarterback for the once stalwart but by then lowly (4-10) Buffalo Bills, was taking a hellacious beating. I don’t recall who the Bills were playing that day, but on every play when the Bills had the ball, the other team was in jailbreak mode. As soon as Kemp took the snap, he seemed to be hit by all 11 players from the opposition’s defensive unit, plus players coming off the bench, coaches, assistants, trainers and water boys. Thank God, in the old AFL, teams had a fraction as much personnel as they now do!

Where were Kemp’s teammates? Beats me. It seemed as though they’d all deserted him. Watching as a little boy, I thought the man might die from the punishment.

That was also the first season of the future Butcher of Brentwood. After the season, in his first ghost-written book, know-it-all rookie O.J. Simpson would criticize Kemp.

Kemp’s stats, even from his best seasons, are underwhelming by today’s standards. He always threw more picks than touchdowns, and only twice had a completion average of 50 percent or higher. And yet, he was a winner, with a record of 65-37-3 in his regular season starts, and was considered one of the league’s best signal callers. (Statistical standards for QBs were vastly lower then, especially in the AFL. Kemp actually set several AFL passing records.) In nine seasons in the league, he was named to seven Pro Bowls, was a first-team all-pro twice, won the 1965 AP award as the AFL Player of the Year, and led the Bills to back-to-back AFL championships in 1964 and 1965.

I have devoted so much space to Kemp’s football career because, although the first page of his Google hits lists no pro football pages, everything that he did thereafter was built on it, and he used football metaphors and gestures throughout his political career. No AFL, no congressional career; no AFL, no appointment as HUD secretary, no presidential or vice-presidential candidacy, no Empower America sinecure. Kemp would have just been a big guy with a broad smile, helmet hair, and a firm handshake. He would likely have become some sort of salesman, a successful one, no doubt, of local repute.

Kemp retired from pro football following the 1969 season, and segued directly into electoral politics, winning the 1970 congressional election for the Buffalo area.


Jack Kemp served nine terms in Congress (1971 through 1988), the high point of which was the 1981 Kemp-Roth Bill he shepherded with Sen. William Roth (R-DE) which, as fellow supply-sider Bruce Bartlett recalled in 2002, cut federal “tax rates by about 30% across the board” for three years.

Kemp-Roth was Kemp’s one major political accomplishment. That bill helped drive the 1980s’ economic recovery under President Ronald Reagan, and has ever since been inextricably associated with “Reaganomics.”

Unfortunately, Kemp was a fanatical supply-sider who seemed to believe that tax cuts were the cure for everything that ailed the economy and the government, a preoccupation which has caused the GOP not only to alienate voters who are not simply economic (Randian?) Republicans, but to leave the Party unwilling and unable to confront the growing, twin catastrophes of race and mass immigration.

Kemp unsuccessfully challenged Vice President George H.W. Bush for the GOP presidential nomination in 1988. President Bush then rewarded his erstwhile rival with the cabinet post of HUD secretary.


Kemp was also a fanatical—yes, this is a recurring theme—member of the Open Borders Lobby, willing to misappropriate a quote from George Washington, if it served his purpose. Had Kemp done his homework, he would have learned that you cannot have massive tax cuts, open borders, and a welfare state. Hell, tax cuts aside, as the late Milton Friedman never tired of saying, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

In 1994, shortly before the vote on Prop. 187, which would have “den[ied] public benefits to illegal aliens in California,” cutting off illegal immigrants from using most welfare programs, Kemp condemned it “as a threat to civil liberties, racial harmony and ‘the soul of the Republican Party.’”

Voters ignored him and William Bennett, who also attacked the referendum, and voted 60 percent in favor of it. The proposition, which saved the political hide of Gov. Pete Wilson, and momentarily forestalled the decline of the California GOP, was illegally struck down by Democratic federal judge Marianna Pfaelzer, and sandbagged first by Republican California Attorney General Dan Lungren, and then by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.

After term limits forced Wilson into retirement in 2000, instead of following his lead, the California GOP and state and national open borders shills, including neocons, rewrote history, to present Prop. 187 as having hurt the California GOP. In 2004, California Republicans tried to resuscitate Prop. 187, but found themselves sandbagged by their own party.


Jack Kemp called himself a “bleeding-heart conservative.” His approach to race politics was to say, in effect, “I love black people!” He loved to talk about how he had depended on black teammates in the pros, and was the only Republican of his day who enthusiastically spoke before racist, anti-Republican black audiences (if he spoke before black conservatives, I’m not aware of it). He would never miss a chance to tell his black listeners how terrible the GOP was on race. Black crowds ate it up.

It was in this spirit that Kemp attacked the successful “culture war” speech Pat Buchanan gave at the 1992 Republican convention, leading the Party leadership and President George H.W. Bush to triangulate left, and thereby lose the election.

Kemp was a fanatical—sorry—supporter of affirmative action. He supported stealing jobs, college slots, and contracts with public agencies from qualified white and Asian candidates and firms, and giving them to unqualified blacks. I wish I could say that Kemp alone, in the GOP, supported such racism, but in fact, excepting for Reagan, the party has supported it at least since President Nixon.

Back when he was President George H.W. Bush’s HUD secretary, Kemp came up with his big idea on race: He would give the apartments in housing projects to the blacks already living in them. Becoming owners would then instill so much pride in the occupants that they would take wonderful care of the apartments. This was the cornerstone of Kemp’s idea of “empowerment,” a Marxist buzzword he made his own, and which other Republicans then echoed.

There was one huge problem with Kempian “empowerment”: It was still Marxist! The people in the projects had had the option of home ownership all along. All they had to do was work and scrimp and save enough for a down payment on a home within their means, buy it, and keep up with the mortgage payments. But that wasn’t what Kemp was talking about: He wanted to give, for nothing, public property that had been built almost entirely on the backs of white taxpayers, to blacks who had made no contribution to it. So whites would pay for their own homes, and pay for “free” homes for blacks.

For instance, Kemp’s “HOPE” Program—“Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere”—offered “financial assistance to homebuyers, including interest rate buy-downs and downpayment assistance.”

Kemp was a prophet! He was proposing, over ten years in advance, the notion of empowerment that President George W. Bush would eventually embrace, in terms of giving low or no-money-down mortgage loans to black and Hispanic deadbeats.

Mind you, I used to like Kemp, too. For one thing, at the time he was HUD secretary, I was still a Democrat, and for another, his fans in the media never mentioned who would be paying the tab for “empowerment.” And he is an affable guy, as long as you don’t stand to the right of him.

Kemp’s racial pandering got him absolutely nowhere electorally. In 1996, when he was Bob Dole’s running mate, the blacks who applauded his speeches all voted for Bill Clinton.

But Kemp never learned. In late 2007, he was so stupid as to condemn Republican presidential candidates for not attending a “debate about race relations” organized by racist, black talk show host Tavis Smiley, and scheduled to take place at neo-segregationist Morgan State University.

Kemp appeared on Smiley’s show to denounce his fellow Republicans, insisting that their non-appearance would hurt the party electorally.

With black voters?!

Anyone could see that the “debate” was a set-up. The black racists who organize and attend such occasions are openly hostile towards Republican politicians, would have pressured the candidates to denounce their own party (as Kemp did without pressure), yet would have self-righteously pulled the lever for the Democratic Party, anyway. Meanwhile, the GOP would have lost voters through alienating their white base. Indeed, John McCain might still have won the election, had he not rejected his white base for Hispanics, who in turn voted overwhelmingly against him. (McCain is now mad at the Hispanics! He’s a damned fool, but at least he is not utterly impervious to reality.)

Politically, Kemp was irremediable. Unfortunately, the current Republican hierarchy appears to share his condition.

Speaking of the GOP, some of the kindest words for Kemp came from Bob and Liddy Dole:
Elizabeth Dole recalled Kemp's unceasing energy and boundless enthusiasm for causes he believed in. Bob Dole said: "If you ever wanted to meet an eternal optimist, there was one. There was a solution to everything. He inspired a lot of people.

And then with his voice breaking, Dole added, "I'm so sad that he's gone.”

Look, Bob Dole is 85. He’s staring at his own mortality in the mirror. Plus, Kemp was his running mate in the horrible, punch-pulling ‘96 campaign, and in any event, it’s socially acceptable to mourn for Jack Kemp. After all, it’s not like Strom Thurmond or Jerry Falwell just died!

Kemp’s fans and old friends all tell us what a nice guy he was. I thought that too during his political career, but it turns out that, like most everyone, he was nice to people he agreed with, and hostile to those with whom he differed—at least, those to the right of him. Indeed, he’s gotten such kind farewells from the socialist MSM due to his great solicitude—a less charitable writer would call it neoconservative triangulation—towards the Left, and corresponding hostility towards the Right. Well, Kemp did identify himself as a neocon.

Of course, back when he was politically active, the MSM was less kind, often painting him as an amiable dunce, at best.

Kemp’s tendency to latch onto certain ideas caused more sympathetic observers to mistakenly describe him as being intellectual or thoughtful. What he was, was passionate, and he would transfer that passion to ideas.

On the eve of the 1996 election, in “The Quarterback” in The New Republic, liberal Michael Lewis wrote,

Yet, despite the general indifference to Kemp, he is actually the major candidate most worth listening to, mainly because he takes lots of little risks and occasionally says something he isn't supposed to, as when he reminds one crowd of his endorsement of Steve Forbes. Although he is cast as the man of ideas he is essentially a creature of high emotion. The enthusiasm that leads Kemp's tongue to run away with his brain is so infectious that it seems churlish to stop and ask what he means when he talks about the need for prosperity in "Second, Third and Fourth World countries," or when he says that "we are living in the most exciting country, the most exciting millennium, in the history of mankind," or when he promises "we're going to cut your taxes and balance the budget."

You may think that I have condemned Jack Kemp, but his racial socialist admirers unwittingly have me beat.

The man calling himself “Barack Obama” said Kemp was “a man who could fiercely advocate his own beliefs and principles while also remembering the lessons he learned years earlier on the football field: That bitter divisiveness between race and class and station only stood in the way of the common aim of a team to win.”

Translation: Whites must surrender to blacks.

In The Nation, John Nichols wrote in “Jack Kemp vs. the Party of ‘No,’”
My respect for Kemp was rooted in my experience with the antiapartheid movement in the US and South Africa. While many leading conservatives in the US were busy making excuses for the racist and antidemocratic regime in South Africa, Kemp emerged as a bold and consistent critic of apartheid…. Recalling the first Republican president, Kemp suggested after apartheid had ended and South Africa had experienced a peaceful transition of power that "Abraham Lincoln's response to a Union soldier at Gettysburg who asked him after his address why he showed no rancor or anger toward his Confederate enemies comes to mind: 'Do I not destroy my enemy by making him my friend?' There is no better example of this spirit in the twentieth century than Nelson Mandela."

Kemp never hesitated to compare Mandela to both Lincoln and George Washington.

[Prior to being imprisoned for 27 years by the evil, white apartheid government of South Africa, Nelson Mandela had been a terrorist.]

When I traveled with Mandela during the South African leader's 1990 visit to the United States, he and Kemp greeted one another warmly in the nation's capital. Mandela was well aware of Kemp's long and often frustrating struggles within a Republican Party that had, at its highest levels, opposed using economic sanctions to combat apartheid.

In particular, Mandela was aware of what, to my view, was Kemp's finest moment.

At the eightieth convention of the NAACP in 1989, the HUD secretary boldly declared his solidarity with Mandela and the South African majority and demanded that the country's white minority government "let our people go."

Kemp did not stop there. He admitted to the cheering crowd that the Republican Party was "nowhere to be found" in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s [that’s a bald-faced lie; for better or worse, the GOP supported the civil rights laws—N.S.] and pledged to do his best--as a cabinet member, party leader and prospective presidential candidate--to forge a "radical Republican Party" that was worthy of African-American support.

Kemp never gave up on that mission.

Twenty years ago, like Jack Kemp, I opposed white-run apartheid. But though I had been familiar since childhood with American-style black supremacy, I had yet to confront the contradiction between my liberal upbringing and the black racism that I lived with daily, and knew nothing of the history of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe or South Africa, or about American racial history, for that matter. Only in early 1990, did my studies begin. But over 45 years after the anti-white, aka civil rights movement had seized center stage in America, and long after the black campaign of genocide against whites was underway in Zimbabwe and gathering steam in South Africa, Kemp was as self-righteously anti-white as ever. He never faced the truth that the replacement of white-run apartheid with black-run apartheid not only destroyed the lives of whites, but—with the exception of ZANU-PF and ANC cronies and thugs—of blacks, too. That he never gave up pandering to racist blacks is to his everlasting shame.

But that’s not what America’s racist, tenured history professors will say. They’ll write articles and books with titles like “Fallen Gladiator,” “The Quarterback,” and “Hail Mary,” arguing, “Jack Kemp gallantly but ultimately unsuccessfully tried to save the Republican Party from racism, xenophobia, and irrelevance.”