By Nicholas Stix
I have not cut you off. Google (aka Blogger) did that. Only minutes ago, at my dashboard, Google asked if I would like to take a look at the new look in Blogger. I hit the link, but without choosing anything. It appeared to be a scam, to get me to accept Google Chrome, for which I am constantly bombarded with solicitations. I always refuse, because I do not need additional software slowing down a brand-new pc which is unfortunately already slow, nor do I wish to have every bit of information about which sites I’ve visited mined. Google already has enough of my information, thank you very much.
And so, without further adieu, I closed that tab, without hitting anything within it. Then I re-visited this, my primary blog, only to find every bit of sidebar business, including my blogroll, gone. I tried refreshing the page, and hitting the “Compatibility View” button, to no avail.
Pre-script: I just hit on a different strategy: Hitting the title for a specific item. The sidebar stuff did show up, but the first go-round, I had to hit either the “Compatibility View” or “refresh” button, in order to see the “Sociable” and “Followers” sections.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Feminists Manufacture Yet Another Rape Hoax, and Seek to Destroy an Aspiring White Male Comic, and Drive Him to Suicide
By Nicholas Stix
‘Rapist’: “I went to take off her blouse.
‘Victim’: “No, this is going to be quick and dirty.’”
About 8:16 into the monologue.
It’s all Kathy Shaidle’s fault.
Granted, I have to be much more careful about where I go late at night.
I was just minding my own business, passing through Ms. Shaidle’s neighborhood, just after midnight, when what do I come across, but a blog item about a humorless, feminist “comic,” and stupid me, I take the bait.
Just yesterday, when I posted an item on the racist treatment that black Detroit Judge Vanessa Bradley dished out to a white female alleged rape victim, my legman, David in TN asked, rhetorically, “Where are the feminists? … Crickets chirping...............,” and was seconded by longtime reader jeigheff, “Yes, indeed: where ARE the feminists?”
Well, fellows, the feminists are otherwise engaged, lynching yet another heterosexual white man for a non-existent “rape.” Sound familiar?
Almost everyone knows that feminists are humorless bullies, but many people who have managed to insulate themselves from them often forget, I believe, just how unmitigatedly evil feminists so often are.
Here’s the set-up. On August 14, a guy goes to an improvisational comedy festival in New York, the Del Close Marathon. “The Upright Citizens Brigade” (UCB) is performing its “ASSSSCAT 3000” (beats me). UCB started in Chicago, and some of its members are or were performers on Saturday Night Live.
There’s an open mic, and audience members can tell humorous anecdotes, which the UCB comics on the stage use to embellish on or act out. The young man, Eric Angell, apparently an aspiring comic, gets up and tells a story with comical aspects and a deep (for me) undercurrent of melancholy and loneliness. Two people, neither of whom desires the other, end up having sex. One of the people is Angell.
It seems that at the Chicago comedy club where Angell was then a fry cook and sometime host, a “very drunk, older girl” is relentlessly coming on to his work buddy, who doesn’t want to sleep with her, since he already has a girlfriend, but he gives Eric her phone number at the Four Seasons Hotel. (Obviously, she has money, and/or works for a fancy company.)
Eric protests that he has no carfare, but his friends throw in more than enough, and pressure him to go. He calls the woman, but without letting on that he is not the man she desires. He shows up, she tells him he’s not who she expected, and that she’s not letting him in, but walks away, leaving her hotel room door wide open, the first of many mixed signals she sends.
A game of seduction commences.
He enters her room, bides his time, and periodically makes more aggressive moves, all but one of which (her taking off her blouse) are ultimately acceptable to her.
The most important passage is the one I highlighted at the beginning, which occurs at about 8:16 into the story.
Man: “I went to take off her blouse.”
Woman: “No, this is going to be quick and dirty.’”
A series of feminists—Poupak Sepehri, Halle Kiefer, and Irin Carmon—have misrepresented the story, in order to turn it into a confession of “rape.”
Poupak:
Poupak is disappointed that Dominic Strauss Kahn was not railroaded by the criminal justice system, but tells women to keep on trying, with false rape charges. Of course, she doesn’t call them “false.” For her, there is no such thing as a false rape charge by a woman against a (white?) man. Women in America live in a “rape culture.” This, from a wealthy woman of privilege who describes herself as “French-Iranian.”
She then quotes a twitter from the comdy club Second City in Chicago, where the young man was employed:
Splitsider commenter Annapetrock even lied outright, turning Angell’s line at the end, quoting the woman as having texted his friend “I don’t do second-rate” into “second rape.”
There is already a shamelessly propagandistic entry at the libel factory that I call The Pretend Encyclopedia, better known as Wikipedia, about the non-rape.
A sample follows of the first feminist I read on the subject, via Kathy Shaidle.
I tried half a dozen times to post a response, which probably would have been censored, anyway—feminists consider disagreement with them a form of “violence”—but got the same error message every time: “An error occurred with Links. Please try again later.”
I have since concluded that my problem was no accident. I was trying to comment via Facebook. I checked, and determined that not one of the 92 comments came via Facebook, even though many of them appear to be So-und-So@Facebook, or So-und-So@twitter. If you check their code, however, they were all posted via their internal IDs, at Splitsider.
That was in order to rig the comments, and make it look as though virtually everyone agreed with the feminazis.
Anyway, here’s my response:
Halle Kiefer,
You may be a member of any number of “communities,” but the “comedy community” ain’t one of ‘em. Now, take your irony supplement and a laxative, and don’t call me in the morning!
Love,
Nicholas Stix
That was before I started reading the comments, finished Kiefer’s screed, or even saw the monologue.
I read 43 (not counting at least one that had allegedly been “deleted by user,” and one, by “REAL Julian Asange@twitter” (actually: http://splitsider.com/user/2610/229362451twitter), that I couldn’t figure out) before I found one that did not insist that the comic in question was guilty of “rape-rape”; name him and his employer; try to have his life “ruined”; call for him to be taken “off the streets”; and driven to commit suicide.
When someone (“Josh Guerrin”) finally was permitted to take the mob to task, pointing out that the man had not admitted to raping anyone, not only did he get nowhere with them, but the first commenter argued that if a man persists in wooing a woman after she has said once that she’s not interested, that counts as rape, and the next response accused Guerrin of being a rapist.
If that were the case, the human race would have died off about a million years ago.
Now come two attacks on him. (In between, he defends himself, but the point for me is their vicious attacks on him for being the sole honest, decent person on the thread.)
Later, Guerrin responded to a slightly less vicious critic:
The history of feminism circa 1960, is a history of hoaxes, shakedowns, shameless propaganda, shilling of evil racism, and the complete betrayal of women who really are the victims of violence.
What group has been consciously targeting white women for rape, torture and murder for generations? Black men. And which group has devoted itself, by and large to protecting white (and not just white) women? Chivalrous white men.
Feminists are, with rare exceptions, political prostitutes.
No, I take that back. That was unfair to some kindhearted whores I’ve known.
Feminists are the political equivalent of black widow spiders. Everything they have, they got through the chivalry of white heterosexual men. And whom do they exclusively target for destruction? Chivalrous white heterosexual men.
Meanwhile, what group has consciously targeted white women for rape, torture and murder for generations? Black men.
When black men rape white women, in some years 100 times a day, do feminists protest the predation? When blsakc men were msaking a sport of raping white coeds on Duke University’s campus, did feminists bang their posts, and hoist signs saying, “Castrate”? No, they demonstrated against and terrorized instead innocent white men, as they did constantly during the Duke Rape Hoax.
Less than one month into the Duke Hoax, feminists knew, as did the entire world, that the three white lacrosse players were innocent, but the feminists never let up on their campaign to have them railroaded, and never apologized. The players’ innocence wasn’t a flaw in the feminists’ plan, but a feature.
During the William Kennedy Smith rape trial in 1990, Catherine MacKinnon revealed on the New York Times op-ed page that for her, it was preferable if Smith were innocent and were railroaded, because zillions of (white) men needed to be railroaded, in order to make up for every man in history who had ever gotten away with raping a female.
But what about black men, innocent and guilty?
Did feminists protest the 1989 black-Hispanic attack that left white “Central Park Jogger” Trish Meili comatose and clinging to life? In 1990, did they defend Meili against the daily black supremacist theater in which blacks stood on the street, when Meili limped to court to testify, and screamed at her, “Slut!” “Whore!” “The (white) boyfriend did it!” “She did it to herself!”?
In 2002, did feminists rage against the hoax by the New York media and DA Robert Morgenthau, which completely rewrote the crime, in order to rehabilitate all but one of Meili’s attackers?
Of course, not.
Did they protest against what O.J. Simpson did to his ex-wife, or the millions of blacks who supported him? Don’t make me laugh.
In 2000, did they protest the attacks, including manual rape, on predominantly white women by a predominantly black mob in Central Park following the Puerto Rican Day Parade? Instead of protesting against eh attackers, feminists attacked the NYPD, because the majority of the cops on duty were white.
Did feminists rise up over the rape-torture-murder of white Channon Christian in the Knoxville Horror by racist blacks, led by half-brothers Lemaricus Davidson and Letalvis Cobbins? They don’t even know Channon Christian’s name.
What about the rape-torture-attempted murder of a white Columbia University graduate student by black Robert Williams? The rape-murder of Jennifer Moore by Draymond Coleman? The rape-murder of John Jay College student Imette St. Guillen by Daryl Littlejohn?
Note that Moore and St. Guillen were staggering around Manhattan drunk. Instead of venting rage against big black men who actually raped and murdered drunken women, white feminists rage against a skinny white guy who didn’t rape or harm anyone. That’s partly because feminists are terrified of blacks, and have prostituted themselves to blacks on the political level, in order to amass wealth and the power to harm the innocent.
When a black man harms a white female, feminists collectively lie down, spread their legs, and take it. They don’t terrorize men like Eric Angell in spite of their innocence, but because of it. Feminism is evil.
A final note to Mr. Angell: This evil can be fought. Every poster who accused you of rape defamed you, and can be sued for libel.
‘Rapist’: “I went to take off her blouse.
‘Victim’: “No, this is going to be quick and dirty.’”
About 8:16 into the monologue.
It’s all Kathy Shaidle’s fault.
Granted, I have to be much more careful about where I go late at night.
I was just minding my own business, passing through Ms. Shaidle’s neighborhood, just after midnight, when what do I come across, but a blog item about a humorless, feminist “comic,” and stupid me, I take the bait.
Just yesterday, when I posted an item on the racist treatment that black Detroit Judge Vanessa Bradley dished out to a white female alleged rape victim, my legman, David in TN asked, rhetorically, “Where are the feminists? … Crickets chirping...............,” and was seconded by longtime reader jeigheff, “Yes, indeed: where ARE the feminists?”
Well, fellows, the feminists are otherwise engaged, lynching yet another heterosexual white man for a non-existent “rape.” Sound familiar?
Almost everyone knows that feminists are humorless bullies, but many people who have managed to insulate themselves from them often forget, I believe, just how unmitigatedly evil feminists so often are.
Here’s the set-up. On August 14, a guy goes to an improvisational comedy festival in New York, the Del Close Marathon. “The Upright Citizens Brigade” (UCB) is performing its “ASSSSCAT 3000” (beats me). UCB started in Chicago, and some of its members are or were performers on Saturday Night Live.
There’s an open mic, and audience members can tell humorous anecdotes, which the UCB comics on the stage use to embellish on or act out. The young man, Eric Angell, apparently an aspiring comic, gets up and tells a story with comical aspects and a deep (for me) undercurrent of melancholy and loneliness. Two people, neither of whom desires the other, end up having sex. One of the people is Angell.
It seems that at the Chicago comedy club where Angell was then a fry cook and sometime host, a “very drunk, older girl” is relentlessly coming on to his work buddy, who doesn’t want to sleep with her, since he already has a girlfriend, but he gives Eric her phone number at the Four Seasons Hotel. (Obviously, she has money, and/or works for a fancy company.)
Eric protests that he has no carfare, but his friends throw in more than enough, and pressure him to go. He calls the woman, but without letting on that he is not the man she desires. He shows up, she tells him he’s not who she expected, and that she’s not letting him in, but walks away, leaving her hotel room door wide open, the first of many mixed signals she sends.
A game of seduction commences.
He enters her room, bides his time, and periodically makes more aggressive moves, all but one of which (her taking off her blouse) are ultimately acceptable to her.
The most important passage is the one I highlighted at the beginning, which occurs at about 8:16 into the story.
Man: “I went to take off her blouse.”
Woman: “No, this is going to be quick and dirty.’”
A series of feminists—Poupak Sepehri, Halle Kiefer, and Irin Carmon—have misrepresented the story, in order to turn it into a confession of “rape.”
Poupak:
So, if you're a female Second City customer from out of town, you're a little older and a little drunk, and you are interested in one of the waiters, given all the justifications above, it's OK that the cook/host shows up in your hotel room and rapes you.
Poupak is disappointed that Dominic Strauss Kahn was not railroaded by the criminal justice system, but tells women to keep on trying, with false rape charges. Of course, she doesn’t call them “false.” For her, there is no such thing as a false rape charge by a woman against a (white?) man. Women in America live in a “rape culture.” This, from a wealthy woman of privilege who describes herself as “French-Iranian.”
She then quotes a twitter from the comdy club Second City in Chicago, where the young man was employed:
Splitsider commenter Annapetrock even lied outright, turning Angell’s line at the end, quoting the woman as having texted his friend “I don’t do second-rate” into “second rape.”
There is already a shamelessly propagandistic entry at the libel factory that I call The Pretend Encyclopedia, better known as Wikipedia, about the non-rape.
Controversy
During an audience-participation portion of "Asssscat 3000", an improvisational comedy show at the Del Close Marathon held August 14, 2011 in New York by Upright Citizens Brigade, an audience member related a story which could be construed as a confession of rape. [2][3] The video has led to online discussion of whether the audience member's actions, if true, constitute rape and whether the performers should have denounced his actions outright rather than performing improv comedy loosely based on the story.[3]
During his monologue the audience member claimed that, while in Chicago at an unspecified time in the past, he went to the hotel of a drunk woman (allegedly a customer at the Second City Chicago theater where he was interning as a host/cook) under false pretenses, and proceeded to have sexual relations with her under circumstances which might constitute rape. [4][3] Commentators have questioned whether the woman's actions - which allegedly included partially undressing and asking whether the man had a condom - constituted implicit consent to sex, or were rather an attempt to reduce potential violence to herself in a situation in which she thought she was going to be raped regardless of her actions.[2]
Several attendees of the event reported firsthand accounts of the monologue [3][5][6]. Stephanie Streisand, a attendee, wrote "...he was at the DCM after party. He was smiling until one by one people were going up to him to let him know he was a rapist. He left the party early."[5]
A sample follows of the first feminist I read on the subject, via Kathy Shaidle.
Thoughts And Feelings
One Night at Asssscat, or What to Do With a Date Rape Monologue
By Halle Kiefer@ 11:10 am
We’ve been getting a lot of emails this morning about a particular audience monologist that performed at the Assssscat at the Del Close Marathon on Sunday, August 14. In case you don’t know, the Del Close Marathon is the Upright Citizens Brigade’s annual improv fest in New York and Asssscat is the improv show that caps off the weekend. Last night, improviser Poupak Sepehri posted on her Tumblr about the show and in it linked to a video of the monologue, posted by improviser Stephanie Streisand. Having raised his hand and been chosen by the performers on stage to tell a story, the audience member in question begins at about 38 minutes in. If you watch it or saw it in person, the most benign way to describe it is that it’s the story of the monologist coercing a drunk woman into have [sic] sex with him, despite her repeatedly telling him that she did not want to and to leave her hotel room. The more accurate way to describe it, in my opinion, is as the chilling account of pseudo-rape, told by the perpetrator as if it was a funny thing that he saw on the subway.
I was in that audience for the show, and I have lot of THOUGHTS and FEELINGS about what an incident like this means to the comedy community and how it was handled. What this guy did and what, if anything, the woman in the story can do about it is a matter for the authorities. I hope that doesn’t seem like an utter cop-out, though maybe that’s what it is. For the purposes of this article, however, I’m specifically interested in what this story, and the public venue it was told in, means to us as comedians, and comedy-loving people, specifically.
As an audience member, let me just say that his story filled me with a creeping dread….
I tried half a dozen times to post a response, which probably would have been censored, anyway—feminists consider disagreement with them a form of “violence”—but got the same error message every time: “An error occurred with Links. Please try again later.”
I have since concluded that my problem was no accident. I was trying to comment via Facebook. I checked, and determined that not one of the 92 comments came via Facebook, even though many of them appear to be So-und-So@Facebook, or So-und-So@twitter. If you check their code, however, they were all posted via their internal IDs, at Splitsider.
That was in order to rig the comments, and make it look as though virtually everyone agreed with the feminazis.
Anyway, here’s my response:
Halle Kiefer,
You may be a member of any number of “communities,” but the “comedy community” ain’t one of ‘em. Now, take your irony supplement and a laxative, and don’t call me in the morning!
Love,
Nicholas Stix
That was before I started reading the comments, finished Kiefer’s screed, or even saw the monologue.
I read 43 (not counting at least one that had allegedly been “deleted by user,” and one, by “REAL Julian Asange@twitter” (actually: http://splitsider.com/user/2610/229362451twitter), that I couldn’t figure out) before I found one that did not insist that the comic in question was guilty of “rape-rape”; name him and his employer; try to have his life “ruined”; call for him to be taken “off the streets”; and driven to commit suicide.
When someone (“Josh Guerrin”) finally was permitted to take the mob to task, pointing out that the man had not admitted to raping anyone, not only did he get nowhere with them, but the first commenter argued that if a man persists in wooing a woman after she has said once that she’s not interested, that counts as rape, and the next response accused Guerrin of being a rapist.
If that were the case, the human race would have died off about a million years ago.
Josh Guerrin@facebook:
(This is post one)--So this is the first thread I have read about this incident with a few sane rational people. And I would like to address what I think is the underlying problem. Most of the people commenting are basing their comments and deciding the guilt of this guy based on a description of what was said, and that description IS WRONG! My wife and I have watched the video start to finish 4 times now and it does not play out as described in these posts.
She(according to him) never said "No" or "ordered him to leave"(And I understand this is a fine semantic distinction, but an important one), she said ONCE "you really gotta go"(according to him) which people say all the time. He then said "you don't want me to go" and she said "yes I do". They then start to make out(according to him), and she says"you're going to have to go", and from that point on (according to him) she does not say anything in the negative about him being there other than the fact that she clearly isn't into him. The original post has her asking him to leave at every turn. The original poster also mis-remembers quite a few important things;according to her he "pushed her on the bed" and "fingered her violently". Not according to him, which yes, he COULD be lying, but to all you people, he IS lying.
The original poster says in her update that even though the video exist she won't watch it because,"I can almost recite the whole thing by heart and it was disturbing enough the first time)" That seems cruel and irresponsible when what you are doing is publicly convicting someone of rape. I have seen so many comments saying that people should get together and track this guy down and ruin his life.
I've seen multiple people saying he should kill himself or hoping he would.----(this is post 2)Also I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the reason I am posting this at all, is that, my wife(who is a woman) and I watched the video together and at the end both came to the same conclusion-This is a sad story by a socially awkward guy about the time he got pity sex from a woman who set out to have sex at the beginning of the night but had to settle because the guy she wanted didn't show. WE COULD BE WRONG! But it just seems pretty straight forward.
Has no one here ever settled while hoping to have sex? Has no one here ever hoped to have sex? Are we all so suburban as to believe that no woman could ever set out to have sex? Is that an arena only for men?
This story sounds like a guy who was trying to be self-deprecating when recounting this tale by including the fact that she was obvious that he was not her first choice. Does that mean he has poor judgement? Yes. Does it mean he probably will continue to have trouble having sex? Yes. But does it make him a rapist? Far from it. It makes him like all of us-more awkward than not.
But no, I agree, let's push him to suicide. Let's destroy his life. Let's label and deride him to the point of breaking. Because he's not a human being. He's a rapist-trust me the internet told me.
It is ironic that the alleged crime is essentially not treating someone as a human being and instead an object to be used and the majority response is to treat him like he's not human and instead use him as an object to vent your frustrations and anger about other things.----(this is post 3)Seriously? No one is on this thread any more? I swear I'm not trolling or looking for a fight.
This has been eating at me since I saw it the other day. It's all I can think or talk about. Most of you people are looking for this guys head and I need to hear your evidence. How is everyone SO sure he is a rapist that deserves to be destroyed literally and figuratively? How did I get this so wrong? I am asking legitimately. Please someone explain their point of view on how this was a cut and dry admission of full on rape.
Posted on August 28, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Now come two attacks on him. (In between, he defends himself, but the point for me is their vicious attacks on him for being the sole honest, decent person on the thread.)
facebook@twitter
@Josh Guerrin@facebook Oh, she only said ONCE "you really gotta go" and only ONCE said "you're going to have to go" for a grand total of two "get out of my house"s, shit, that changes everything. It's not rape in your eyes until the No count exceeds what, a baker's dozen?
Do you seriously think that if you enter a complete stranger's house and don't leave until you've been fucked, that what happened is fucking "pity sex?"
Posted on August 28, 2011 at 2:25 pm
KidPresentable
@Josh Guerrin@facebook Josh Guerrin if you do not think the story in that video describes a rape there's a stomach-churningly high chance that you yourself have raped someone. Educate yourself about consent before you do it again, for your wife's sake.
Posted on August 29, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Later, Guerrin responded to a slightly less vicious critic:
Josh Guerrin@facebook (http://splitsider.com/user/2737/fb1136391919)
@Julie Gillis@facebook I agree that there is alot to be said for letting the majority(even if it's the internet) decide.
My issue is that until now I had not seen any debate. It was simply, this guys a rapist and we should get him. And I SO didn't see that, that it bothered me when nearly everyone else did. I was on another thread initially(not sure what website) and a girl named optimiss or something, at first said basically what I did-It sounded creepy and awkward and not a story I would share- but not rape. And it ended with so many people telling her(as someone who WAS raped we later found out) that she was pro-rape and just as bad as a rapist; that she said the vitriol coming from people was to much and she was crying and had to leave. And that what has come out of this. It just bothers me. I was bullied and beat up and picked on, grades 1-12(because I was always the shortest kid in school)and what I have seen come out of all this is not people rising up to defend this woman or even people unable to speak for themselves, it's people looking for blood because they are angry hate filled people with a need to vent it anonymously to any perceived wrongdoing. I am not saying there should be no justice and I am definitely not saying that if he did in fact rape her he shouldn't stand trial. But this is mob mentality at it's worse.
This is people breaking into store to steal just because it's easy. People have an issue with rape. Good. They should. But taking your anger at rapists out on this guy because some blogger convicted him in her mind and on her site is just a terrible facet of humanity that seems to be championed on the internet way too much.
Posted on August 29, 2011 at 12:10 pm
The history of feminism circa 1960, is a history of hoaxes, shakedowns, shameless propaganda, shilling of evil racism, and the complete betrayal of women who really are the victims of violence.
What group has been consciously targeting white women for rape, torture and murder for generations? Black men. And which group has devoted itself, by and large to protecting white (and not just white) women? Chivalrous white men.
Feminists are, with rare exceptions, political prostitutes.
No, I take that back. That was unfair to some kindhearted whores I’ve known.
Feminists are the political equivalent of black widow spiders. Everything they have, they got through the chivalry of white heterosexual men. And whom do they exclusively target for destruction? Chivalrous white heterosexual men.
Meanwhile, what group has consciously targeted white women for rape, torture and murder for generations? Black men.
When black men rape white women, in some years 100 times a day, do feminists protest the predation? When blsakc men were msaking a sport of raping white coeds on Duke University’s campus, did feminists bang their posts, and hoist signs saying, “Castrate”? No, they demonstrated against and terrorized instead innocent white men, as they did constantly during the Duke Rape Hoax.
Less than one month into the Duke Hoax, feminists knew, as did the entire world, that the three white lacrosse players were innocent, but the feminists never let up on their campaign to have them railroaded, and never apologized. The players’ innocence wasn’t a flaw in the feminists’ plan, but a feature.
During the William Kennedy Smith rape trial in 1990, Catherine MacKinnon revealed on the New York Times op-ed page that for her, it was preferable if Smith were innocent and were railroaded, because zillions of (white) men needed to be railroaded, in order to make up for every man in history who had ever gotten away with raping a female.
But what about black men, innocent and guilty?
Did feminists protest the 1989 black-Hispanic attack that left white “Central Park Jogger” Trish Meili comatose and clinging to life? In 1990, did they defend Meili against the daily black supremacist theater in which blacks stood on the street, when Meili limped to court to testify, and screamed at her, “Slut!” “Whore!” “The (white) boyfriend did it!” “She did it to herself!”?
In 2002, did feminists rage against the hoax by the New York media and DA Robert Morgenthau, which completely rewrote the crime, in order to rehabilitate all but one of Meili’s attackers?
Of course, not.
Did they protest against what O.J. Simpson did to his ex-wife, or the millions of blacks who supported him? Don’t make me laugh.
In 2000, did they protest the attacks, including manual rape, on predominantly white women by a predominantly black mob in Central Park following the Puerto Rican Day Parade? Instead of protesting against eh attackers, feminists attacked the NYPD, because the majority of the cops on duty were white.
Did feminists rise up over the rape-torture-murder of white Channon Christian in the Knoxville Horror by racist blacks, led by half-brothers Lemaricus Davidson and Letalvis Cobbins? They don’t even know Channon Christian’s name.
What about the rape-torture-attempted murder of a white Columbia University graduate student by black Robert Williams? The rape-murder of Jennifer Moore by Draymond Coleman? The rape-murder of John Jay College student Imette St. Guillen by Daryl Littlejohn?
Note that Moore and St. Guillen were staggering around Manhattan drunk. Instead of venting rage against big black men who actually raped and murdered drunken women, white feminists rage against a skinny white guy who didn’t rape or harm anyone. That’s partly because feminists are terrified of blacks, and have prostituted themselves to blacks on the political level, in order to amass wealth and the power to harm the innocent.
When a black man harms a white female, feminists collectively lie down, spread their legs, and take it. They don’t terrorize men like Eric Angell in spite of their innocence, but because of it. Feminism is evil.
A final note to Mr. Angell: This evil can be fought. Every poster who accused you of rape defamed you, and can be sued for libel.
The Rape of Lady Justice: Patrician DA and the Central Park Jogger Case
By Nicholas Stix
December 16, 2002
Toogood Reports
December 5, 2002 is a date that shall live in infamy. On that day, Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau issued “get-out-of-jail-free” cards to all of New York City’s young black thugs. In response, we can expect even more brazen racial attacks on whites, and an increase in whites leaving the city to protect themselves and their loved ones.
On December 5, Morgenthau submitted a work of legal fiction disguised as a brief, to New York State Supreme Court Judge Charles Tejada, calling for the convictions of Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Yusef Salaam and Kharey Wise in the “Central Park Jogger Case” to be vacated. The brief could as well have been authored by the five men’s black supremacist supporters. (The brief was actually written by assistant district attorney Nancy E. Ryan, but Ryan wrote it in Morgenthau’s name.)
The April 19, 1989 attack was one of the most shocking in the City’s history. Over thirty boys, most of them black (the others were Hispanic), had taken the subway to Central Park, with the sole purpose of assaulting, robbing, and generally terrorizing white New Yorkers. In the park, the boys broke up into three different groups, attacking joggers and cyclists, in addition to the 105-pound investment banker who came to be known as the Central Park Jogger. According to Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Yusuf Salaam and Kharey Wise’s own admissions, they chased down The Jogger, hit her in the head and the ribs with a metal pipe and with rocks, and beat her all over her body with their hands and feet, dragged her 200 feet from the jogging path she’d been on, pulled off her clothes, tied her up with articles of her clothing, and raped her.
The victim was – and still is – known to whites as The Jogger. In New York (and not just New York), it is common journalistic practice to refuse to publish or announce the names of rape victims, unless they voluntarily reveal their identities. The Jogger was known to black, and to a lesser degree, Hispanic New Yorkers, as “Whore!,” “Slut!,” and by her real name, -------- M----. New York’s black newspapers, Harlem’s Amsterdam News and Brooklyn’s (since defunct) City Sun, which did not reveal the names of black or Hispanic rape victims, named the white victim repeatedly in every one of the dozens upon dozens of stories they ran on the case. The newspapers treated the confessed attackers, particularly Yusef Salaam (who did not formally confess but who admitted to hitting the Jogger in the head and ribs with a metal pipe), as a strange combination of victims and heroes. On a live broadcast of the Donahue show, a young black man stood up and smugly announced, “How come everybody knows Tawana Brawley’s name, but no one knows the name of -------- M----, the Central Park Jogger?” (This outrage was edited out of the West Coast version of the show.)
How about, because The Jogger was a rape victim, while Brawley was a fraud and (already at the “tender age” of 15) publicity hound who had not been raped by anyone?
And every time The Jogger appeared at court for the two 1990 trials in her case (the boys were separated into two groups), the boys’ supporters shouted at her, “Whore!,” “Slut!,” and “The boyfriend did it!” The reference to The Jogger’s boyfriend was due to her having had semen in her body from her boyfriend and from one of the rapists (which turned out to be from recently confessed rapist Matias Reyes).
What kind of racial insanity ignores confessions by four defendants and self-incriminating statements by a fifth, and jumps from the knowledge that a woman has her boyfriend’s semen in her, to saying that the boyfriend raped and almost murdered her in a public place? Mind you, this is the same cast of characters that “convinced” Robert Morgenthau to call for vacating the convictions of the five men.
Oddly enough, in 1990, Jerry Nachman, then the news chief at New York’s CBS affiliate, told a print reporter that the point of not revealing The Jogger’s name was so that she could shop at Bloomingdale’s, without the clerk serving her knowing who she was. Oddly, since because many if not most of the clerks at New York’s poshest stores, then as now, were black women, the clerk likely would have known exactly who her customer was.
Every time you hear a black supporter claim the five men were “framed” and were “innocent,” think of the O.J. Simpson case, which the Jogger case predated by five years. In both cases, the word “innocent” didn’t mean that the supporter thought the accused had not committed the act, only that he did not consider it a crime for a black to assault, maim, rape or murder a white. Indeed, black supremacists consider such acts the stuff of heroism. Similarly, the claim that a black male was “framed” for attacking a white, translates as “They have to keep their hands off our men,” no matter what havoc those men have wreaked. Much of black supremacist literature by such lights as Frances Cress Welsing and Amos N. Wilson, consists of rationalizations for black genocide against whites.
The most prominent of the black supremacists leading the charge for the Central Park defendants is New York City Councilman Bill Perkins. In 1989, Perkins, then a tenant organizer, told every journalist who would listen – and they all listened – that the crimes in Central Park had nothing at all to do with race. To show how little Perkins’ racism has hurt him politically, he is the New York City Council’s deputy majority leader. White socialist politicians inexplicably consider black supremacists leftists.
Black supremacism penetrates all the way to the defendants’ defense team. One of the defense lawyers, Roger Wareham, is a member of the supremacist “December 12th Movement.” (One of the founders of the December 12th movement is Brooklyn gangster Sonny Carson, a convicted kidnapper who has fought – largely successfully – since the 1960s, to run all white teachers out of predominantly black public schools, and who during the 1980s and early 1990s, sought to run all Korean produce markets out of black Brooklyn neighborhoods. A few years ago, Carson called on New York blacks to assassinate white police officers.)
The New York media refused to report on the racial nature of the crimes, or the black media campaign vilifying the victim, and barely reported on the viciousness of the five boys’ supporters and relatives. (A family member of Kevin Richardson harassed and made terrorist threats against lead prosecutor Elizabeth Lederer on the street, and assaulted journalists, yet got off scot-free.)
The first time around, in 1989, we learned that when the boys were initially arrested, they were joking and laughing and singing and flirting with female officers while in custody. Some boys even “confessed” to having murdered the Jogger, not knowing she had survived. (The woman lay in a coma for 12 days, as New Yorkers prayed for her survival, with Morgenthau’s prosecutors initially expecting to pursue a murder prosecution.)
In recent months, the New York media, with the exception of the New York Post, jumped on the black supremacist bandwagon working for the convictions to be overturned. Once Morgenthau announced his decision, the local media immediately pronounced the five men “cleared,” and spoke of “the wrong men” having been convicted, ignoring the fact that the vacating of a conviction does not mean that the originally convicted person is innocent. A New York Newsday headline read, “Long Time Coming.” The five are already being feted by many – but not all – local blacks as hero/victims, and will soon seek to score multimillion-dollar lawsuits against the City, i.e., the predominantly white tax base.
Although Judge Charles Tejada was to officially rule on Robert Morgenthau’s brief on February 6, that is apparently a mere formality, and the judge will not even wait that long. Days after receiving the Morgenthau “brief,” the judge moved up the date to January 6, and then intimated that he would rule within days. The decision will probably have been announced by the time you read this.
With certain notable exceptions, like Carthage and Pompeii, cities don’t usually die. But they can flourish, and they can wither. New York has been withering for fifty years. Some people have said that the two-term mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani (1994-2001) restored New York’s bloom, but what Giuliani really did – along with a number of other pragmatic, big city mayors at the time – was engage in masterful impression management. He may have reduced crime and welfare somewhat – no one really knows – but he largely ran a massive shell game with both. In any event, between the 9/11-induced municipal recession and the 12/5-induced depression, anything Giuliani achieved has been washed away, like a sand castle at high tide.
Many people have said that 9/11 was the worst day in New York City’s history, and until now, I agreed with them. But led by a crisis-oriented mayor enjoying his finest hour, enough of the city responded heroically, to carry the rest and find redemption in disaster. But on 12/5, New York was attacked yet again, only this attack was carried out by one of its elected leaders, Robert Morgenthau. Mohammed Atta and his Al Qaeda compatriots were the enemy without; Morgenthau (but not just Morgenthau) is the enemy within. They attacked with guile and airliners; he attacked with treachery and “the law.”
The lesson in the ultimate disposition of the Central Park Jogger Case, is that crime pays. Black crime, at least.
December 16, 2002
Toogood Reports
December 5, 2002 is a date that shall live in infamy. On that day, Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau issued “get-out-of-jail-free” cards to all of New York City’s young black thugs. In response, we can expect even more brazen racial attacks on whites, and an increase in whites leaving the city to protect themselves and their loved ones.
On December 5, Morgenthau submitted a work of legal fiction disguised as a brief, to New York State Supreme Court Judge Charles Tejada, calling for the convictions of Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Yusef Salaam and Kharey Wise in the “Central Park Jogger Case” to be vacated. The brief could as well have been authored by the five men’s black supremacist supporters. (The brief was actually written by assistant district attorney Nancy E. Ryan, but Ryan wrote it in Morgenthau’s name.)
The April 19, 1989 attack was one of the most shocking in the City’s history. Over thirty boys, most of them black (the others were Hispanic), had taken the subway to Central Park, with the sole purpose of assaulting, robbing, and generally terrorizing white New Yorkers. In the park, the boys broke up into three different groups, attacking joggers and cyclists, in addition to the 105-pound investment banker who came to be known as the Central Park Jogger. According to Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Yusuf Salaam and Kharey Wise’s own admissions, they chased down The Jogger, hit her in the head and the ribs with a metal pipe and with rocks, and beat her all over her body with their hands and feet, dragged her 200 feet from the jogging path she’d been on, pulled off her clothes, tied her up with articles of her clothing, and raped her.
The victim was – and still is – known to whites as The Jogger. In New York (and not just New York), it is common journalistic practice to refuse to publish or announce the names of rape victims, unless they voluntarily reveal their identities. The Jogger was known to black, and to a lesser degree, Hispanic New Yorkers, as “Whore!,” “Slut!,” and by her real name, -------- M----. New York’s black newspapers, Harlem’s Amsterdam News and Brooklyn’s (since defunct) City Sun, which did not reveal the names of black or Hispanic rape victims, named the white victim repeatedly in every one of the dozens upon dozens of stories they ran on the case. The newspapers treated the confessed attackers, particularly Yusef Salaam (who did not formally confess but who admitted to hitting the Jogger in the head and ribs with a metal pipe), as a strange combination of victims and heroes. On a live broadcast of the Donahue show, a young black man stood up and smugly announced, “How come everybody knows Tawana Brawley’s name, but no one knows the name of -------- M----, the Central Park Jogger?” (This outrage was edited out of the West Coast version of the show.)
How about, because The Jogger was a rape victim, while Brawley was a fraud and (already at the “tender age” of 15) publicity hound who had not been raped by anyone?
And every time The Jogger appeared at court for the two 1990 trials in her case (the boys were separated into two groups), the boys’ supporters shouted at her, “Whore!,” “Slut!,” and “The boyfriend did it!” The reference to The Jogger’s boyfriend was due to her having had semen in her body from her boyfriend and from one of the rapists (which turned out to be from recently confessed rapist Matias Reyes).
What kind of racial insanity ignores confessions by four defendants and self-incriminating statements by a fifth, and jumps from the knowledge that a woman has her boyfriend’s semen in her, to saying that the boyfriend raped and almost murdered her in a public place? Mind you, this is the same cast of characters that “convinced” Robert Morgenthau to call for vacating the convictions of the five men.
Oddly enough, in 1990, Jerry Nachman, then the news chief at New York’s CBS affiliate, told a print reporter that the point of not revealing The Jogger’s name was so that she could shop at Bloomingdale’s, without the clerk serving her knowing who she was. Oddly, since because many if not most of the clerks at New York’s poshest stores, then as now, were black women, the clerk likely would have known exactly who her customer was.
Every time you hear a black supporter claim the five men were “framed” and were “innocent,” think of the O.J. Simpson case, which the Jogger case predated by five years. In both cases, the word “innocent” didn’t mean that the supporter thought the accused had not committed the act, only that he did not consider it a crime for a black to assault, maim, rape or murder a white. Indeed, black supremacists consider such acts the stuff of heroism. Similarly, the claim that a black male was “framed” for attacking a white, translates as “They have to keep their hands off our men,” no matter what havoc those men have wreaked. Much of black supremacist literature by such lights as Frances Cress Welsing and Amos N. Wilson, consists of rationalizations for black genocide against whites.
The most prominent of the black supremacists leading the charge for the Central Park defendants is New York City Councilman Bill Perkins. In 1989, Perkins, then a tenant organizer, told every journalist who would listen – and they all listened – that the crimes in Central Park had nothing at all to do with race. To show how little Perkins’ racism has hurt him politically, he is the New York City Council’s deputy majority leader. White socialist politicians inexplicably consider black supremacists leftists.
Black supremacism penetrates all the way to the defendants’ defense team. One of the defense lawyers, Roger Wareham, is a member of the supremacist “December 12th Movement.” (One of the founders of the December 12th movement is Brooklyn gangster Sonny Carson, a convicted kidnapper who has fought – largely successfully – since the 1960s, to run all white teachers out of predominantly black public schools, and who during the 1980s and early 1990s, sought to run all Korean produce markets out of black Brooklyn neighborhoods. A few years ago, Carson called on New York blacks to assassinate white police officers.)
The New York media refused to report on the racial nature of the crimes, or the black media campaign vilifying the victim, and barely reported on the viciousness of the five boys’ supporters and relatives. (A family member of Kevin Richardson harassed and made terrorist threats against lead prosecutor Elizabeth Lederer on the street, and assaulted journalists, yet got off scot-free.)
The first time around, in 1989, we learned that when the boys were initially arrested, they were joking and laughing and singing and flirting with female officers while in custody. Some boys even “confessed” to having murdered the Jogger, not knowing she had survived. (The woman lay in a coma for 12 days, as New Yorkers prayed for her survival, with Morgenthau’s prosecutors initially expecting to pursue a murder prosecution.)
In recent months, the New York media, with the exception of the New York Post, jumped on the black supremacist bandwagon working for the convictions to be overturned. Once Morgenthau announced his decision, the local media immediately pronounced the five men “cleared,” and spoke of “the wrong men” having been convicted, ignoring the fact that the vacating of a conviction does not mean that the originally convicted person is innocent. A New York Newsday headline read, “Long Time Coming.” The five are already being feted by many – but not all – local blacks as hero/victims, and will soon seek to score multimillion-dollar lawsuits against the City, i.e., the predominantly white tax base.
Although Judge Charles Tejada was to officially rule on Robert Morgenthau’s brief on February 6, that is apparently a mere formality, and the judge will not even wait that long. Days after receiving the Morgenthau “brief,” the judge moved up the date to January 6, and then intimated that he would rule within days. The decision will probably have been announced by the time you read this.
With certain notable exceptions, like Carthage and Pompeii, cities don’t usually die. But they can flourish, and they can wither. New York has been withering for fifty years. Some people have said that the two-term mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani (1994-2001) restored New York’s bloom, but what Giuliani really did – along with a number of other pragmatic, big city mayors at the time – was engage in masterful impression management. He may have reduced crime and welfare somewhat – no one really knows – but he largely ran a massive shell game with both. In any event, between the 9/11-induced municipal recession and the 12/5-induced depression, anything Giuliani achieved has been washed away, like a sand castle at high tide.
Many people have said that 9/11 was the worst day in New York City’s history, and until now, I agreed with them. But led by a crisis-oriented mayor enjoying his finest hour, enough of the city responded heroically, to carry the rest and find redemption in disaster. But on 12/5, New York was attacked yet again, only this attack was carried out by one of its elected leaders, Robert Morgenthau. Mohammed Atta and his Al Qaeda compatriots were the enemy without; Morgenthau (but not just Morgenthau) is the enemy within. They attacked with guile and airliners; he attacked with treachery and “the law.”
The lesson in the ultimate disposition of the Central Park Jogger Case, is that crime pays. Black crime, at least.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
The New White Racism Strikes in a Chickasha, Oklahoma, Trailer Park
No, not that kind of racism. The New White Racism consists of whites who harm other whites because the latter are white. The offender may do this, in order to endear himself to blacks, or to endear himself other anti-white whites. In the extant case, the attackers’ “explanation” may be no more than a cover story they manufactured, in order to try and get away with crimes to which they have publicly confessed.
Nicholas Stix
Teen Admits Attacking Couple To Teach 'Racists A Lesson'
Posted: August 25, 2011 11:22 PM EDT. Updated: August 27, 2011, 8:22 A.M. EDT.
Havonnah Johnson, News 9
CHICKASHA, Oklahoma -- Teenagers admit to attacking a Chickasha couple, bragging about it on Facebook and then say they did it to teach racists a lesson.
According to the police report of the beating incident, authorities are looking for two suspects.
A third girl who identified herself as Haylee "Ride or Die" Marie on Facebook admits she is a "gangster" and enjoyed issuing the beat down. The 18-year-old admitted to a friend in an on-line post: "Bobby call me. I gotta tell you a story. I just beat this due's a** and hit a b***h. I got my second assault and battery charge tonight."
Haylee Sweeden doesn't deny the attack or the post but said she was defending her friends' honor.
"I have family that is black so that offends me," Sweeden said. She insisted that the Mrs. Cooper threw the first punch.
According to the Coopers, police haven't made any arrests, despite the admissions from several teens.
"I'm pissed off. I feel that they are sending a message that this is OK. (The teens) sent a message that they are gonna come and finish the job and therefore they are threatening my life," Cooper said.
The couple believes some of the teens attend school with their daughter.
Police said even though the admission is in black and white on Facebook, since police didn't witness the attack, the district attorney must formally charge the group before arrests can be made.
"Is that information that can be used in court? I think it is," said Elip Moore of the Chickasha Police Department.
Sweeden's mom said she does not condone the violence, but wanted her daughter to be heard.
There is no word on when or if charges will be filed.
Justice, Detroit-Style: Is Black Judge Vanessa Bradley a Racist? Do Cows Fart?
Thanks to GCrowdy.
I understand that one may not cuss in open court, but if a black woman alleging that she had been brutally beaten and gang-raped were being run through the mill by the defense attorney for a white man accused of the crime, and blurted out “Get to the point, bitch!,” would the good judge have immediately sentenced the woman to three days in jail in a cell right next to the alleged rapist, rather than warning the alleged victim that any further profanity would result in her being jailed for contempt? Of course, not. She would have first warned her, and she would never have had her incarcerated where the alleged rapist could harass and threaten her. Heck, since when does one jail a woman for three days next to any man?
And don’t tell me the judge had nothing to do with what cell the woman was confined to. That jurist must be removed from the bench, post haste, and disbarred.
But will that happen? She will much more likely get awards from the NAACP and the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama,” not in spite of what she did to this white woman, but because of it.
Regarding the Fox News story’s title, I look forward to hearing of black rape accusers being referred to as “alleged rape victims.” So far, I do not recall them ever being referred to as anything but “victims,” plain and simple.
After Jail Time for Contempt, Alleged Rape Victim Returns to Testify
Updated: Monday, 18 Jul 2011, 6:42 AM EDT
Published : Friday, 15 Jul 2011, 10:37 PM EDT
Taryn Asher, Fox 2 News
myFOXdetroit.com - It's already extremely hard for rape victims to come to court and testify. This alleged rape victim says the only reason she came back was to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else.
This woman found the courage to come back to court and testify against one of the men who she says beat her with everything from a chair, to a two-by-four and raped her repeatedly before she found a way to escape from this Strasberg Street in Detroit.
That nightmare only continued at a Wednesday hearing , when she claims defense attorney Gabi Silver kept badgering her on the stand insinuating that she brought this attack on herself, causing this victim to snap in court.
"I said just get to the point bitch, it slipped out, it was inappropriate... all the bottled anger" says the alleged victim.
Without a warning, she says 36th District Judge Vanessa Bradley held her in contempt and ordered her to spend three days in jail.
After our story aired Wednesday, exposing what happened - the judge seemed to have a change of heart and released her a day early.
But to make matters even worse, she says her time in a holding cell was spent right next door to her alleged attacker who she says threatened her life, claiming the suspect who is still on the loose will come back and kill her. An investigation into this matter is underway.
In the end, the judge bound suspect Curtis King over for trial. The alleged victim says she's one step closer to justice, but she hopes no other rape victim will have to go through what she did to get it.
Monday, August 29, 2011
What is Wrong with This CBS L.A. “News” Story? “LA County Sheriff’s Explorer, 19, Gunned Down In A Hail Of Bullets In Whittier Double Homicide”
August 28, 2011 9:20 PM
WHITTIER (CBS) — Cesar Rodriguez, 19, a volunteer with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Explorer program was gunned down, along with a friend, Sunday morning in Whittier in a drive-by shooting.
Sgt. Mike Mendoza said Rodriguez was “very well liked” and had been a volunteer for four years.
The motive of the double homicide remains unclear.
Detectives are at a loss to explain why Rodriguez might have been a target. The same goes for his family.
KCAL9′s Rita Garcia sat with his loved ones Sunday and they tried to make sense of a tragedy that makes absolutely no sense…to anyone. She talked to his grieving mother, father, brothers.
Rodriguez never got in any trouble. Worked his way up the ranks of the Explorer program…excelled to become an elite member of the group’s color guard.
At 19, he was nearing the mandatory age of 20 to apply to become a deputy. And those that knew Rodriguez said he would have been down there to complete his application process on the very day he turned…
To anyone who would listen, his dream was to become a deputy.
He simply might have been at the wrong place at the wrong time. Rodriguez and a friend were standing in front of a residence in the 11800 block of Painter Avenue, about 3 a.m., when a gray Scion rolled up. Witnesses said the driver pulled out a handgun and fired several shots, killing Rodriquez and his friend.
Neither man lived in the home and deputies can’t say why they were there or even if the person who lived in the home was the actual target.
All they know is that a young man who dreamed of being one of them, had those dreams dashed by a gun.
Late Sunday, the Coroner’s Office identified the second shooting victim as Larry Villegas, 24, of Whittier.
[Thanks to reader-researcher RC for this catch.]
Sunday, August 28, 2011
This is a Sanctuary Blog!
You see that darling, winsome looking deer above? That is the reincarnation of Virginia Dare. She came to me for sanctuary, after she had been chased out of the territory that she had inhabited since time immemorial, or least Christmas 1999, here.
Have no fear, Virginia. I will protect you from those who have chased you away, until they come to their senses, and welcome you back—if you’ll have them.
Signed,
Nicholas Stix
VDARE dissident contributor
Why We Chose to Ride Out Hurricane Irene at Home, in a Mandatory Evacuation Area
[Postscript, 9/2/12: Tonight, Peter Brimelow just published my VDARE Katrina update, “Revising Katrina for the Age of Obama.”]
By Nicholas Stix
1. We couldn’t get a hotel room anywhere nearby;
2. We didn’t want to spend two or three sleepless nights in a city shelter dominated by black racist cut-throats;
3. We didn’t want to risk running into said cut-throats while traveling to and from said shelter;
4. We had no intention of permitting said cut-throats to loot our home, while we were away; and
5. Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s one-size-fits all warnings were inaccurate, regarding our particular street, and he has a credibility problem, to begin with.
The only nearby “evacuation point”—there was no list Friday morning that said “shelters,” and it looks like both terms are being used interchangeably—was at Aqueduct Raceway, which would be dominated by racist black cut-throats from Far Rockaway. That would mean two or three sleepless nights, danger going to the bathroom, danger guarding our stuff while the others go to the bathroom, and the black children running around, whose parents teach them to attack, steal from, etc. whites and Asians of all ages. (I lived in Far Rockaway for over three years, and experienced this repeatedly, and not just from so-called “underclass” children.) And while traveling to and from the shelter via public transportation, we would also be surrounded by racist black cut-throats. The MSM are not going to report on problems that whites or Asians experience with said cut-throats, and the NYPD is worthless.
On Thursday and early Friday, The Boss insisted on going to the shelter, but I worked on her Friday.
Neighbors, and even total strangers we ran into all said the same thing: The shelter would be like New Orleans’ Super Dome and Convention Center, following Hurricane Katrina.
I had earlier sought to get us a hotel room for Saturday and Sunday nights, but everywhere accessible and $200 per night or less had already filled up, hours before Mayor Bloomberg even made his evac announcement for our area, which is in “Zone B,” at about 5 p.m. Friday. Prior to that, our area was not a mandatory evac area.
On Friday night, we taped our windows and back door with duct tape on the outside (and with masking tape on the inside on Saturday night), then covered them with heavy plastic that we put up with more duct tape. By 9:15 Saturday, the plastic covering the back door had already come down, but the piece covering our bedroom windows was still holding up, as of 5 a.m. today.
The local hardware store had already run out of sandbags on Thursday, so I bought 20 “contractor’s bags” (big, heavy-duty plastic bags), in order to make my own. Late Thursday night, I started making sand runs with contractor bags, and when they proved inadequate, a large plastic bucket, using a creaky, rusted old shopping cart that had been out back, unused, for seven years. (By Friday, other neighbors were doing likewise.)
In the middle of the night, my gallant, 11-year-old son insisted on bodyguarding me with his martial arts sticks, while I carried a wooden club, though half the time I’d forget it, after dumping a bucket of sand at our place.
As much as I worry about protecting him, my boy worries even more about protecting me.
Friday night, The Boss insisted on helping and protecting me.
You’d never know that I’d been fighting off would-be muggers long before either the Boss or The Boss’s Boss was in my life.
We have about a ton-and-a-half of sandbags stacked up in the back.
I was going to make some more sand runs Saturday—I was aiming for three tons, not only as a barrier against flooding, but in order to discourage looters—but after sleeping little for days, I crashed Saturday, and instead of the rains starting at 7, as predicted, they began at 3:30 p.m.
We have over six gallons of spring water for drinking, The Boss filled a bunch of pots with water for washing dishes, and I’m going to fill the bathtub before going to bed, in case we need water to flush the toilet.
Tonight, I baked nine Idaho russets. If the power gets shut off, or the lines go down, they’ll stay cool in the freezer for a couple days, and baked potatoes even taste good cold.
In terms of what we can eat without power, we have a few pounds of breakfast cereal, some canned goods (e.g., baked beans), three pounds of cheese, half a loaf of bread, a half-dozen yogurts, and about three-and-a-half pounds of pork loin that I baked and froze Wednesday night. If the power goes out today, the pork loin’ll slowly defrost in the freezer, and we can eat it either later Sunday or Monday. And The Boss secretly bought some junk food Saturday morning.
When I went shopping for Irene on Thursday night, I knew that we had a 10-12 day supply of meat in the freezer, and that if the power went, we’d lose it all. But I couldn’t help myself. How do you go to a supermarket, and not buy meat? So, I ended up with 18 pounds of chicken, beef, pork and salmon. If we lose power, that’s $70 we’re out, but it still beats the hell out of the hundreds of dollars a hotel stay would have set us back, what a shelter stay might have entailed, and the nightmare of trying to get home with limited mass transit, at best, on Monday.
I had already calculated that, due to the lay of our place, it would take a tidal wave for us to get flooded with sea water in the back. Ocean water would tunnel down the street in front, where we've got more security and height, while our back door/patio is blocked by a massive apartment building. And last (Friday) night, while The Boss and I were making a sand run, a neighbor told me that our street is one of the highest in the area, ergo, that the massive flooding that is a realistic possibility in other neighborhoods, is highly unlikely here.
Of course, when Mayor Bloomberg ordered everyone in our area to evacuate, he didn’t distinguish between those neighborhoods at the highest risk of flooding, and those that weren’t.
His credibility is shot here, anyway. He screwed us on snow removal last winter, he’s lied about crime for as long as he’s been in office, he ripped off my family and many neighbors for $2,300 on a water bill scam, and his police and Parks Department employees have a history of harassing people in our neighborhood in ways they would never dare pull in black or Hispanic neighborhoods. Like how? Like having the overwhelmingly black, racist “brownies” constantly blitzing us with parking tickets, including illegal ones, while themselves showing contempt for traffic laws. Like permitting blacks, Hispanics, and Manhattan socialists to illegally drink and barbecue in city parks, but not only writing out illegal tickets to neighbors enjoying the beach in the evening, but once a racist black Parks employee had a neighbor arrested for drinking beer on the beach during a fundraising party for victims of 911.
On Saturday at 5 p.m., on a call-in show on NY1, the Time-Warner “all-news” channel, a viewer from lower Manhattan called in to say that a Parks police officer threatened him in Battery Park at 2 p.m., even though the evacuation deadline was three hours away. My son responded, “A parks policeman being bad?” dripping with enough sarcasm to make an old-time copper proud.
About 10 years ago, social democratic historian Fred Siegel called NY1 the “All-Sharpton News Network.” Six or seven years ago, it became the “Same-Sex Marriage Network.”
Tonight, it ran the same story at least twice, and even re-ran it within itself.
A news reader was doing a story on a public school in Ozone Park (near Aqueduct), Queens, that had been converted into a shelter. It showed a clip of a couple of black men in their twenties going separately into the school. Then it showed a second clip of a couple of people at the school’s doorway, including a bosomy little redhead or strawberry blonde in her twenties.
Then they showed separate interviews with a couple of whites in their late 50s or early 60s. One, a lady of about 60, was friendly to the reporter, but said that it was extremely hot and humid inside the school, with only some fans running, and that some old folks had had to be rescued for heat stroke. She also mentioned that kids were running around inside. The other white interviewee was a man in his mid-to-late 50s who was more positive than the lady, but who had such a strange way of speaking that I can’t recall anything he said, and I didn’t take notes or tape him.
The point of the clip of the little redhead, and the interviews with the two older whites was to show that some white people were at the shelter. In reality, I doubt that more than 10 percent of he people seeking refuge there were white.
Then NY1 re-ran, within the same piece, the original two clips of people entering the school!
Angry MSM personalities invented the myth of the 24/7 cable news cycle. It’s more like 24/7 news re-cycling.
NYPD squad cars drove on our street Friday night, ordering us to evacuate, and the Fire Department paid a visit Saturday morning, at 11 a.m. We’d smelled a gas leak, but couldn’t figure out where it was coming from. It runed out it was the lady next door.
When the firemen showed up in the morning, I stayed inside, afraid that they’d order us out. The Boss called me a big chicken. Whatever.
Once I saw neighbors outside fraternizing with the firemen, I shaved quickly, and went outside to get the all-clear. There any danger? The fully geared-up fireeater responded, “The only danger is the shaving cream in your ear.”
The Boss was surfing channels, and one station was interviewing State Assemblyman Harvey Eisenberg, in my hometown of Long Beach, which is physically laid out very similarly to where we now reside. Eisenberg said it was essential that everyone evacuate Long Beach, and that he was only staying behind, due to being an elected official. The reporter also identified the 77-year-old Eisenberg as “a lifeguard.”
A lifeguard? Maybe 60 years ago.
Eisenberg also asserted that when in the face of a hurricane, you have to evacuate either 2-3 or 3-4 days in advance. (I’m not sure which, but it was at least 2-3 days.)
Eisenberg’s claim left The Boss as underwhelmed as it did yours truly.
First of all, the evac orders were only issued at most two days before the storm was expected to hit.
Second of all, unless Long Beach has radically changed since I lived there are no houses within 1000-1500 feet of the ocean. (The shore line is uneven, so the distances differ, from block to block.) There are few hundred feet of beach between the water and the boardwalk, abutting which are some apartment buildings and hotels. One block up is Shore Road, which has only high-rise apartment buildings. Another block up is Broadway, also with only apartment buildings, and where I lived from the age of six until 18. One more block up is Penn Street, where you finally hit private houses.
For homeowners to follow the Assemblyman’s advice would be a great help to looters, but not so great for homeowners.
Speaking of which, in a feature on “Hurricane Irene New York: Top 5 Dangers of a Hurricane in the City,” International Business Times failed to list looting and violence.
Many of our neighbors are also staying. As one said, “I’m not going crazy.” This is also as a precaution against looters. The guy I just cited is an Italian electrician and retired garbage man of about 50, who still looks plenty formidable. He has massive shoulders, big arms, and only a small paunch of recent vintage. I’m sure he has at least a shotgun handy. He told me to let him know, if I need help, and he meant it.
On Saturday, Gov. Junior Cuomo called up 1,900 National Guardsmen, “to help with the clean-up,” but as The Boss said, “What they gonna clean up?” They’re coming to deal with looters. Cuomo doesn’t want a New Orleans-type situation on his watch.
Doesn’t he know that New Orleans never happened? Three weeks after reporting on the savagery, back in 2005, the media unreported it all.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
The Most Retarded Video You’re Likely to See Today
“Not Acceptable R-word PSA”
This was made by a group that calls itself, “Spread the Word to End the Word.” If we take them at their word, then we should all run around calling blacks “niggers” (the way they speak to each other), Hispanics “spics,” homosexuals “fags,” Jews “kikes,” and the retarded “retards” (the way they speak to each other).
What a bunch of niggers, spics, fags, kikes and retards!
The problem with these vidiots is that:
1. They’re totalitarian creeps;
1a. (Because it’s a part of (1)) Although one of their favorite clichés is, “Isn’t it ironic,” they never take their irony supplement;
1b. They take something that is a matter of obvious manners—not crudely insulting people for no good reason—and take the manners out of it. Now, if we show good manners, it is because we are their slaves;
1c. They invent an imaginary problem—evil, heterosexual whites, who are running around shouting these words at the poor “victim” groups, in order to oppress the first group, and thereby expand their power; and
1d. The group least likely to be running around shouting these insults at people are heterosexual whites.
Will the “Gray-Haired Brigade” Come to the Rescue of Black Lynch Mob-Besieged America?
By Ken, circa 8 p.m., August 19, 2011.
[I found this at a story by Reuters’ Kevin Murphy at Yahoo News about the shooting in KCMO, but Yahoo does not place links to each comment, or I’d link to it, so you could go there and vote for it.]
We have worked hard, raised our children, worshiped our God and grown old together. Yes, we are the ones some refer to as being over the hill and that is probably true. But before writing us off completely, there are a few things that need to be taken into consideration. In school we studied English, history, math, and science which enabled us to lead America into the technological age.
Most of us remember what outhouses were, many of us with firsthand experience. We remember the days of telephone party lines, 25 cent gasoline, and milk and ice being delivered to our homes. For those of you who don’t know what an icebox is, today they are electric and referred to as refrigerators. A few even remember when cars were started with a crank. Yes, we lived those days.
We are probably considered old fashioned and out-dated by many. But there are a few things you need to remember before completely writing us off. We won World War II and fought in Korea and VietNam. We can quote the pledge of allegiance, and know where to place our hand while doing so. We wore the uniform of our country with pride and lost many friends on the battlefield. We didn’t fight for the Socialist States of America, we fought for the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.” We wore different uniforms but carried the same flag. We know the words to the “Star Spangled Banner,” “America,” and “America the Beautiful” by heart, and you may even see some tears running down our cheeks as we sing. We have lived what many of you have only read about in history books and we feel no obligation to apologize to anyone for America.
Yes, we are old and slow these days but rest assured, we have at least one good fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and died for it, and now we are going to save it. It is our country and nobody is going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is an oath we plan to keep.
There are those who want to destroy this land we love but, like our founders, there is no way we are going to remain silent.
It was the young people of this nation who elected Obama and the Democrat Congress. You fell for the “hope and change” which in reality was nothing but “hype and lies.” You have tasted Socialism and seen evil face to face, and have found you don’t like it after all.
You make a lot of noise but most are all too interested in their careers or “climbing the social ladder” to be involved in such mundane things as patriotism and voting.
Many of those who fell for the “great lie” in 2008 are now having buyer’s remorse. With all the education we gave you, you didn’t have sense enough to see through the lies and instead drank the kool-aid. Now you’re paying the price and complaining about it.
No jobs, lost mortgages, higher taxes, and less freedom. This is what you voted for and this is what you got. We entrusted you with the ‘Torch of Liberty’ and you traded it for a paycheck and a fancy house. Well, don’t worry youngsters, the Gray-Haired Brigade is here, and on ELECTION DAY we are going to take back our nation.
We may drive a little slower than you would like but we get where we’re going, and in November we’re going to the polls by the millions. This land does not belong to the liar in the White House or to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It belongs to “We the People”, and “We the People” plan to reclaim our land and our freedom.
We hope this time you will do a better job of preserving it and passing it along to our grandchildren.
So the next time you have the chance to say the Pledge of Allegiance, stand up, put your hand over your heart, honor our country, and thank God for the old geezers of the “Gray-Haired Brigade.”
[I found this at a story by Reuters’ Kevin Murphy at Yahoo News about the shooting in KCMO, but Yahoo does not place links to each comment, or I’d link to it, so you could go there and vote for it.]
We have worked hard, raised our children, worshiped our God and grown old together. Yes, we are the ones some refer to as being over the hill and that is probably true. But before writing us off completely, there are a few things that need to be taken into consideration. In school we studied English, history, math, and science which enabled us to lead America into the technological age.
Most of us remember what outhouses were, many of us with firsthand experience. We remember the days of telephone party lines, 25 cent gasoline, and milk and ice being delivered to our homes. For those of you who don’t know what an icebox is, today they are electric and referred to as refrigerators. A few even remember when cars were started with a crank. Yes, we lived those days.
We are probably considered old fashioned and out-dated by many. But there are a few things you need to remember before completely writing us off. We won World War II and fought in Korea and VietNam. We can quote the pledge of allegiance, and know where to place our hand while doing so. We wore the uniform of our country with pride and lost many friends on the battlefield. We didn’t fight for the Socialist States of America, we fought for the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.” We wore different uniforms but carried the same flag. We know the words to the “Star Spangled Banner,” “America,” and “America the Beautiful” by heart, and you may even see some tears running down our cheeks as we sing. We have lived what many of you have only read about in history books and we feel no obligation to apologize to anyone for America.
Yes, we are old and slow these days but rest assured, we have at least one good fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and died for it, and now we are going to save it. It is our country and nobody is going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is an oath we plan to keep.
There are those who want to destroy this land we love but, like our founders, there is no way we are going to remain silent.
It was the young people of this nation who elected Obama and the Democrat Congress. You fell for the “hope and change” which in reality was nothing but “hype and lies.” You have tasted Socialism and seen evil face to face, and have found you don’t like it after all.
You make a lot of noise but most are all too interested in their careers or “climbing the social ladder” to be involved in such mundane things as patriotism and voting.
Many of those who fell for the “great lie” in 2008 are now having buyer’s remorse. With all the education we gave you, you didn’t have sense enough to see through the lies and instead drank the kool-aid. Now you’re paying the price and complaining about it.
No jobs, lost mortgages, higher taxes, and less freedom. This is what you voted for and this is what you got. We entrusted you with the ‘Torch of Liberty’ and you traded it for a paycheck and a fancy house. Well, don’t worry youngsters, the Gray-Haired Brigade is here, and on ELECTION DAY we are going to take back our nation.
We may drive a little slower than you would like but we get where we’re going, and in November we’re going to the polls by the millions. This land does not belong to the liar in the White House or to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It belongs to “We the People”, and “We the People” plan to reclaim our land and our freedom.
We hope this time you will do a better job of preserving it and passing it along to our grandchildren.
So the next time you have the chance to say the Pledge of Allegiance, stand up, put your hand over your heart, honor our country, and thank God for the old geezers of the “Gray-Haired Brigade.”
Pro-White Posters from Unamusement Park
By Nicholas Stix
The following posters are but two of five new ones produced and promoted at the blog, Unamusement Park.
Hit this link, to go to the original post, where you’ll find all five posters, links to large pdf versions, and guerilla distribution tips.
The following posters are but two of five new ones produced and promoted at the blog, Unamusement Park.
Hit this link, to go to the original post, where you’ll find all five posters, links to large pdf versions, and guerilla distribution tips.
Peter Brimelow: Obama’s Administrative Amnesty: Impeachment is the Only Answer
The writer Federale has written the “definitive analysis of the revolutionary and unconstitutional Administrative Amnesty quietly announced by the Obama Administration on August 18,” which Peter will publish, just as soon as he gets the bugs (or at least most of them) out of VDARE’s new system.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Glen Campbell Talks About Alzheimer's Disease, New Album, Farewell Tour: “I Have been Blessed”
Accompanying story here.
This was such a puff piece that Terry Moran turned a telephone line repairman into a “telephone engineer,” for cryin’ out loud! But what do you expect of Nightline?
By the way, since Moran is worthless for even the safest information, Campbell and his current wife of 29 years, Kim, met on a blind date in 1981, when she was a Rockette at the Radio City Music Hall. I found so much corroboration for that tidbit that I guess I was one of only two people who hadn’t known it.
So there was no talk of the wife-swapping scandal with his once good buddy, Mac Davis, whose wife Sarah Campbell married, which messed up his TV and movie career, or about crazy times with Tanya Tucker, and all the years of drugs and drinking, all of which would have made for a much more interesting interview. I suppose ol’ Glen could have just said he doesn’t remember any of those things!
Proof That There is a God: Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Dedication Postponed Until Fall by Hurricane Irene
Last Updated: August 25. 2011 9:22PM
King Memorial dedication postponed until fall by Hurricane Irene
By Deb Price/ The Detroit News
Washington - The organizers of the new Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial may have thought it was a super-human effort to raise $115 million for a 30-foot sculpture, a 450-foot inscription wall and 11,279 granite pavers.
But now they're dealing with Mother Nature.
Damage from Tuesday’s magnitude 5.8 earthquake forced two pre-dedication events to be moved. Now, Hurricane Irene has forced the Sunday dedication to be delayed.
Sunday isn’t just any day: It is the 48th anniversary of the March on Washington and King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.
“The National Park Service, the U.S. Park Police, the Department of Interior and other federal agencies are paying constant attention and are in communication with the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center in Florida,” Line said.
Some 250,000 people were expected to attend the dedication, which was to include remarks by the King family and a rendition of “Amazing Grace” by Aretha Franklin.
Harry Johnson, the president of the foundation that built the memorial, said at a news conference that he decided Thursday afternoon to postpone the dedication after studying forecasts suggesting Irene’s passage would potentially make weather conditions unsafe for visitors amid the threat of high winds and rains. He also said a Saturday black-tie gala event had to be postponed.
“We all are saddened by this. I remained optimistic all day, but Mother Nature is Mother Nature,” Johnson said at a news conference. But he added, “The memorial is going to be there forever.”
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Flowers for a Working Girl
By Nicholas Stix
May 17, 1996
Straight Talk
As I write this, Gayle Hoffman is clinging to life in Jamaica Hospital’s ICU. Who is Gayle Hoffman? “Nobody.” Somebody.
On March 23rd, Gayle gained four new orifices she hadn’t bargained on. According to detectives in Far Rockaway’s 101 Precinct, the holes were courtesy of an off-duty, drunken NYPD rookie who’d just graduated from the Academy five days before.
Officer Rolando Hernandez has since been charged with attempted murder and assault. The shooting occurred on Beach 28th Street and Seagirt Avenue, Gayle’s territory. Rolando Hernandez allegedly pumped four 9 mm slugs from his service weapon into Gayle’s neck, lung, arm and leg. On the street, a girl who claimed she was with her insists that Hernandez shot Gayle after she stole $600 in cash from him. She’ll never “stroll” again, and it’s a miracle she’s still alive.
I hadn’t known her last name. We first met early last fall. Coming from the subway late, I was heading down Beach 20th Street. Two big, young [Hispanic] men who seemed to have ideas of “getting paid” were closing in on me.
Having gotten my nose broken fighting off a Mutt-and-Jeff team on the A train just a couple of weeks before and been arrested for “possession of a noxious substance” for spraying “Jeff” with tear gas, I was feeling war-weary. Seeing a woman standing at the bus stop on the other side of the street, by the corner of Seagirt, I crossed over. Strength in numbers, and all that.
Cute and short, pale, but well-nourished with dark hair, Gayle introduced herself: “You are talking to the most notorious prostitute in Far Rockaway.”
The next time I saw her, she was in a less affable mood. At 3 a.m., I escorted my building’s security guard to a stairwell door on the top floor, where he rousted her out of the sleep of the dead. She cursed him, as he ushered her out of the building. Homeless and strung out, she was just looking for a nook or cranny to crash in.
How could she be homeless? She who bragged, “I don’t even talk about a b--- j— for less than $20”? Neighbors said she was a crackhead who gave everything to her muse.
The next time I saw Gayle she was in my building during midday, when there’s no security. She apologized, “I’m sorry for the way I spoke to you.” It might have only been good policy for a potential John, but hey, how many people in this town have even that much business sense? I responded, “No sweat.” I hadn’t taken her curses personally.
The last time I saw her was on Everdell Avenue, during Chanukah. I was taking the short cut to the subway by the most notorious crackhouse in town (though not the only one on the block), which was later cleaned out in the big spring sweep. I’ve often been approached by ladies on Everdell, trudging even through blizzards to fill an unquenchable need.
Gayle wished me a “gut yomtov” in passing. A funny duck, when she spoke she looked not at me, but at a street guy who didn’t look too Jewish. So, funny duck that I am, I didn’t return the greeting.
Better late than never. Sorry, Gayle. Gut yomtov.
May 17, 1996
Straight Talk
As I write this, Gayle Hoffman is clinging to life in Jamaica Hospital’s ICU. Who is Gayle Hoffman? “Nobody.” Somebody.
On March 23rd, Gayle gained four new orifices she hadn’t bargained on. According to detectives in Far Rockaway’s 101 Precinct, the holes were courtesy of an off-duty, drunken NYPD rookie who’d just graduated from the Academy five days before.
Officer Rolando Hernandez has since been charged with attempted murder and assault. The shooting occurred on Beach 28th Street and Seagirt Avenue, Gayle’s territory. Rolando Hernandez allegedly pumped four 9 mm slugs from his service weapon into Gayle’s neck, lung, arm and leg. On the street, a girl who claimed she was with her insists that Hernandez shot Gayle after she stole $600 in cash from him. She’ll never “stroll” again, and it’s a miracle she’s still alive.
I hadn’t known her last name. We first met early last fall. Coming from the subway late, I was heading down Beach 20th Street. Two big, young [Hispanic] men who seemed to have ideas of “getting paid” were closing in on me.
Having gotten my nose broken fighting off a Mutt-and-Jeff team on the A train just a couple of weeks before and been arrested for “possession of a noxious substance” for spraying “Jeff” with tear gas, I was feeling war-weary. Seeing a woman standing at the bus stop on the other side of the street, by the corner of Seagirt, I crossed over. Strength in numbers, and all that.
Cute and short, pale, but well-nourished with dark hair, Gayle introduced herself: “You are talking to the most notorious prostitute in Far Rockaway.”
The next time I saw her, she was in a less affable mood. At 3 a.m., I escorted my building’s security guard to a stairwell door on the top floor, where he rousted her out of the sleep of the dead. She cursed him, as he ushered her out of the building. Homeless and strung out, she was just looking for a nook or cranny to crash in.
How could she be homeless? She who bragged, “I don’t even talk about a b--- j— for less than $20”? Neighbors said she was a crackhead who gave everything to her muse.
The next time I saw Gayle she was in my building during midday, when there’s no security. She apologized, “I’m sorry for the way I spoke to you.” It might have only been good policy for a potential John, but hey, how many people in this town have even that much business sense? I responded, “No sweat.” I hadn’t taken her curses personally.
The last time I saw her was on Everdell Avenue, during Chanukah. I was taking the short cut to the subway by the most notorious crackhouse in town (though not the only one on the block), which was later cleaned out in the big spring sweep. I’ve often been approached by ladies on Everdell, trudging even through blizzards to fill an unquenchable need.
Gayle wished me a “gut yomtov” in passing. A funny duck, when she spoke she looked not at me, but at a street guy who didn’t look too Jewish. So, funny duck that I am, I didn’t return the greeting.
Better late than never. Sorry, Gayle. Gut yomtov.
Bye, Bye, Tookie: Murderer of Four Gets His Just Desserts
By Nicholas Stix
December 13, 2005, 1:24 a.m.
Men’s News Daily
Stanley “Tookie” Williams, 51, is dead, executed only minutes ago by the State of California at San Quentin prison.
In 1979, Williams, one of the founders of the Crips street gang, murdered four people: Albert Owens, Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang and Yee-Chen Lin. Williams murdered the four because they were witnesses to two of his robberies; he did not want any witnesses. At the time of the killings, Williams joked about the gurgling sounds one of his victims made as he died. He was convicted and sentenced to die in 1981.
A small army of political activists, celebrities, wannabe celebrities, and one corrupt politician campaigned to persuade California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant Williams clemency, but Schwarzenegger refused, asking,
Williams’ supporters argued that he should be granted clemency and a new sentence of life without parole, instead of being executed. Their main argument was that he had turned his life around, in authoring children’s books that tell kids not to join gangs.
Abortion supporter Jesse Jackson maintained that Gov. Schwarzenegger had chosen “death over life.” Williams’ lead attorney, Peter Fleming Jr., was angry at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, saying, according to Chicago Tribune reporters Vincent J. Schodolski and Rudolph Bush, “If Stanley Williams does not deserve clemency, what meaning does clemency have in this state?”
Schodolski and Bush reported that USC law professor, Jody Armour, “said the governor’s decision was largely a political one. ‘It would have been an act of great political will to grant clemency.’”
Armour, who apparently does not take his irony supplements, was unaware that he had contradicted himself: Even by his own lights, the decision to grant clemency would have been “largely a political one.” But Armour’s claim is nonsense on stilts, anyway: Schwarzenegger was under no public pressure to execute Williams. Rather he was under tremendous pressure to grant him clemency. Some of the names who came out against execution were, in addition to Jesse Jackson, liberal former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, radical former California state senator, Tom Hayden, actor Jamie Foxx, rapper-ex-con-Crips member Snoop Dogg (Calvin Broadus), singer Joan Baez, alleged actor Mike Farrell, and even Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa.
Those who supported the execution included, to my knowledge, no famous names.
According to Jody Armour, the daily life of a black American consists of one insult, slight, harassment and injustice after another at the hands of whites. That is reportedly the thesis of his book, Negrophobia and Reasonable Racism: The Hidden Costs of Being Black in America. (I checked out Armour, to see whether I needed to refer to the good professor as he or a she; Armour is a privileged black man.) Armour wants the American legal system to be consciously racial. From that it would follow that he has no use for the 14th Amendment to the Constitution or the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act.
Most of Williams’ supporters demanded clemency for him because he was black and guilty as hell. You will not see them rally against the execution of white prisoners, or even prisoners who appear to be innocent.
Note too that the idea that Williams would receive “life without parole” is unrealistic. As long as a convict is alive, he may potentially receive parole and be freed. The moment Williams had received clemency, his lawyers and supporters would have begun their “Free Tookie!” campaign.
After all, the identical arguments used for clemency on Williams’ behalf are routinely trotted out to seek parole for cold-blooded killers.
In the American justice system, a jury must consider a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, before voting to convict. Many Americans mistakenly believe that the standard is “guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt”; however, Tookie Williams was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Indeed, one can only imagine how many other murders and major felonies that he, as a co-founder of the Crips, was also involved in, for which he was never charged.
Two possible exceptions to the rule among Williams’ supporters are liberal former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo and Republican former Illinois Gov. George Ryan. Cuomo is opposed to the death penalty on general principle, while then-Gov. Ryan, facing prosecution for alleged earlier corruption on his part as Illinois Secretary of State, in 2003 granted clemency to everyone on Illinois’ Death Row, in order to enhance his image with the public and the media, and hopefully earn himself some clemency from jurors in his own trial.
The only legitimate argument I know of against the death penalty, is the danger of executing an innocent man. But in the case of Tookie Williams, that argument is moot.
As for clemency, given the heinous nature and quantity of Williams’ crimes, to speak of clemency would be obscene, even if he had confessed to his crimes, and expressed genuine remorse, as opposed to putting on an act. There is a place for such shows of remorse: If there is a God in Heaven, and Tookie Williams should meet his Maker, he can confess his guilt and express his remorse, in hopes of obtaining the ultimate clemency.
Among Williams’ supporters outside the prison, one brandished a sign quoting Bob Marley’s “Redemption Son,”
Tookie Williams, a prophet?
One Fox News reporter observed that in a crowd of approximately 2,000 outside of San Quentin, only one lonely couple supported the execution. They were roughed up by humanitarian death penalty opponents, while nearby cops did nothing.
When Williams was pronounced dead at 12:35 a.m. p.s.t., his supporters reportedly jumped up and yelled that the State of California had killed an innocent man.
Most of the reporters who spoke after the execution sought to portray Williams in saintly terms – he didn’t resist, as if men about to be executed typically struggled. Adam Housley broke ranks by noting that Williams stared intently at the media, in an attempt, apparently, to intimidate them.
If Stanley “Tookie” Williams did not deserve the death penalty, what meaning does the death penalty have in that state?
December 13, 2005, 1:24 a.m.
Men’s News Daily
Stanley “Tookie” Williams, 51, is dead, executed only minutes ago by the State of California at San Quentin prison.
In 1979, Williams, one of the founders of the Crips street gang, murdered four people: Albert Owens, Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang and Yee-Chen Lin. Williams murdered the four because they were witnesses to two of his robberies; he did not want any witnesses. At the time of the killings, Williams joked about the gurgling sounds one of his victims made as he died. He was convicted and sentenced to die in 1981.
A small army of political activists, celebrities, wannabe celebrities, and one corrupt politician campaigned to persuade California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant Williams clemency, but Schwarzenegger refused, asking,
Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise? Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption.
Williams’ supporters argued that he should be granted clemency and a new sentence of life without parole, instead of being executed. Their main argument was that he had turned his life around, in authoring children’s books that tell kids not to join gangs.
Abortion supporter Jesse Jackson maintained that Gov. Schwarzenegger had chosen “death over life.” Williams’ lead attorney, Peter Fleming Jr., was angry at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, saying, according to Chicago Tribune reporters Vincent J. Schodolski and Rudolph Bush, “If Stanley Williams does not deserve clemency, what meaning does clemency have in this state?”
Schodolski and Bush reported that USC law professor, Jody Armour, “said the governor’s decision was largely a political one. ‘It would have been an act of great political will to grant clemency.’”
Armour, who apparently does not take his irony supplements, was unaware that he had contradicted himself: Even by his own lights, the decision to grant clemency would have been “largely a political one.” But Armour’s claim is nonsense on stilts, anyway: Schwarzenegger was under no public pressure to execute Williams. Rather he was under tremendous pressure to grant him clemency. Some of the names who came out against execution were, in addition to Jesse Jackson, liberal former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, radical former California state senator, Tom Hayden, actor Jamie Foxx, rapper-ex-con-Crips member Snoop Dogg (Calvin Broadus), singer Joan Baez, alleged actor Mike Farrell, and even Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa.
Those who supported the execution included, to my knowledge, no famous names.
According to Jody Armour, the daily life of a black American consists of one insult, slight, harassment and injustice after another at the hands of whites. That is reportedly the thesis of his book, Negrophobia and Reasonable Racism: The Hidden Costs of Being Black in America. (I checked out Armour, to see whether I needed to refer to the good professor as he or a she; Armour is a privileged black man.) Armour wants the American legal system to be consciously racial. From that it would follow that he has no use for the 14th Amendment to the Constitution or the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act.
Most of Williams’ supporters demanded clemency for him because he was black and guilty as hell. You will not see them rally against the execution of white prisoners, or even prisoners who appear to be innocent.
Note too that the idea that Williams would receive “life without parole” is unrealistic. As long as a convict is alive, he may potentially receive parole and be freed. The moment Williams had received clemency, his lawyers and supporters would have begun their “Free Tookie!” campaign.
After all, the identical arguments used for clemency on Williams’ behalf are routinely trotted out to seek parole for cold-blooded killers.
In the American justice system, a jury must consider a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, before voting to convict. Many Americans mistakenly believe that the standard is “guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt”; however, Tookie Williams was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Indeed, one can only imagine how many other murders and major felonies that he, as a co-founder of the Crips, was also involved in, for which he was never charged.
Two possible exceptions to the rule among Williams’ supporters are liberal former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo and Republican former Illinois Gov. George Ryan. Cuomo is opposed to the death penalty on general principle, while then-Gov. Ryan, facing prosecution for alleged earlier corruption on his part as Illinois Secretary of State, in 2003 granted clemency to everyone on Illinois’ Death Row, in order to enhance his image with the public and the media, and hopefully earn himself some clemency from jurors in his own trial.
The only legitimate argument I know of against the death penalty, is the danger of executing an innocent man. But in the case of Tookie Williams, that argument is moot.
As for clemency, given the heinous nature and quantity of Williams’ crimes, to speak of clemency would be obscene, even if he had confessed to his crimes, and expressed genuine remorse, as opposed to putting on an act. There is a place for such shows of remorse: If there is a God in Heaven, and Tookie Williams should meet his Maker, he can confess his guilt and express his remorse, in hopes of obtaining the ultimate clemency.
Among Williams’ supporters outside the prison, one brandished a sign quoting Bob Marley’s “Redemption Son,”
How long shall they kill our prophets
while we stand aside and look?
Tookie Williams, a prophet?
One Fox News reporter observed that in a crowd of approximately 2,000 outside of San Quentin, only one lonely couple supported the execution. They were roughed up by humanitarian death penalty opponents, while nearby cops did nothing.
When Williams was pronounced dead at 12:35 a.m. p.s.t., his supporters reportedly jumped up and yelled that the State of California had killed an innocent man.
Most of the reporters who spoke after the execution sought to portray Williams in saintly terms – he didn’t resist, as if men about to be executed typically struggled. Adam Housley broke ranks by noting that Williams stared intently at the media, in an attempt, apparently, to intimidate them.
If Stanley “Tookie” Williams did not deserve the death penalty, what meaning does the death penalty have in that state?
The Galton "Inequality" Symbol
As drawn and posted by Glaivester, who writes:
Inspired by the “Darwin fish,” a variation on a common symbol; this time, I am attacking the (false) god of the age.
Thanks, G!
As the man himself would say, That is all.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
A “Very Private Woman”: Elizabeth Wright Dies
By Nicholas Stix
Only three days ago, I noted that I had learned from Elizabeth Wright’s blog that she had entered a hospice, and elsewhere, that she was dying of cancer. Today I learn, from Jared Taylor, that she has passed from this vale of tears. It turns out that she was as much a mystery to Jared, who had published her over the years, as she was to me, a total stranger. It also turns out that she was already dead, at the time of my blog item, having died some time prior to August 19.
[Jared:] It would not be an exaggeration to say that I have been fascinated by Elizabeth Wright ever since I became aware of her many years ago, when Issues and Views was still a paper publication. I discovered that Elizabeth had a piercingly clear understanding of race, and wrote in an uncompromising style. We corresponded, and AR posted several of her essays—and yet I never really knew her. Elizabeth wanted it that way.
We spoke on the phone only a few times, and she spoke as she wrote—clearly and vigorously. And yet she kept me at a distance. The last time we spoke I was in New York City, where she lived, and I practically begged her to let me meet her. She declined. She wasn’t keen on meeting people, she said.
There was a great deal I wanted to know about Elizabeth Wright. How did a black woman arrive at a view of race so similar to my own? There is usually a story about how whites become dissenters. There must be a whole book about her. And who were her friends? What did her family think of her views? Whenever I asked in passing about her personal life in our e-mail correspondence, she politely deflected my questions.
I therefore know almost nothing about this remarkable and very private woman. I don’t know how old she was, whether she was married or had children, what kind of education she had, or what her interests were aside from smashing taboos. And I know nothing of the price she paid—it must have been very high—for her uncompromising defense of what she held to be true.
Anyone who could write and think as Elizabeth did could have achieved prominence, but that would have required her to bow to convention. Instead, she did that old-fashioned thing now so rare it comes almost as a shock; she put principle first.
Perhaps if I had tried harder, Elizabeth would have let me into her life. But perhaps not. I knocked, but she kept the door closed.
Therefore, much as I admire Elizabeth Wright, I know her only through her writing, and in tribute to her I can offer readers nothing more than a selection from some of her columns. I think that is what she would have wanted.
Rest in peace, Elizabeth. Your friends you never met—and I am sure I am one of a great many—will be poorer without you.
I strongly suspect that in her youth, Wright read George S. Schuyler’s autobiography, Black and Conservative, though she doubtless had other influences, possibly including Zora Neale Hurston, as well. But Wright and the middle-aged and older Schuyler had very simpatico sensibilities.
Her August 19 Obituary at The Booker Washington Society follows.
Sad news…
Elizabeth Wright, for whom the Booker T. Washington Society’s prestigious Wright Award, is named, passed away this week.
Though she was a private person, working in relative obscurity in Brooklyn, her influence has been profound. For over twenty five years, she wrote and published well-researched articles, analyses and columns in the Quarterly she founded, Issues & Views “to advocate self-help and business enterprise in the black community.
In recent years, she made Issues & Views freely available throughout the world via the Internet, The quarterly’s byline aptly stated, “…Reporting from the Frontline of Dissent since 1985,” but it doesn’t do justice to the discipline and courage it takes to rise every day to challenge a mind-set that promotes personal rights without personal responsibility.
In recognition of her many years toiling in trenches that often led her in spirited and clear defense of the vision and values that Dr. Booker T. Washington espoused, in 2006, the BTW Society created the Elizabeth Wright Award, named in her honor and to be awarded annually to one “unsung hero” who, like her, has demonstrated a long and continued passion for preserving the vision, values and virtues of Dr. Booker T. Washington.
To view Wright Award recipients, click here.
I checked the other day, and again today, and found that The Pretend Encylopedia, aka Wikipedia, has no entry for Wright. I’d write one, but some of the wikithugs have a written agreement to delete anything by or about me.
At Ohio Republic on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Harold Thomas paid tribute to Wright.
Elizabeth Wright
Elizabeth Wright publishes Issues & Views, which she describes as “A black conservative's place for independent thinking and common sense -- A little oasis for those who got caught up in the momentum of the civil rights movement, but failed to discern the false from the true.” A resident of New York City, Ms. Wright began Issues & Views as a hardcopy newsletter “to counter notions of victimization and collective entitlement prevalent in the black community.” She writes that her “conservatism was derived from the wisdom of earlier generations of American blacks, like Booker T. Washington, who attempted to steer their people towards greater economic self-reliance. The newsletter also challenged ideologues who misused ‘civil rights,’ in order to deny basic rights to others and to impose politically correct mandates. Editorials were committed to principles of free speech, with the First Amendment paramount.” Like last year’s honoree H. K. Edgerton, she has defended respect for Confederate heritage.
She is also outspoken in support of free speech and a sensible foreign policy. Her comment on the Wikileaks controversy neatly ties both issues together:
We should view the WikiLeaks controversy in the larger context of American foreign policy. Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets, we should focus on our delusional foreign policy. We are kidding ourselves when we believe spying, intrigue, and outright military intervention can maintain our international status as a superpower while our domestic economy crumbles in an orgy of debt and monetary debasement.
Most importantly, her message stresses self-reliance and truth over victimization, “political correctness” and hatred. A message that applies equally to everyone, regardless of race, but one that is especially needed and wanted from the black community.
Links to Elizabeth Wright’s Work Available on the ‘Net
Issues & Views - The Blog: A black conservative's place for independent thinking and common sense -- A little oasis for those who got caught up in the momentum of the civil rights movement, but failed to discern the false from the true
Issues & Views: The Web Site (via The Wayback Machine)
I extend my heartfelt condolences to Miss Wright’s family and friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
