Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Jonah Goldberg: The College of Cardinals at National Review Must Excommunicate the "Racist" Alt Right from the Conservative Movement!

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

The day when National Review had such arbitrary power is long past.

If anyone is in danger of ending up in the dustbin of history, it is the gang at NR, and good riddance to bad rubbish, I say!

Time to John Birch the Alt-Right
In denouncing the fringe movement, Hillary treads where the GOP will not
By Jonah Goldberg — August 31, 2016
National Review

Last week saw one of the most remarkable moments of this most remarkable political season. A major politician defended the conservative movement and the Republican party from guilt-by-association with a fringe group of racists, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists who have jumped enthusiastically on the Donald Trump train: the so-called alt-right.

“This is not conservatism as we have known it,” the politician said. “This is not Republicanism as we have known it.”

The politician was Hillary Clinton, and that’s what’s astonishing. Clinton is normally comfortable unjustly condemning conservatism and the GOP for the sins of bigotry and prejudice, not exonerating it. After all, she coined the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Her husband’s administration tried – unfairly – to pin the Oklahoma City bombing on conservative critics, specifically radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. Less than a decade later, she revived the charge in her book Living History, tying the bombing to “right-wing radio talk shows and websites,” which “intensified the atmosphere of hostility with their rhetoric of intolerance, anger and anti-government paranoia.” Just last year, Clinton was comparing the entire GOP presidential field to “terrorist groups” for their views on abortion.

This history suggests that Clinton’s attempt to distinguish the party of Paul Ryan from the alt-right was not the product of high-minded statesmanship, but political calculation. The goal was to demonize Trump so as to make moderate voters feel OK voting for a Democrat.

(Trump is not an alt-righter, but his political inexperience, his anti-establishment persona, and his ignorance of, and hostility to, many basic tenets of conservatism created a golden opportunity for the alt-righters to latch onto his candidacy.)

If I were a down-ballot Democrat, I’d be chagrined. By exonerating the GOP from the stain of the alt-right, Clinton has made it harder for Democratic candidates to tar their opponents with it. What’s truly extraordinary, though, is that Clinton is doing work many conservatives won’t.

There is a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.” On Monday, Taylor asserted on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” that racialism — not religion, economics, etc. — is the one issue that unites alt-righters.

If you read the writings of leading alt-righters, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion. Some are avowed white supremacists. Some eschew talk of supremacy and instead focus on the need for racial separation to protect “white identity.” But one can’t talk about the alt-right knowledgeably without recognizing their racism.

And yet that is exactly what some conservatives seem intent on doing. For example, my friend Hugh Hewitt, the influential talk-radio host, has been arguing that there is a “narrow” alt-right made up of a “execrable anti-Semitic, white supremacist fringe” but also a “broad alt-right” made up of frustrated tea partiers and others who are simply hostile to the GOP establishment and any form of immigration reform that falls short of mass deportation.

This isn’t just wrong, it’s madness. The alt-righters are a politically insignificant band. Why claim that a group dedicated to overthrowing conservatism for a white-nationalist fantasy is in fact a member of the conservative coalition? Why muddy a distinction the alt-righters are eager to keep clear?

RELATED: The Racist Moral Rot at the Heart of the Alt-Right

In the 1960s, the fledgling conservative movement was faced with a similar dilemma. The John Birch Society was a paranoid outfit dedicated to the theory that the U.S. government was controlled by communists. It said even Dwight Eisenhower was a Red (to which the conservative political theorist Russell Kirk replied, “Ike’s not a Communist, he’s a golfer”).

William F. Buckley recognized that the Birchers were being used by the liberal media to “anathematize the entire American right wing.” At first, his magazine, National Review (where I often hang my hat), tried to argue that the problem was just a narrow “lunatic fringe” of Birchers, and not the rank and file. But very quickly, the editors recognized that the broader movement needed to be denounced and defenestrated.

Buckley grasped something Hewitt and countless lesser pro-Trump pundits do not: Some lines must not be blurred, but illuminated for all to see. Amazingly, Clinton is doing that when actual conservatives have not.

— Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review.

National Review: The Alt Right are All Nazis


(Photo Illustration: NRO)

The Racist Moral Rot at the Heart of the Alt-Right
By Ian Tuttle
April 5, 2016
National Review

Last week, Breitbart writers Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos took it upon themselves to pen an apologia for the “Alternative Right,” or Alt-Right — the grab bag of ostensibly right-wing anti-liberal ideologies whose disciples, of late, are thrilling to the rise of Donald Trump.

The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online presence. But for Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, the Alt-Right consists of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals — and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways. In other words, anyone familiar with Yiannopoulos’s theatrics, or Breitbart’s self-appointment as Donald Trump’s Pravda, will not be surprised to learn that the article is a 5,000-word whitewash [hyperlink by Nicholas Stix, not National Review]. But it is valuable, in this way: It exhibits, albeit inadvertently, the moral and intellectual rot at the heart of the Alt-Right.

The Alt-Right’s origin story will sound familiar: Conservatives, the Breitbart writers say, refused to defend “humanism, liberalism, and universalism” against “black and feminist identity politics” and “left-wing moral relativism.” They “turned a blind eye to the rise of tribal, identitarian movements on the Left while mercilessly suppressing any hint of them on the Right.” (Something like this tale of woe is used by Trump supporters to explain, and to justify, his rise.) This is largely false.

It’s simply nonsense to suggest that American conservatism was willfully complicit in the rise of the identity-politics Left, or that conservatives have wholly forsaken their commitment to constitutional, and generally Judeo-Christian, values. [Nonsense? No, true. Look at what “conservatives” have done since Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015. They have clearly decided that they would do everything possible to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency. As for the second clause of the foregoing sentence, “wholly” is such a weasel word that the writer can’t be taken seriously.]

For decades, conservatives have fought against racial favoritism, against the normalization of sexual perversion, against the “Hey, hey, ho, ho! Western Civ has got to go!” ethos that animates so much of progressivism. [National Review long supported racial favoritism, and now supports same-sex marriage.] Furthermore, it’s entirely plausible that, where conservatives have endorsed policies — high levels of immigration, for example — that have ended up undermining certain “core Western values” (the importance of the rule of law, say), it was out of a commitment to other high-minded principles also in keeping with the Western tradition. [Like what? The sacred principle of making plutocrats ever richer, at the expense of hard-working poor, working-class, and middle-class white Americans?]

But this is not about the Gang of Eight bill. Most on the Alt-Right do not only reject the “conservative Establishment” or some other contemporary bogeyman; they also reject the ideals of classical liberalism as such. That rejection grounds the thinking of Jared Taylor, and Richard Spencer, for instance — representative “intellectuals” of the Alt-Right, according to Bokhari and Yiannopoulos. These men — the founders of the publications American Renaissance and Radix Journal, respectively — have not simply been “accused of racism.” They are racist, by definition. [“By definition”? What definition?] Taylor’s “race realism,” for example, co-opts evolutionary biology in the hopes of demonstrating that the races have become sufficiently differentiated over the millennia to the point that the races are fundamentally — that is, biologically — different. Spencer, who promotes “White identity” and “White racial consciousness,” is beholden to similar “scientific” findings.

[Those “racist, by definition” positions that Ian Tuttle mocks as pseudo-science come from a notorious Nazi named Charles Darwin, except that Jared Taylor’s positions are much weaker than Darwin’s. Darwin expected whites to kill off blacks and other weaker races, while Jared has never called for genocide.] And it’s worth noting that the favorite slur the Alt-Right flings at conservatives they dislike is at bottom about miscegenation: “Cuckservative” refers to a form of sexual fetish in which a man, usually white, is aroused by watching his wife have sex with another man, usually black. As the curator of the “Dark Enlightenment” blog writes: “Among the central principles of neo-reaction — one of the top two, I’d say — is that long-separated human populations differ, innately, in significant ways, and that human cultures, when correctly understood to be part of our extended phenotype, reflect this underlying biological variation.”

[“Cuckservative” has nothing to do with race. Ian Tuttle lies again. “Curator”? What sort of effete snob fool calls a blogger a “curator”? Museums have curators; blogs have bloggers. “Among the central principles of neo-reaction…” That’s among the central principles of Darwinian evolution, not neo-reaction. More lies.]

“The Dark Enlightenment” is the name, first and foremost, of a fuzzily argued manifesto of sorts, penned by Nick Land, formerly a lecturer in continental philosophy at the University of Warwick, and another of Bokhari’s and Yiannopoulos’s go-to “intellectuals.” Land is a more sophisticated thinker than Taylor or Spencer, but his “neo-reaction” is rooted in the same fundamental rejection of egalitarianism. The differences are less important than the similarities; the race realists call on evolutionary biology and cognitive science; Land and his followers invoke postmodern philosophy. Both, with the help of an influential Alt-Right contingent among computer scientists, draw on cognitive science.

[If Nick Land is “a more sophisticated thinker than” Jared Taylor, he must be blindingly brilliant.]

    • Adherents of the Alt-Right seem to think that liberal democracy was an abstraction tyrannically imposed on an unwilling populace.

  • [N.S.: Well, wasn’t it? We don’t even live in a democracy, though Democrats have for at least 80 years asserted that we do. America was founded as a republic, and has never legally been changed into a democracy.

    “The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’” [Recorded by James McHenry, and recounted in “A Republic, if You Can Keep It,” by John F. McManus, The New American, 6 November 2000.]]

    There is, then, contra Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, continuity on the Alt-Right, from the more interesting thinkers to the “1488ers.” This label comes from 14, for the “14 Words” of neo-Nazism (“We Must Secure the Existence of Our People and a Future for White Children”), and 88, for the eighth letter of the alphabet, H, doubled, HH, ergo “Heil Hitler.” Clever, eh? Some want to put people in ovens; some just want an ability to “exit” multicultural society for an ethno-national arrangement.

    [Many white men with non-white wives also seek “to ‘exit’ multicultural society.” About two years ago, a writer invited me to contribute to his book-in-progress, with the working title, What’s Your Exit Strategy? He sent along some sample excepts, all of which came from white men with Filipino wives—nurses—with whom they planned to move to the Philippines.]

    But they’re all in agreement: “All men are created equal” is not true. What follows is a 21st-century version of Blut und Boden — Blood and Soil — on one hand, or technological apocalypticism, on the other. But the two are not so different, as the Nazis understood. (And to that point, it’s telling that, as Bokhari and Yiannopoulos note, some Alt-Right thought has its roots in the thinking of Giulio Evola, a mid-century Italian philosopher whose apocalyptic vision of the world derived from his own woolly syncretism and eccentric mysticism.)

    Adherents of the Alt-Right not only conceive of the “Establishment” as traitorous [and they’re right!]; they also seem to think that liberal democracy itself was an abstraction tyrannically imposed on an unwilling populace. It wasn’t. It was a slowly and painfully forged response to centuries of challenges. The Western, liberal-democratic order is wracked with problems, of course; but it always has been. The question is, Has it been more fruitful, more liberating, more constructive in promoting the common good than have the various orders that came before it? And if so, is there a compelling reason for throwing it over in favor of the ancient belief that some men are, indeed, born with saddles on their backs, and a favored few born booted and spurred, entitled to ride them?

    [But globalists believe the same thing!]

    This is the question the Alt-Right poses. As it happens, it’s an old question, and one to which our forebears gave powerful answers. But every generation has to relearn them. The larger the Alt-Right grows, the clearer it is that ours hasn’t.

    — Ian Tuttle is a National Review Institute Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism.

    Was Charles Darwin a Genocidal, White Supremacist?!


    Charles Darwin

    Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

    The question historian Raymond Wolters asks is, “Why Have We Unlearned What We Knew in 1900?”

    The answer is that Darwinism, like almost all aspects of American intellectual life, has been hijacked by Marxists (really, communists), while those claiming to be “conservatives” have submitted to them.

    Most people who claim to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution, have no idea what he wrote. They have been indoctrinated in pseudo-Darwinism their entire lives, since pre-K in school, and via all MSM.

    “Pseudo-Darwinism” refers to the substitute for Darwinism that dominates the general public, schools, academia and the media. According to that fake school of thought, man is descended from apes, and the races are all equal.

    One half of pseudo-Darwinism accurately represents actual Darwinism, while the other half completely contradicts it.

    Pseudo-Darwinism is in complete control of university faculties, newsrooms, and public schools, because all of those institutions are in thrall to racial socialism, which is characterized by genocidal racism against whites, and atheism. Darwinism is an atheistic, secular religion.

    Pseudo-Darwinists love their counterfeit version of Darwinism, because they are atheists who hate whites in general, and Christians in particular. They have expanded Darwin’s creation fairy tale (we descended form apes) to a CHON soup creation story. The universe was created out of nothing by a Big Bang, which then evolved into a soup of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen.

    Why Have We Unlearned What We Knew in 1900?

    By Raymond Wolters
    July 15, 2016
    American Renaissance

    An eminent historian’s view.

    Some years ago evolutionary psychologist J. Philippe Rushton asked me, as a historian, the following question:

    Why have modern historians ‘unlearned’ so much that was known and understood in 1900? Why has knowledge about the evolutionary basis of race regressed while the understanding of other matters has increased?

    I did not have a good answer at the time, but I’d like to try again. Let me begin with a brief summary of the prevailing wisdom of 1900. Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859, and by 1900 his theory of evolution had become the dominant opinion in academic and scientific circles. In 1900, most scholars understood evolution in terms of the sub-title of Darwin’s book: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.[1]

    Origin of Species maintained that evolution toward higher forms of life stemmed from adaptations to different environments and from conflict and competition that led to ‘‘survival of the fittest” (though it was the philosopher Herbert Spencer who coined that phrase). Darwin specifically applied this concept to mankind in his 1871 sequel, The Descent of Man. He wrote: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” “Looking at the world at no very distant date, an endless number of lower races will be eliminated by the higher civilized races . . . .“[2]

    By 1900, Darwin’s prediction had been seconded by mainstream American writers and scientists. Novelist John De Forest (1826 – 1906) conceded that superior blacks might continue to dominate in some territories, “that portion being probably the lowlands where the whites cannot or will not labor.” But De Forest also predicted that what he called “the low-down Negro” would pass “into sure and deserved oblivion.” Francis Walker (1840 – 1897), a prominent demographer and economist, studied the census figures of 1870, 1880, and 1890 and concluded that the black population was already declining because black slaves had been freed and thrust into competition with white people. Lord James Bryce (1838 – 1922), a distinguished British student of the United States, seconded this opinion. Joseph Le Conte (1823 – 1901), a highly regarded biologist and geologist, summed up the Darwinian consensus: “The struggle for life and the survival of the fittest” were “applicable to the races of men.” The destiny of weaker varieties of humanity was either “extinction . . . or . . . relegation to a subordinate place in the economy of nature; the weaker is either destroyed or seeks safety by avoiding competition.”[3]

    The failure of Reconstruction had reinforced this consensus. After the Civil War, Southern blacks were enfranchised. Then, with cooperation from so-called Southern “scalawags” and Northern “carpetbaggers,” blacks became influential in the governments of several states of the former Confederacy. However, Reconstruction ended in the 1870s, most blacks were disfranchised, and by 1900 a great many whites, in the North as well as the South, considered Reconstruction to have been a failure. They attributed the failure to blacks’ presumed inability to restrain spending, balance budgets, or control crime.




    According to historian George W. Stocking, Jr., “In turn-of-the [twentieth] century evolutionary thinking, savagery, dark skin, and a small brain and incoherent mind were, for many, all parts of a single evolutionary picture of ‘primitive’ man, who even yet walks the earth.” Darwinists believed there was a racial hierarchy–that evolutionary adaptations to different climates and environments caused human nature to differ somewhat from one continent to another. They thought blacks had proclivities toward crime, promiscuity, and sloth; and that these tendencies had to be held in check by white supervision.[4]

    Evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald notes that:

    The early part of the twentieth century was the high water mark of Darwinism in the social sciences. It was common at that time to think that there were important differences between the races–that races differed in intelligence and moral qualities. Not only did races differ, but they were in competition with each other for supremacy.[5]

    The eminent black historian and sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois recognized racial differences in behavior, but disagreed on the cause. In his famous study, The Philadelphia Negro (1899), he reported that blacks in Philadelphia, although only four percent of the population, committed 22 percent of the serious crimes. He also called attention to what he called “the unchastity of a large number of women.” “The great weakness of the Negro family,” Du Bois wrote, “is . . . lack of respect for the marriage bond. . . . . Sexual looseness then arises as a secondary consequence, bringing adultery and prostitution in its train.” In a talk to one group of blacks, Du Bois declared that “the first and greatest step [toward solving America’s racial problems] is the correction of the immorality, crime, and laziness among the Negroes themselves.”[6]

    At the same time, Du Bois shifted the paradigm by arguing that racial discrimination by whites was largely responsible for the condition of blacks. He emphasized that whites, because they established racial barriers to good jobs, were responsible for black failure. Du Bois did not ignore the weaknesses of blacks, but he emphasized the culpability of whites.

    A century later, it is Du Bois’s view that prevails. Most people attribute racial disparities to the influence of history, culture, and discrimination. This is “the sovereign doctrine of twentieth century social theory,” naturalist E. O. Wilson has written, adding that this modern consensus eschews the importance of biology, pays “little attention to the foundation of human nature,” and has “almost no interest in its deep origins.”[7]

    George M. Fredrickson, who taught history at Stanford until 2002, acknowledged that earlier generations of scientists and scholars often mentioned evolution as the source of racial disparities, but he insisted they were motivated by racism. They “raised prejudice to the level of science; thereby giving it respectability.” Fortunately, Fredrickson wrote, in the 20th century there occurred a “fundamental change . . . in white racial thinking.” In “respectable” circles, “liberal environmentalism” emerged as a pervasive “racial creed,” and most mainstream social scientists now maintain that there are “no differences between the races which [are] likely to affect their social, cultural, and intellectual performance; all apparent differences [are] the result of environment.”[8]

    This is what I was taught when I was a student at Stanford and Berkeley from 1956 to 1965. My professors implied that with the right social reforms, ethnic and racial gaps could be abolished. They implied that emphasis on biology was a sign of bigotry. My professors subscribed to the blank-slate theory that all races of humanity have the same innate distribution of aptitudes and talent. One of my favorite professors, historian Kenneth M. Stampp, summed up the prevailing wisdom in a memorable sentence: “Negroes are after all only white men with black skins, nothing more, nothing less.”[9]

    What caused this turnabout? I believe four considerations are especially important. One is a phenomenon that has been called “Hitler’s posthumous revenge.” Then there is the logic and legacy of the civil rights movement. There was also a new pattern of thinking in social science. And, eventually, there were programs to re-educate–or indoctrinate–students.

    I first became acquainted with the term “Hitler’s posthumous revenge” when I read Peter Brimelow’s 1995 book, Alien Nation.[10] Mr. Brimelow noted that during the Second World War most Americans came to loathe Nazi Germany. After the war, the United States and its allies decided to put as much distance as possible between their nations and Nazism, which they came to define as the refusal to accept diversity. In retrospect, we can see that this set the stage for dismantling the existing particularisms in Western societies. Rejecting nationalism and distinctions between racial groups as retrograde–and even as akin to Nazism–eventually led to the Immigration Act of 1965. Repudiation of national traditions paved the way for massive immigration of non-whites into Europe as well as North America–immigration that is transforming and could ultimately destroy the victors in World War II. In the last few years, Angela Merkel has opened Germany to massive Third-World immigration as well, so the vanquished may be submerged along with the victors.

    The Civil Rights Movement also led many whites toward egalitarianism and a hyper-critical attitude toward their ancestors. In some circles, this attitude has come to be known as “ethnomasochism.”

    The Civil Rights Movement began long ago, but its high point came in the 1950s and 1960s, when blacks demanded the right to vote, an end to formal segregation, and the abolition of racial discrimination in public accommodations. Most white people thought these demands were reasonable, especially since civil rights leaders insisted that their movement be nonviolent and dignified. As journalist James J. Kilpatrick noted, for tactical reasons the leaders of the Movement emphasized the contrast between “well-dressed, studious blacks peacefully protesting” and violent mobs of whites, “a ragtail rabble, slackjawed, black jacketed, grinning fit to kill.”[11] According to legal historian Michael Klarman, the freedom riders “count[ed] upon the racists of the South to create a crisis,” and black leaders “calculated for the stupidity of Bull Connor.” Conner did not disappoint. He and his police dogs became the most widely recognized symbols of white opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. Civil rights leaders carefully chose to hold demonstrations in areas where local authorities were likely to over-react. Sheriff Jim Clark of Selma, Alabama, was one of many examples.[12] Meanwhile, the racial implications of evolution were relegated to a few scholarly journals and some small academic societies.

    The roots of this new paradigm went deeper, however, back to the work of anthropologist Franz Boas, who was at Columbia University from 1896 to 1942. It was Boas who, more than anyone else, persuaded anthropologists and other social scientists that racial differences were not the result of genetic inheritance but were shaped by historical events.[13]


    Franz Boas
    Franz Boas


    Early in his career, Boas had reported that “the average size of the Negro brain is slightly smaller than the average size of the brain of the white race,” and therefore Boas thought it likely “that differences in mental characteristics of the two races exist.”[14] But by the 1920s, he was teaching that “the variations in cultural development” could be explained “by a consideration of the general course of historical events” and without recourse to innate racial differences.[15] Instead of stressing the importance of race, he insisted that “patterns of culture” were primarily responsible for differences in behavior.

    Carl Degler (1921 – 2014), a Pulitzer-prize winning historian at Stanford, has noted that Boas did not present “conclusive evidence” that “unambiguously disproved” the Darwinists. Instead, Boas managed to substitute his own “unproved (though strongly held) assumption.” Boas established a new orthodoxy, one that held that “the well-recognized diversity among human groups derived not from race but from different histories and environments.”[16]

    How did Boas do it? According to Degler “changes in the ethnic makeup of the social science community”–that is, the increasing numbers of Jewish scholars, which led eventually to Jewish domination of the social sciences–explained “a large part of the explanation for this shift in outlook on race.”[17] Degler was, himself, Jewish. Kevin MacDonald adds that “ethnic networking by Jews with access to prestigious academic institutions, academic presses, and the elite media created dominant intellectual and political movements that effectively excluded dissenters from positions of authority and influence.”[18]

    George Stocking (1928 – 2013) had a different argument. He conceded that Boas had a strong sense of Jewish identity; that Boas was sensitive to anti-Semitism in his native Germany; that he “bore scars from several duels he had fought with fellow students who had made anti-Semitic remarks.” But Stocking believes that Boas’ fieldwork with Eskimos in northern Alaska was even more influential. There Boas found himself living as “as a true Eskimo,” eating and hunting with the natives, and celebrating “the sea-change that comes from immersion in another . . . culture.” It was “a beautiful custom,” Boas wrote, “that these ‘savages’ suffer all deprivation in common, but in happy times when someone has brought back booty from the hunt, all join in eating and drinking.” Boas concluded that men and women who knew so much about surviving against the odds, about ice fishing, dog sledding, and polar bears, were not intellectually inferior. They, and other supposedly “inferior” groups, were not shaped by Darwinian adaptations but by their own history, climate, and culture.[19]

    Whatever the reasons for Boas’ “culturism,” he instilled this views [sic] in scores of graduate students who eventually came to dominate anthropology. One of these students, Margaret Mead, wrote the best-selling anthropology book of the 20h century, Coming of Age in Samoa (1928). Another, Ruth Benedict, wrote the most influential “culturist” book of the era, Patterns of Culture (1934). A third, Ashley Montague, was the principal author of UNESCO’s influential 1950 “Statement on Race,” which argued that race was unimportant.


    Ruth Benedict
    Ruth Benedict

    Meanwhile, other Boas students became heads of the anthropology departments at such places as Berkeley (Alfred Kroeber and Robert Lowie), Chicago (Edward Sapir and Fay Cooper Cole), Northwestern (Melville Herskovits). In addition, between the 1920s and the 1950s, several of Boas’s students served as editors of the American Anthropological Association’s flagship journal, American Anthropologist, (John Swanton, Robert Lowie, Leslie Spier, Melville Herskovits). From these perches, Boas’s former students made it difficult for biologically-oriented anthropologists to publish or find jobs. Boas, it seems, employed the Gramscian strategy of infiltration by means of a “long march” through his profession.[20]

    Beginning in 1934 with funding from the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Boas and his proteges also launched a campaign to persuade teachers and administrators to revise the standard curriculum in social studies. They wanted grade school and high school students “to learn that it was [not evolution but] the concept of culture, learned customs in a specific social and historical context, that explained the extraordinary diversity of human life.” To that end, Ruth Benedict wrote an influential pamphlet, The Races of Mankind, which was used as a textbook to explain that “differences between individuals of any group . . . were due to variations in social environment and historical circumstances and [were] not biologically determined.“ Margaret Mead explained the goal, saying, “[C]hanging the climate of opinion in which young people are reared . . . will inevitably have profound reverberations in the social order . . . . [It] is well within the power of educational leaders.”[21]

    This proved to be the case. According to Zoe Burkholder, the author of a solid academic monograph on this effort to reform the public schools, Boas and his “early civil rights warriors . . . forever change[d] the way American schools taught about [the] human race . . . .”[22] They showed that there was a measure of truth in a statement that has been attributed to Abraham Lincoln: “The philosophy taught in the classrooms in one generation will become the philosophy of the government in the next.”

    Many of those who taught Boas’s program believed what they were teaching. Boas, however, admitted that the program was a form of propaganda. At one point in the 1930s, even Ruth Benedict lamented that Boas had “given up science for good works . . . such a waste!” In 1939, after concluding that Boas had become more a propagandist than a scientist, the American Jewish Committee stopped funding Boas’s work for school reform.[23]

    During the Cold War, when the Boasian program came to be associated with the propaganda of the Communist Party, there was a decline in the public schools’ use of what Boasians called “tolerance education.”[24] But in recent decades the left-liberal, culturist version of race relations has been revived and has become the dominant, central theme in America’s elementary and high school classes. For the last 50 years, America’s elementary students have been taught that different races have the same distribution of innate aptitudes and talent.

    Culturism also gave rise to a new form of intolerance. In some colleges there have been efforts to silence those who give Darwinian or biological explanations for race and sex differences in achievement. Meanwhile, many colleges and school districts pay the expenses of students and teachers who attend conferences where leftist fanatics maintain that persistent racial and ethnic disparities are the result of “white privilege.” Culturists have also silenced candid discussion of other topics, especially feminism, homosexuality, trans-genderism, and gay marriage. We have moved beyond the days when the exceptions to free speech were limited to incitement, sedition, pornography, and blasphemy.

    According to one recent poll, 71 percent of college freshmen now think universities should “prohibit racist [and] sexist speech on campus.”[25] Since these freshmen had only recently arrived at college, their opinions were most likely not the result of indoctrination by professors, but were shaped earlier through the modern counterpart of the Franz Boas’s “tolerance education” of the 1930s. America’s schools, as well as its major media, claim that all group disparities can be eliminated only if whites get over their racism, renounce their privilege, and reshape their culture.

    However, since the 1950s there has been a slow revival of Darwinism among scholars in biology and psychology and even in anthropology and sociology. In 1975, the eminent Harvard naturalist, E. O. Wilson, reviewed and added to this research in his magnum opus, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. This synthesis united social and natural science. It conceded that history matters, but also maintained that there is a biological basis for culture.

    In 1991, Carl Degler published a 400-page book that described scores of recent academic studies that also have pointed toward a Darwinian understanding of the biological basis of social behavior.[26] By the time a 25th anniversary edition of E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology was published in 2000, listed 416 titles under “sociobiology” and 1,218 under “human evolution.”[27] Three years later, New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade explained that racial differences arose “because after the ancestral human population in Africa spread throughout the world . . . , geographical barriers prevented interbreeding. Consequently, under the influence of natural selection . . . people . . . diverged away from the ancestral population, creating new races.” In his 2014 book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, Mr. Wade summarized a large body of research that indicates that evolution in different environments has led to different distributions of genes that influence not just skin color but also behavior, intelligence, and personality.[28]

    The climate of educated opinion is shifting, but the neo-Darwinians have by no means supplanted the culturists. In part, this is because some of the Darwinian sociobiology is provisional and debatable. But there is also stiff resistance, not so much from scientists as from politicians, the media, students, many professors, and doctrinaire reformers. Culturism has become dogma, not only in the United States but in Canada and Europe as well.

    Nevertheless, genetic information continues to slip out of the laboratories, and this information is showing that people with different ancestries have different distributions of DNA. Thanks to these studies and to better methods for dating ancient remains, the vast majority of scholars agree that mankind separated into two parts well over 50,000 years ago. One part remained in Africa, the ancestral homeland, and the other crossed into Southwest Asia. The second group separated again and again until there were human populations living in reproductive isolation in almost all parts of the world. This continued for hundreds of generations and, over time, there were numerous adaptations to differing climates and conditions.

    This is how racial and other group differences evolved. Groups with different ancestries or different ways of living developed different genes because those genes were suited to their respective environments. Anthropologist Greg Cochran says someone would have to be an “idiot” to believe that “the optimum mental phenotype . . . [is] the same in the tropical hunter-gatherers, arctic hunter-gatherers, Neolithic peasants, and medieval moneylenders.” [29]

    As an historian, I am primarily a story teller. I describe and try to explain what others have done, said, written, or thought. Nevertheless, my students sometimes ask what I think. They may ask, “What was the major cause of the American Civil War?” Or, “What do you think about Woodrow Wilson’s plan for a new world order?” Or, “Did Roosevelt’s economic policies end the Great Depression or did they prolong it?”

    These questions give me pause. They can be answered plausibly but not definitively. Of course, I have opinions. In fact, now that I am retired I seem to have more opinions than I did when I taught full-time at the University of Delaware.

    I think the Darwinists of 1900 were correct when they said the characters of different races had been influenced by natural selection, but I believe they went too far in dismissing the significance of “culture.”[30]

    I also think Boasian culturists went too far in discounting the importance of heredity. It is not correct to affirm, as one college textbook does, that “there is no logical reason to expect that the number of minority students [in advanced classes] would not be proportional to their representation in the general population.” It is a mistake to write, as one New York Times columnist has, that “given the opportunities, most people could do most anything.”[31]

    I think we should acknowledge that in accounting for racial disparities “the data . . . tip toward a mixture of genetic and environmental influences.”[32] Heredity and culture are both important. Human behavior should be understood as the product of an interplay between biology and culture.

    We should also recognize that this balanced view prevails among many scholars and scientists, although most politicians, the media, and most schools are mired in politically correct culturism. The task before us, I believe, is to inculcate in our teachers, social scientists, journalists, and politicians a realistic, scientifically-based understanding of racial disparities.

    Phil Rushton passed on in 2012 at the age of 68. If Phil were with us today, I would have a mixed message: one part gloom and the other more hopeful. Gloom because our culturist establishment has embraced a sentimental, scientifically-unwarranted egalitarianism that, if it continues, will doom the white race and its civilizations.


    J. Philippe Rushton
    J. Philippe Rushton


    But there is also good news. I would tell Phil that informed scientific opinion is shifting. I would tell him that Darwinism is regaining its cachet with scientists, although not yet with molders of opinion. I would tell him that his own work is now recognized as a significant contribution to the revival of Darwinism in our time.[33] And I would remind him of a statement that Martin Luther King made at the end of his famous march from Selma to Montgomery, “Truth crushed to earth will rise again.”

    When King said that in 1965, he was drawing on William Cullen Bryant’s work of 1839, “The Battlefield. But history is replete with ironies, and King was not the first to paraphrase Bryant. Among his predecessors was Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, who, in 1868, declared, “Truth crushed to earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again.”[34]

    [1] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species (London: Murray, 1859).

    [2] Charles Darwin, quoted by George M. Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1971), 230. Also see Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1969) 343; George W. Stocking, Race, Culture, and Evolution (New York: 1968), 113. Admittedly, Origin of the Species focused on the animal kingdom, but in his sequel, The Descent of Man (London: Murray, 1871) Darwin emphasized that mankind was part of this kingdom.

    [3] John De Forest, Francis Walker, James Bryce, and Joseph Le Conte, quoted and paraphrased by George M. Fredrickson, ibid., 241-43, 238, 245, 246, 247.

    [4] Carl Degler, In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 62.

    [5] George W. Stocking, Jr., Race, Culture, and Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1968), 132; Kevin MacDonald, Review of Joseph. W. Bendersky, The ‘Jewish’ Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the U. S. Army (New York: Basic Books, 2000), at Kevin

    [6] W. E. B. Du Bois, The Philadelphia Negro (1899; reprint, Millwood, N. Y.: Kraus-Thompson Organization, 1973), 50, 249; Du Bois, “The Conservation of Races” (1897), reprinted in Herbert Aptheker, ed., Pamphles and Leaflets by W. E. B. Du Bois (White Plains, N.Y.: Kraus Thomson Organization, 1986), 8, 7, 6.

    [7] E. O. Wilson, Consilience (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998), 2004.

    [8] George M. Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1971), 89, 255, 320-332, and passim. Writing twenty years later, however, another historian, Carl Degler, noted that since the 1950s there has been a decided “revival” of Darwinian thought among scholars. Degler, In Search of Human Nature.

    [9] Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1956) vii.

    [10] Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (New York: Random House, 1995).

    [11] James J. Kilpatrick, quoted by Randall Kennedy, “Lifting as We Climb,” Harpers (October 2015).

    [12] Michael J. Klarman, From Jim Crow to Civil Rights (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 385, 429; Klarman, “How Brown Changed Race Relations: The Backlash Thesis,” Journal of American History 81 (June 1994) 81-118) .

    [13] Sol Tax, “Franz Boas,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed on-line, March 6, 2016.

    [14] Franz Boas, “The Real Race Problem, Crisis 1 (November 1910), 2, 23. One of Boas’ most prominent Ph.D. students, Alfred Kroeber of Berkeley, made a similar point. “. . . the anatomical differences between races would appear to render it likely that at least some corresponding congenital differences of psychological quality exist. These differences might not be profound, compared with the sum total of common human faculties, much as the physical variations of mankind fall within the limits of a single species. Yet they would preclude identity. As for the vexed question of superiority, lack of identity would involve at least some degree of greater power in certain respects in some races. These pre-eminences might be rather evenly distributed so that no one race would notably excel the others in the sum total or average of its capacities; or they might show some minor tendency to cluster on one rather than on another race. . . . “ A. L. Kroeber, Anthropology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1948), 204.

    [15] Franz Boas, “The Real Race Problem,” Crisis 1 (November 1910), 2, 23; Boas, The Mind of Primitive Man (New York: McMillan, 1911), 5, 11, 22, 29.

    [16] Carl Degler, In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 187, 192.

    [17] Ibid., 202.

    [18]Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique (Westport: Praeger, 1998, First Paperback Edition, 2002), Chapter 2 and passim; MacDonald, “The Alt Right,”, 18 April 2016.

    [19] George W. Stocking, Jr., Race, Culture, and Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1968), 147, 148, 150, 204 and passim.

    [20] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, Chapter 2; Gary Bullert, “Franz Boas as Citizen Scientist,” smashcm[cultural Marxism]

    [21] Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict, and Margaret Mead, paraphrased by Zoe Burkholder, Color in the Classroom (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 7-8, 76, 85.

    [22] Zoe Burkholder, Color in the Classroom, 11, 45.

    [23] Zoe Burkholder, Color in the Classroom, 67, 63.

    [24] Zoe Burkholder, Color in the Classroom, 153.

    [25] See Victor S. Skinner, “Thousands of Teachers Flock to ‘White Privilege’ Conference, EAG News, 15 April 2016; and to the articles listed under “indoctrination” at and under “white privilege” at; Catherine Rampell, “Liberal Intolerance Is on the Rise on America’s College Campuses, Washington Post, February 11, 2016).

    [26] Carl Degler, In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).

    [27] Steve Sailer, “Sociobiology at Age 25,” National Review, 19 June 2000.

    [28] Nicholas Wade, “’Two Scholarly Articles,” New York Times, 20 March 2003); Wade, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History (New York: The Penguin Press, 2014). Also see Kevin Lamb, “The Reality of Race: Understanding the Nature of Racial Differences,” in Samuel Francis, ed., Race and the American Prospect (Mt. Airy, Maryland: The Occidental Press 2006), 21-65.

    [29] See William Saletan, “Created Equal, (28 November 2007); Gregory Cochran, “Pygmification,” posted at (August 24, 2014).

    [30] Paul B. Barringer and Joseph A. Tillinghast, quoted and paraphrased by George M. Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind, 253-54.

    [31] Mary M. Frasier, “Gifted Minority Students,” in Nicholas Colangelo and Gary A. David, Handbook of Gifted Education (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 498; Deborah Solomon, interview with Charles Murray, quoted by John Derbyshire, “The Straggler” (1 December 2008) at; Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

    [32] Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve (New York: Free Press, 1994), 311.

    [33] Helmuth Nyborg, ed., The Life History Approach to Human Differences: A Tribute to J. Philippe Rushton (London: Ulster Institute for Social Research, 2015).

    [34] Bryant put it this way: “Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again; The eternal years of God are hers; But Error, wounded, writhes with pain, And dies among his worshippers.”

    Tuesday, August 30, 2016

    Killers Gonna Kill, and Blacks Gonna Excuse Them, as Long as the Killers are Also Black: Newest Rationalization for Murdering a Man: He Didn’t Hold Mickey Dee’s Door Open for My Whore, er, Bitch, er, Fiance


    Murder victim Mohammad Robinson and an unidentified child

    By A Texas Reader and Nicholas Stix

    Man shot and killed for not holding the door open for woman at a McDonald's

    “At Least One Killed in McDonald’s Shooting.”

    “365Black in Baltimore: Racist Black Lynch Mob Attacks Whites in McDonald’s in Hate Crime; Racist Local Media Lie, and Call It a ‘Prank’ and a ‘Brawl’; National MSM ‘Disappear’ Crime Altogether.”

    Why would I buy pink slime from him?

    Man shot and killed for not holding the door open for woman at a McDonald's

    An argument outside a North Las Vegas McDonald’s turned deadly for a 31-year-old man. Family members of Mohammad Robinson say he died Saturday night after he mistakenly did not hold the door open for a woman. “It's horrible. I want my dad back and you took h…”

    N.S.: Mohammad Robinson’s family members and alleged witnesses who peddled the story above are imbeciles. Robinson did not “mistakenly” fail to hold the door open for a woman. The person for whom he declined to hold the door open was no “woman,” though she was a female, and it wasn’t his place to act as doorman for her.

    A gentleman holds doors for ladies. If Robinson’s killer was concerned about someone holding the door for his escort, he should have held it himself. It was his job, not a stranger’s.

    Here’s what happened. There was no argument. An argument presupposes that at least two people have a beef with each other. What was Mohammad Robinson’s beef with this stranger?

    The female in question and her consort went to McDonald’s looking for someone to slaughter.

    “The friend told [Robinson’s 14-year-old daughter, Miniya] Sampson, her father got into an argument with a woman that was upset that a door into the McDonald's was not held open for her. The woman notified a man she was with and that man pulled out a gun and shot Robinson.

    “The victim's girlfriend who did not want to show her face says Mohammed was a respectful man.

    "He was the utmost respect for his elders. Yes, ma'am -- no sir. He's not confrontational even when we would argue he'd walk away," said Mohammad's

    “Sampson believes her father died because of a misunderstanding.”

    The female in question started screaming at Robinson as a pretext to sic her male consort on him. I’ve been in the identical situation numerous times, except that in my case, the racist black thugs who attacked me lacked guns. One reason they weren’t packing was that in at least two cases, they attacked me right on policemen, once a black, and another time, a white cop.

    The daughter is a moron, too, in a way that is typical of many black adults, as well. There was no “misunderstanding.” The female and her killer-consort knew exactly what was going on.

    Whenever one reads of such a cold-blooded murder, some blacks will play the “misunderstanding” card. That tells you right away that the killer was black.

    When a white or white-enough man kills a black would-be killer in self-defense, or by accident, blacks have no understanding. The white man must die! But when a black man slaughters another black man in cold blood, one often hears ludicrous lines like “It was a misunderstanding.”

    Ten or so years ago, a black man was bicycling in black Far Rockaway, Queens. He was a Bible-thumper, always trying to get people to get right with their God. When a black driver passed him, the bicyclist shouted something to him, like “Praise the Lord!” The driver shot him dead, just like that.

    Local blacks called the murder “a misunderstanding,” assuming for the benefit of the murderer that he had mistakenly believed that the bicyclist had insulted him.

    A civilized human being does not murder someone, because he thinks the man might have insulted him, or even because he did insult him.

    To my knowledge, that Far Rockaway murder was never solved, even though I’m sure people there know who committed it.

    “No snitching.”

    Who believes that “Black Lives Matter”? Not blacks.

    One aspect of the story I do believe, however, is that Mohammad Robinson was a gentleman. If he had been an uncouth cut-throat, his killers would have let him be. Black cut-throats see all human decency as weakness, and seek to avoid confrontations with their fellows (a drive-by shooting is a sneak attack, not a confrontation). I had previously thought that they limited that approach to whites, and maybe they once did, but they have since expanded it to blacks.

    Bottomless Evil: Four Blacks Charged with Murder, for Brutally Beating, Breaking the Bones, and then Burning Alive Elderly, White, Georgia Woman, Dorothy Dow, 83


    War crime victim Dorothy Dow

    By David in TN

    An 83-year old white woman, Dorothy Dow, was attacked in her home and set on fire on August 4. She died on Saturday.

    I recall about 5-6 years ago when writing about a beating at a Baltimore area McDonald's, you wrote that your blog has to "deal with this garbage on a daily basis." Well, it gets worse and worse, doesn't it? Burning elderly white people alive has become a fad, of sorts. The bottom is never reached.

    UPDATE: 4 charged with murder in home invasion, brutal assault of elderly GA woman
    By Tanita Gaither, Digital Content Director
    Monday, August 29th 2016, 1:31 p.m. EDT
    Updated: Monday, August 29th 2016, 5:13 p.m. EDT

    MERIWETHER COUNTY, GA (WTVM) – Four suspects involved in the brutal assault of an elderly Grantville woman have had their charges upgraded to murder.

    Meriwether County Sheriff Chuck Smith reported that his agency has filed murder charges related to the home invasion and assault of Dorothy Dow, 83, on Aug. 4.

    Dow died from her injuries on Aug. 27 at an Atlanta hospital.

    “Mrs. Dow put forth a valiant effort to recover from the injuries that she sustained not only immediately after the assault but in the days preceding while she was under medical care. Due to the death of Mrs. Dow our agency has obtained additional charges against four of the suspects in custody related to this heinous crime.

    Dow sustained two broken arms, lacerations to her face and head, and broken fingers in addition to the third-degree burns on her back and head. Despite the injuries, she extinguished the flames herself with a jug of water kept near her bed for her oxygen machine, crawled to her living room where her cell phone was and called 911.

    Law enforcement said she was able to make a positive identification of the suspects before being placed into a medically-induced coma.

    Dow’s body was released to the Meriwether County Coroner’s Office, Coroner Johnny Worley, for transport to the GBI Crime Lab for an autopsy.

    “Our agency has been in communication with our District Attorney’s Office related to these upgraded and additional charges being filed in this case investigation,” Smith said.

    Smith said four of the five suspects listed are being charged with the additional offenses of one count each felony murder and malice murder. These charges are in addition to the previous charges that they have previously been booked [sic].

    • Justin Peirce Grady, 38, of Grantville, GA. Grady is being charged additionally for the offenses of Felony Murder and Malice Murder, 1 count each.   
    • Cortavious Deshun Heard, 18, of Hogansville, GA. Heard is being charged additionally for the offenses of Felony Murder and Malice Murder, 1 count each.   
    • Mina Christine Ellery, 17, of Newnan. Ellery is being charged additionally for the offenses of Felony Murder and Malice Murder, 1 count each.   
    • Angel Latrice Harmon, 17, of Newnan. Harmon is being charged additionally for the offenses of Felony Murder and Malice Murder, 1 count each.   

    All of the above individuals are being held in jail without bond.

    Another person, Shanquavious Cameron, 17, was arrested in connection with an Aug. 2 robbery of Dow's home. [So, he robbed her on August 2, and then brought back his villainous friends to murder her, two days later?! Allegedly, of course. But in that case, Cameron should be up for Conspiracy to Commit Murder in the First Degree.]

    Grady and Heard previously worked in the blueberry fields next to Dow's home and helped the family during harvest seasons.

    “Please keep the Dow Family in your thoughts, prayers and give them the respect that they deserve as they grieve the death of their loved one,” Smith said. “Our agency through coordination with our district attorney’s office will be pursuing the prosecution of those responsible for this heinous crime to the fullest extent of the law.”

    No funeral arrangements have been made at this time.


    Suspected war criminals, l-r: Shanquavious Cameron, Justin Grady, Cortavous Heard, Mina Christine Ellery and Angel Latrice Harmon 

    See 30-Second Donald Trump TV Commercial: “Hillary Clinton’s America” (Video)


    Ben Garrison Has Drawn a Really Disgusting Political Cartoon Mocking Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin! Boo, Hiss! See It at Nicholas Stix, Uncensored!

    To Donald Trump: Stop Disheartening Your Supporters, and Allowing the Enemy to Start Tearing at the Weakness! Glaivester: Five Points on How Trump Should Handle Questions About Deporting Illegal Aliens

    Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

    Trump and Deportations
    By Glaivester
    Sunday, August 28, 2016

    A few points on the best way to respond to questions about "deporting 11 million" that Trump flubbed so badly recently:

    First, never indicate that anyone will definitely be legalized. It disheartens supporters and allows the enemy to start tearing at the weakness.

    Second, always shift the discussion to the non-sympathetic cases - not just the criminals, but those who are on welfare or otherwise are a detriment to our society. Do not get suckered into talking about people whom your emotions will tell you we have to let stay, but about those whom most people will demand be deported. However, never imply that you are limiting deportations only to the cases that you mention.

    Third, emphasize the logic of attrition through enforcement - point out that seriously enforcing employment laws will cause many illegal aliens to leave; seriously enforcing welfare restrictions will do the same. Even deportations will have a multiplier effect, because once we are serious about deportations, a significant number will leave on their own. Emphasizing this will blunt the impact of the "you can't round up 11 million people" line. But do not hint at it - specifically note that enforcing the laws will cause many to leave without being deported.

    Fourth, emphasize the deportation of recent visa overstayers - make the point that a large portion of illegal aliens did not come here illegally, but rather stayed here illegally. Talk about deporting those people, and associate the idea of a deportation force with a group of people who coordinate such removals.

    Fifth, shift the discussion about the sympathetic cases to the future. "Listen, perhaps there are some cases of people who are beneficial to the country and who have been here a long time, and we can work with those people - but before we do any of that, we need to get a handle on the people who are not beneficial to this country - and there are a lot more of those than the media would have you believe. Before we determine what to do with these sympathetic cases, we must first remove the non-sympathetic ones - violent criminals first, but then lesser criminals, people who are receiving government benefits - the idea that the vast majority of illegal aliens are good guys and we only need to remove a few bad apples - there are lots of bad apples. But we'll get rid of them first; then we can see whether or not anyone who is left gets to stay."

    That is all.

    Remember What James Baker III Said to King George I?

    By Nicholas Stix

    “F--k the Jews. They don’t vote for us, anyway.”

    What would he say about blacks, Hispanics, Moslems and homosexuals?

    All the pundits, Left and liberal, are now saying that when Donald Trump reaches out to blacks, he’s really reaching out to suburban white women, who would vote against him, if he talked tough on… anything. Read: Soccer moms.

    They’re a plague, too. Remember when Annie Coulter rued the mistake of extending the franchise to females? That was one of the leading reasons why.

    Monday, August 29, 2016

    Hillary's Health: See the Most Controversial Video on the Internet! People are Losing Their Jobs, and Fearing for Their Lives Over It


    [Previously, at WEJB/NSU:

    “Censorship Alert: Huffington Post ‘Disappears’ Writer David Seaman for Linking to Video Questioning Hillary's Clinton’s Health, Killing Links to All of His HP Articles!”

    The Truth About Hillary's Bizarre Behavior


    Published on Aug 4, 2016 by Paul Joseph Watson.

    Hillary's bizarre behavior and strange seizures: Is she having a breakdown or does she actually have brain damage?

    I asked mental health experts about her strange outbursts that have been caught on camera.

    I Love Lucy, and I Love Affordable Housing! The Affordability of Housing in Quality Neighborhoods for Young People Starting Out Existed in West Hollywood in 1933, but Does Not in 2016; I Wonder Why?


    A pre-redheaded Lucille Ball in the 1930s

    By Nicholas Stix

    The Countenance Blogmeister explains.

    Has the Alt Right Gone Gay?


    Openly homosexual, Nazi hero, Ernst Röhm

    [Re: “What Does the Alt Right Want? (Graphic).”]

    By Nicholas Stix

    Rodger Smith said...

    I am not sure all people considering themselves alt-right would agree with number 4. [“Healthy Relationships Between Men and Women”/”We Respect Truthfulness Regarding Sexual Differences.”] More and more gay people have joined the alt-right.

    Monday, August 29, 2016 at 2:18:00 PM EDT

    Rodger Smith,

    Well, you’re certainly right about Alt Right leaders. They have relentlessly promoted an openly, aggressively homosexual Nazi, whose specialty is writing and lecturing normal men on how to be properly masculine. They publish his essays, promote his books, and constantly invite him to speak at their conferences. God only knows what motivates these men. They seem to be normal, and yet…

    As for ordinary Alt Righters, I have not heard complaints from them about the promotion of this man to spokesman for the movement. Then again, I do not hang around their blogs and Web sites much these days. For some reason, they don’t much care for me.

    Then again, according to the SPLC and its newsroom allies, I am a leading figure of the Alt Right.

    It’s a funny, old world.

    Censorship Alert: Huffington Post “Disappears” Writer David Seaman for Linking to Video Questioning Hillary's Clinton’s Health, Killing Links to All of His HP Articles!


    Editor's Note: This post is no longer available on the Huffington Post.

    Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

    I do not know if David Seaman is Irish, but the Liarton Post has certainly got his Irish up!

    Huffington Post TERMINATED Me for Questioning Hillary's Health


    Streamed live 20 hours ago by David Seaman.

    What the actual fuck is this. Posting an update tonight, Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:13 p.m. local time as there are legal implications here. Simply linking to a video that questions Hillary Clinton's health should not get one's contributorship AND articles deleted without notice! That's censorship- which is a profoundly un-American behavior, in my view.

    Update: About that Active LAX Shooting, Which Caused a Stampede Out of Terminal 4

    By Nicholas Stix

    LAX officials now maintain that there was no shooting.

    Was the first report false, or the second? Your guess is as good as mine. But they can’t both be true.

    Breaking News: Attack at LAX Airport; Shots Fired in Terminal 4; People Fleeing Out onto the Tarmac

    By Nicholas Stix

    Updates, as they come.

    Sunday, August 28, 2016

    A Negro Ithaca College Student from Brooklyn was Stabbed to Death in an Early-Morning Brawl on Cornell University’s Campus

    By Reader-Researcher RC

    "Ithaca College student stabbed to death

    "An Ithaca College student from Brooklyn was stabbed to death in an early-morning brawl on Cornell University’s campus. Anthony Nazaire, 20, was killed and another student suffered non-life threaten…"

    He only received a full scholarship because he was a racial minority.

    Now maybe the $$$ can go to a deserving white male applicant.

    [N.S.: It'll never happen. They'll just transfer teh money to another unfit, black, affirmative action applicant.]

    At the New York Post.

    P.S.: Good thing it was a "melee," and not a fracas. Imagine the violence, had it been a fracas.

    Jeff Sessions on the Significance of Donald Trump’s Candidacy

    By Nicholas Stix

    “I think Donald Trump represents, probably, the last chance we have.”

    At “Trump Town Hall 2,” hosted by Sean Hannity, Fox News, originally aired on August 24, 2016, last re-run on August 28, 2016.

    Hate Crimes in South Carolina: Racist, Black Gang Kidnapped Pretty, White Teenager Brittanee Drexel, Turned Her into a Sex Slave, Gang-Raped and Murdered Her, and Fed Her to Alligators


    War crime victim Brittanee Drexel

    Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

    Thanks to reader-researcher RC for this article.

    Brittanee Drexel, teen who vanished in 2009, was raped, shot, eaten by alligators, FBI says
    August 28, 2016

    Brittanee Drexel, teen who vanished in 2009, was raped, shot, eaten by alligators, FBI says

    [Alligators “raped, shot,” and ate her?]

    A teenager who vanished from Myrtle Beach, S.C., in 2009 was repeatedly raped in a gang “stash house” for several days – then she was shot dead and fed to alligators when her disappearance generated too much media attention, the FBI said last week.

    The shocking new details about the mysterious disappearance of 17-year-old Rochester, N.Y., native Brittanee Drexel came largely from a “jailhouse confession” that was subsequently substantiated by others with “tidbits” and “secondhand information,” FBI Agent Gerrick Munoz testified in a federal court transcript obtained by The Post and Courier.

    The inmate who gave the alleged bombshell confession, Taquan Brown, is serving a 25-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter in a different case. Brown told authorities he was present during the final agonizing moments of Drexel’s life, Munoz said.

    Brown claimed to have seen Drexel when he visited a “stash house” – typically a place used to keep guns, drugs or money – in the McClellanville area, the general location where Drexel’s cellphone last pinged.

    Munoz said Brown told officials he saw Da’Shaun Taylor, then 16 years old, and several other men “sexually abusing Brittanee Drexel.” Brown then said he walked to the backyard of the house to give money to Taylor’s father, Shaun Taylor. But as Brown and Shaun Taylor talked, Drexel tried to make a break for it. Her escape attempt was in vain, however, and one of the captors “pistol-whipped” Drexel and carried her back inside the house. Brown said he then heard two gunshots. The next time Brown said he saw Drexel, her body was being wrapped up and removed from the house.

    Drexel’s body has never been found, but Munoz said “several witnesses” have told investigators she was dumped in an unspecified McClellanville pond teeming with alligators.

    Drexel was last captured on video on April 25, 2009, leaving the Blue Water Hotel in Myrtle Beach, where she was staying against her parents' permission. A different inmate serving time at Georgetown County Jail told officials he was informed Da’Shaun Taylor picked Drexel up in Myrtle Beach and transported her to McClellanville.

    Munoz said the FBI believes Taylor “showed her off, introduced her to some other friend that were there…they ended up tricking her out with some of their friends, offering her to them and getting a human trafficking situation.”

    As the media spotlight grew ever brighter on the desperate efforts to find Drexel, the girl was “murdered and disposed of,” Munoz said.

    Munoz’s testimony was part of a bond hearing for a federal charge against Da’Shaun Taylor, now 25, stemming from a 2011 robbery of a McDonald’s. Taylor had previously confessed to being the getaway driver for the holdup, cooperated with South Carolina authorities and completed probation. But prosecutors are now trying to bring federal charges and, if convicted of the new charges, Taylor could face a life sentence.

    Taylor’s attorney contended the federal charges are a naked attempt to “squeeze” Taylor for information on the Drexel case. Asked by Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker about “the real reason” for the charges and if they had to do with Drexel’s disappearance, Assistant U.S. Attorney Winston Holliday said “that would be one” reason.

    Taylor was released after posting $10,000 bail.

    The FBI declined to discuss Munoz’s testimony or any aspect of the Drexel case with The Post and Courier.

    Donald Trump’s Challenge (Video of Trump’s Complete Speech at Dimondale, Michigan Rally, Plus Link to Article)

    Excerpted by Nicholas Stix

    “The challenge: no matter how forcefully Donald Trump may speak on any subject, the MSM will either bury his remarks (as they did after his eloquent post-Orlando speech), or distort them to make him look as ridiculous as possible.”

    Matthew Richer, in VDARE


    Published on Aug 19, 2016

    Watch Live: Donald Trump Rally in Dimondale, Michigan at the Summit Sports and Ice Complex (August 19, 2016) - Full Speech: Donald Trump Dimondale Michigan Speech - Donald Trump Rally Speech, Event Campaign, Live event in DIMONDALE, MI

    Illegal Honduran Alien Murders Two People and Wounds Dozens in Louisiana, When He Crashes the Charter Bus for Which He Has No License

    By Reader-Researcher “B”

    “An undocumented immigrant was piloting a charter bus that he wasn’t licensed to drive when it crashed Sunday morning in Louisiana, killing two people and injuring dozens, police said.”

    This story would have been beyond belief not so many years ago, now people realize that the lawlessness promoted by federal and state governments turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants everywhere you turn, now extends to almost every aspect of life that used to require licensing and regulations.

    At CNN.

    What Does the Alt Right Want? (Graphic)

    Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

    Saturday, August 27, 2016

    New York City: Black Man, Jason Myers, 32, Confesses to Murdering His Black Girlfriend, Ashley McDuffie, 27

    By Nicholas Stix

    At CBS New York.

    The Usual Suspect is Under Arrest in the Murder, in Mississippi, of Two White Catholic Nuns/Nurse Practitioners, Sister Margaret Held and Sister Paula Merrill: Rodney Earl Sanders; Cops’ Cover Story of a Robbery Gone Wrong is Collapsing


    War crime victims Sister Margaret Held and Sister Paula Merrill

    By Jerry PDX

    An arrest has been made in the murder of two Mississippi nuns. The man's name is Rodney Earl Sanders, and yes, he is a negro. Knock me over with a feather.

    You think Lester Holt is going to feature this guy on his nightly news segment? Nah, he'll be too busy editorializing about Ryan Lochte or some other whitey.

    Of note: It was mentioned that he took nothing from the home, just their car to get away, which makes me wonder about the whole robbery-gone-wrong theory the cops were (a little too) aggressively putting out there. Something they often do when they suspect it's a black perp in order to camouflage any possible race bias. I guess it's possible, if it was a “robbery gone wrong,” he decided not to take anything, because he didn’t want to be tied to the murders, but usually criminals aren’t that smart. I wonder if they were sexually assaulted, no word on that, but I can’t help but suspect this guy is yet another black pervert with an elderly white woman fetish.

    N.S. I don’t think he’s a pervert. Raping and murdering old white ladies is a common race war tactic. Black war criminals don’t find them attractive, just vulnerable, and the crime is characterized by racist sadism.


    Suspected war criminal Rodney Earl Sanders

    Friday, August 26, 2016

    Indictment in Diversity Mass Murder: UPPER MARLBORO, Md. (ABC7) — Today a Grand Jury in Prince George’s County Indicted a Man for Killing Three People, and Wounding Two Others in a Forestville Home Back in June

    By Prince George's County Ex-Pat

    "Maryland man indicted for shooting and killing 3, wounding 2 others

    "A grand jury in Prince George’s County indicted a man Friday for killing three people, and wounding two others in a Forestville home back in June. Police say Lawrence Rogers, 24, of Capitol Heights, shot and killed three people at a house in Forestville and..."

    Well, only Democrats involved.

    Nothing to see here.

    Move along.

    Move along.

    At WJLA.

    Dutch Party: Outlaw Mosques, Islamic Schools, Quran

    By Reader-Researcher RC


    Isn't that what Peter Brimelow mentioned?

    At WND.

    Today’s Missing Associated Press Story Has Something to Do with France and Burkinis


    Can you guess which subject is the Burkini Beauty?

    Aug 26, 9:08 AM EDT
    France's top administrative court overturns burkini ban amid shock and anger worldwide

    PARIS (AP) -- France's top administrative court overturns burkini ban amid shock and anger worldwide.

    This is the second AP story I’ve reprinted, of late, which has no story, i.e., the body of the text simply repeats, verbatim, the headline. Period.

    That both stories are concerned with jihad, aka Islam, is no coincidence. The earlier story was about the murderous Moslem attack, in which they killed 86-year-old Father Jacques Hamel, in his Church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, Near Rouen in Normandy, France, while shouting “Allahu Akbar!,” wounded a nun, and took several parishioners hostage. Police shot and killed the two Moslems.


    The word “assailants” was meant to hide from readers that the attackers were Moslem terrorists.

    In the second story, read literally, “amid shock and anger worldwide” is ambiguous as to was outraged, and at what—the initial burkini ban, or its judicial repeal?


    Goodnight, Fatima, Fatima, Goodnight. Goodnight, Fatima, Goodnight, Fatima, I'll see your mangled, bloody corpse, in my nightmares. Females like this one are in much more danger from Moslems than from Christians. She's dressed "like a prostitute," according to many Moslems, who just might chop her up.

    Why not publish an informative article, without the forcing readers into a guessing game? That’s because the AP is a racial socialist political outfit and, as an ally of Islam, wishes to leave readers as confused and confounded as possible.

    Thus, since we know that Moslems are evil, and that they can be found in much of the world, while Frenchmen are no longer so conquest-oriented, the “shock and anger worldwide” must refer to Moslems. But what were they shocked and angered over? Like blacks, Moslems are shocked and angered by everything, and thus could have been angered both by the Burkini ban and its judicial rescinding, but based on longtime study of the AP, I’m going to wager that the latter was talking about the initial rescinding.

    But I shouldn’t have to wager.

    And the AP operative’s phrasing, “amid shock and anger [riots] worldwide,” leaves no doubt that he means that the ban was responsible for the violence, and that the violence was justified.

    Why should Moslems outside of France have any say in the matter? Why should the Associated Press support jihad? Beats me.


    More future dead "prostitutes"

    Hey, Gary Apple: Carlos Beltran Didn’t Play for the Mets in 2001!

    By Nicholas Stix

    The Mets beat the Phillies 9-4 tonight, behind 43-year-old Bartolo Colon, who got his 12th win (12-7) this season, along with two hits. The Amazins (65-63) got four home runs, two by Asdrubal Cabrera, one by Jose Reyes, and a grand slam by Wilmer Flores.

    On SNY’s postgame show, Gary Apple just reported that Cabrera, who hit dingers from both sides of the plate, was the first met to do that “since Carlos Beltran in 2001.”

    Sorry, Gary. Carlos Beltran didn’t come to the Mets until 2005.

    Hillary is Playing with Confidence; Here’s Why (Graphic)