Archive for the ‘African Americans’ Category

Edmund Connelly: Black Rage Means White People Die

Monday, August 9th, 2010

Edmund Connelly: In his recent blog, Steve Sailer tells us about last week’s shooting of eight White workers near Hartford, Connecticut. Sailer notes that  although the only evidence discovered thus far about actual racist behavior toward the black shooter “appears to have been in the stupid and resentful mind of a thieving mass murderer, he was a black stupid and resentful thieving mass murderer, so attention must be paid.”

And of course the media is paying attention, as Christopher Donovan related in his blog “Hate-Fueled Black Mass Murderer in Connecticut Spun as ‘Disgruntled Man’ by Media.”

Am I the only one that is weary beyond description of the way the media and  American society more generally handle these cases of mass murders of Whites? We get endless sympathetic stories about what might have driven a generally good but troubled non-White soul to have suddenly lashed out and taken the lives of so many Whites.

About those suddenly dead Whites, however, we hear so little. No movies, no comments from the President, no front page New York Times stories. It’s not like these Whites came from the perpetual victim classes like Vincent Chin or Leon Klinghoffer.

It’s all summed in the narrative about Chai Vang, the Hmong immigrant who nearly six years ago took the lives of six innocent White hunters. Well, possibly not so innocent because Vang — and the mass media acting as the chorus behind him — claimed the hunters had used racial slurs against him. Case closed: Whites said something racist, so death was a foregone conclusion. And besides, justice was served.

In the present case of Omar Thornton, this narrative is duly repeated. For instance, in a story used by Sailer, Beer warehouse shooter long complained of racism, we read that the mass murderer was a really nice guy:

But underneath, Thornton seethed with a sense of racial injustice for years that culminated in a shooting rampage Tuesday in which the Connecticut man killed eight and wounded two others at his job at Hartford Distributors in Manchester before killing himself.

“I know what pushed him over the edge was all the racial stuff that was happening at work,” said his girlfriend, Kristi Hannah. …

Thornton, who grew up in the Hartford area, complained about racial troubles on the job long before he worked at Hartford Distributors.

“He always felt like he was being discriminated (against) because he was black,” said Jessica Anne Brocuglio, his former girlfriend. “Basically they wouldn’t give him pay raises. He never felt like they accepted him as a hard working person.”

Well, I think we can call this murderous workplace explosion another instance of “going postal.”

It also points to something deeper: a common pattern where a black employee goes after White co-workers. In particular, it reminds me of a chilling case back in 1994. In that incident, three White FedEx pilots were attacked inflight by fellow black pilot Auburn Calloway. Calloway, too, was obsessed with the idea that his career had stalled due to White racism. In fact, he believed it had begun when he was a naval aviator.

Having reached his limit, Calloway concocted a plan to kill the three-man crew of a DC-10, then crash the heavily-loaded plane into FedEx’s headquarters building at the hub in Memphis, Tennessee. To effect this plan, he signed on to “deadhead” aboard the flight and brought with him hammers, a knife, and a spear gun secreted in his guitar case.

To their great credit, the Discovery Channel and National Geographic Channel showed in their series Mayday an accurate racial portrayal of attacker and victims. See this Video link from National Geographic Channel’s website. (You can also watch a re-enactment of the attack here in these YouTube segments.)

Here is an account of the attack where, thirty minutes into the flight, Calloway initiated his ambush of the White pilots:

None of the three men heard Calloway enter the cockpit. Sanders suddenly became aware of a struggle, and heard the awful sound of hammer blows raining down upon his crewmates. He turned to see both men slumped in their chairs, injured terribly, and a blood-soaked Auburn Calloway moving toward him.

Calloway swung wildly at Sanders. Some of the blows landed, some were deflected. The plane lurched as Sanders desperately tried to defend himself. Then something happened that Calloway had not counted upon. Tucker and Peterson recovered and began fighting back. Calloway was surrounded; he flailed about with the hammer, still inflicting gruesome injuries. The men would not give up, though . . .

The cockpit voice recorder transcript of the attack is worth reading to if only for the fact that it records with chilling clarity the risk Whites face due to the present multicultural arrangement that has been foisted upon us by a hostile elite:

DS = pilot Sanders

JT = co-pilot Tucker

P = flight engineer Peterson

AC = attacker Calloway

AW = autowarning

JT: Do you, uh, live over in Arkansas, Dave, or . . . ?

DS: Naw, I live in Fisherville.

JT: Aw, Fisherville, great spot.

(Sounds of hammer blows striking pilots.)

AP: Ow!

JT: God! Oh, ah, shit.

DS: God almighty!

AP: Ow!

JT: What the fuck are you doing?

DS: God, (groan), (groan), God almighty! God, God, God. . . .

JT: Get him, get him, get him

DS: He’s going to kill us.

JT: Get him!

DS: Get up, get him!

AP: I can’t, God!

UV: STOP! (unintelligible) Hold his goddamn . . .

AC: Sit down, sit down, get back in your seat, this is a real gun,

I’ll kill ya.

JT: Get him, get him, get him, get him, get him, get him!

AW: bank angle, bank angle…

JT: Get him, get him, get him!

AC: I’m gonna kill you! Hey, hey! I’ll kill ya!

AW: bank angle, bank angle

DS: Get him, get him, get him!

AW: bank angle, bank angle

DS: Yeah, get him!

AW: bank angle, bank angle

JT: Get him, get him, get him, Andy, I got the airplane!

AW: bank angle, bank angle

JT: Get him, Andy, get him!

AW: bank angle, bank angle

As Sanders and Peterson fought their attacker in the cabin, copilot Tucker “swung the aircraft into dangerous flight maneuvers in an attempt to literally knock the man off his feet.” At nearly 400 miles per hour, the copilot executed a barrel-roll, “as the three struggling men were tossed about the galley area, alternately weightless and pressed upon by three times their weight in G forces.

By now, the aircraft was inverted at 19,700 feet, and the alarmed air traffic controllers in Memphis were desperately calling for Flight 705.  Incredibly, after struggling with his attacker in the cabin, Sanders was able to return to his captain’s seat and land the plane, despite his near-fatal injuries and despite the fact that the DC-10 was grossly overweight for a landing.

You can read the whole account in the suspense-filled book Hijacked: The True Story of the Heroes of Flight 705.

I don’t mean to be voyeuristic with this use of the cockpit tapes. Rather, I want to wake people up. Despite the endless black carjacking murders of Whites, the rape-murder of White women, the murder of White police officers, and, like last week, the workplace executions of White men, people by and large still won’t wake up.

So I’m doing what I can to say, WAKE THE HELL UP!

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: James Edwards on Mel Gibson

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: James Edwards’ current TOO article (“On the crucifixion of Mel Gibson“) emphasizes themes that have been a staple here: Jews adopting very different strategies and attitudes in Israel than in the Diaspora and Jews making alliances with other minorities against the White majority. It reminds us once again that, unlike the old WASP elite, the new elite in America will not be principled.

Ari Emanuel is horrified that Gibson would use the N-word but he comes from a long line of racial Zionists–followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky who believed that Jews were shaped by their long history as a desert people and that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural genius of the Jewish race to flourish. For example Jabotinsky stated, “These natural and fundamental distinctions embedded in the race are impossible to eradicate, and are continually being nurtured by the differences in soil and climate.” As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.” On the other hand, as soon as they move to the US, the family adopts the leftist, pro-multicultural, anti-White attitudes typical of American Jews. His mother was a civil rights worker in the US, and of course his brother Rahm Emanuel is a major power in the Obama administration and its left-leaning multicultural, anti-White agenda. Edwards shows that Emanuel’s talent agency also represents several White-hating rappers. Of course, Jews have their own grudges against the people and culture of the West, epitomized by the hostility toward Gibson’s The Passion of Christ.

It’s only common sense for Whites to fear an America in which they are a minority with a hostile Jewish elite that has made an alliance with Blacks and other minorities with their own historical grudges.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: The Black Supremacist Mayor of Harrisburg — And Her Obedient House Press

Monday, March 1st, 2010

Christopher Donovan:  Harrisburg, Pennsylvania recently elected a bizarre black woman named Linda Thompson as its mayor.  The subtext of her campaign — and now, it appears, her governance — is as follows:  “Harrisburg had a white mayor for years.  I’m black.  The population of Harrisburg is majority black.  So, put me in there.  I’ll kick out the whites and replace them with blacks.”  It was never clear to me that she was about much else.

Thompson typifies erratic black behavior:  she skated by for years as head of a non-profit group called “Loveship, Inc.” that gave her interest-free loans, collected unemployment benefits but drove a Mercedes-Benz, filed a lawsuit against a gas station after spraying herself with gas at what she alleged was a defective pump, and claimed that God had annointed her mayor.  In office, she’s sweeping out the whites and replacing them with blacks, including the new police chief.

The local paper, the Patriot-News, dutifully reports some of this weirdness, despite being a typically pro-black, politically correct city newspaper.  In all its campaign coverage, it never got to the racial heart of her campaign against Stephen Reed, her white predecessor and a fellow Democrat, and Nevin Mindlin, the politically correct Jewish “Republican” who stepped in to oppose her in the general election.  Bloggers were a little bolder, including one who coined the phrase “Zimbabwe on the Susquehanna.”

None of this is really news — racist black mayors have been ruining American cities for years now by driving out business and tax-paying white residents, letting crime run rampant, and doling out goodies to their black friends.  Zimbabwe on the Susquehanna, indeed.  It’s what happens when the “racial molecular atmospherics” of a city go from white to black.

But I had to chuckle at this story in the Patriot-News, in which Thompson, in the midst of thundering against whitey at a black church across the river, rips the paper itself.  The paper then takes the highly unusual (and disfavored by professional journalists) step of quoting its Jewish honcho, David Newhouse:  

We share Mayor Thompson’s belief in the power of both education and economic opportunity, as well as the importance of an inclusive society,” said Patriot-News executive editor David Newhouse. “Despite her unhappiness with our reporting, we are strongly committed to being a partner with the black community, in Harrisburg and throughout the midstate, in these crucial goals.

Chew on that one for a second.  The response to a bat-shit crazy black mayor’s uninformed ranting is that the newspaper is “strongly committed to being a partner with the black community.”  I might innocently ask if the paper is committed to simply telling the truth, but today’s “mainstream” — and strongly Jewish — media works overtime to bury the truth.  My only comfort is that most people, particularly whites, do understand this much.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Edmund Connelly: Steve Sailer gets it

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

Edmund Connelly: Now I’ve got more reason to like Steve Sailer. He recently showed again on his VDARE blog why I’ve recommended him so strongly. Recall my two columns last year recommending his work—see here and here. I really think he does a great job at quantitatively showing how Jews have become the new elite in our society. And he does a pretty good job at pointing to some Jewish behavior that the MSM doesn’t always want to acknowledge. 

His blog here paints a pretty clear picture again. His column is a coment David Brooks NYTimes column extolling the virtues of the new meritocracy compared to the bad old days when the WASPs ran the country. Brooks claims that “we have opened up opportunities for women, African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics and members of many other groups.”

In reality, however, the big winners from this “meritocracy” are Jews. Sailer points out that 

 In 2009, 35% of the Forbes 400 are from one ethnic group that makes up only 2% of the population. So, is “The Power Elite” really that much more diverse today?

If you break down Brooks’ list — “African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics”– by membership in the 2009 Forbes 400, you come up with:

African-Americans: 1 (Oprah)
Jews: 141
Italians: 14
Poles (and all other Eastern Europeans): 6
Hispanics: 2

Similarly, if you look at the 2009 Atlantic 50 ranking of most influential pundits, it’s half Jewish, versus 2% black and 0.5% Hispanic.

In other words, this increased “meritocratic diversity” among the elites that Brooks is writing about essentially consists of the rise of Jews over the last century.

The fact is that the new order is reasonably seen as less of a meritocracy than a new form of clubbiness where ethnic ties among Jews ease the way into top positions. Ethnic cohesion is certainly the main story of the Jewish academic and intellectual elite that constructed the Culture of Critique in the academic world, and the vast overrepresentation of Jews in the media elite mentioned by Sailer suggests it’s the same story there. Indeed, Jews are vastly overrepresented as students in elite academic institutions even controlling for IQ.

This new elite based on ethnic networking is at least as corrupt as the old WASP elite and its family ties. The new elite reacts with angry aggression and charges of “anti-Semitism” if one even mentions that they are in fact an elite.

The old elite had a sense of civic responsibility and national interest. As Sailer notes, the new elite seems to care nothing about the long term success of the society as a whole:

The unspoken implication of Brooks’ analyses is that American Jews should start thinking of themselves less as oppressed outcasts who need to go for whatever they can get while the getting is good, and start thinking of themselves more realistically as the core of the New American Establishment. Thus, American Jews should realize that, like the Protestant Establishment of yore, their privileged position as a de facto leadership caste bestows upon them corresponding duties to conserve the long-term well-being of the overall nation rather than to indulge in personal and ethnic profit and power maximization.

But the terrifying reality is that the Jewish ascendancy remains hostile to the traditional people and culture of America. Jews continue to earn like Episcopalians (actually more than Episcopalians) and vote like Puerto Ricans. They are the financial backbone of the Democratic Party and its coalition of non-White ethnic groups. (83% voted for Obama.) The organized Jewish community is a major pillar of support for massive, non-White immigration that will add 100 million non-Whites to the US in the next few decades.

The new elite is definitely not about conserving America for the long term success of the society as a whole. It’s about ethnic paranoia, ancient hatreds, and the desire to completely transform the society at the expense of its traditional people –elite and non-elite alike — at whatever the cost to the society as a whole. Hey, when it falls apart, just take the money and run to Israel.

Sailer makes it pretty clear that Brooks was not connecting the obvious dots: Since Jews took over America, things have definitely changed for the worse for White Americans.

Bookmark and Share

Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. His most recent TOO article is “Farewell, My Dear WASP

Kevin MacDonald: Race Bias and Conception Risk: Implicit and Explicit Whiteness in Action

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: A recent article in a top psychology journal (“Race Bias Tracks Conception Risk Across the Menstrual Cycle” shows that women have more race bias when they are most at risk for conception. Further, it shows that race bias is even stronger if the woman feels more vulnerable to sexual coercion.

The study once again shows a difference between implicit and explicit race bias. Implicit bias is unconscious. Implicit bias was shown by subjects taking longer to associate negative words like ‘horrible’ or ‘evil’ with photos of Whites than with photos of Blacks. (You can take a similar test here to see if you have implicit biases toward Blacks; around 80% of Whites do)  The study is saying that White women are more likely to have unconscious negative thoughts about Blacks when they are ovulating and this is especially the case if they think they are vulnerable to being raped.

Explicit bias, on the other hand, is assessed by rating how strongly subjects endorse negative racial stereotypes of Blacks (e.g., ‘‘Generally, Blacks are not as smart as Whites’’; ‘‘It is likely that Blacks will bring violence to neighborhoods when they move in’’). People tend to give more socially acceptable answers on race bias items compared to their unconscious, implicit attitudes.

Usually the differences between conscious and unconscious race bias are very large — especially for liberals. Liberals are supreme hypocrites when it comes to race. My favorite is the White affirmative action officer at a university who was horrified to find that she had strong unconscious biases toward Blacks.  Unconscious biases have been shown to have subtle effects on behavior.

What was surprising here was that these White women were also more likely to explicitly endorse negative stereotypes of Blacks when they were ovulating. The effect was weaker than for unconscious attitudes, but it was in the same direction and nearly as strong as for unconscious attitudes — what statisticians call a trend. 

In other words, the hormones that make them ovulate are also making them less politically correct. Their unconscious negative attitudes about Blacks are more likely to leak out in their conscious opinions. The primitive brain wins out over the politically correct censor in the higher part of the brain, so that they become more conscious of their negative attitudes toward Blacks. They would therefore be better able to consciously plan ways to avoid them. 

The other two tests of race bias were also quite explicit. In fact, the strongest single predictor of conception risk was explicitly stated fear of Black males. The subjects rated how “scary” photos of Black men and White men were. In general, these White women found photos of Black men scarier around the time they are ovulating — especially if they feel vulnerable to rape.

This shows that despite all the propaganda to the contrary, White women retain defensive attitudes — both consciously and unconsciously — about Blacks as potential rapists. The authors suggest that this psychological mechanism may work by being sensitive to the stereotype that Blacks are dangerous. In other words, White women’s evolutionary psychology is making them behave adaptively based on the stereotype that Blacks are more likely to rape. It works by making them avoid Black men, especially if they are ovulating and especially if they are in a situation where there is a danger of rape. And it is making them more conscious of the real threats posed by Black men and less likely to suppress these attitudes in order to be socially acceptable. 

Of course, the stereotype has more than a grain of truth: The 2005 FBI Uniform Crime Report show that though Blacks are only 12.4% of the US population, they commit 33.6% of the rapes of White females.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: Jews and Other Minorities

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

 Kevin MacDonald: In this video, Ann Schaffer, director of the American Jewish Committee’s Belfer Center for American Pluralism, states the basic philosophy of Jews in America:

The Jewish community has always worked on the premise that as a minority, our security, our strength, our well being in America is interdependent with those of other minorities. This is a Jewish issue. It’s very much a Jewish issue.

 This is quite correct, but it’s nice to see it so explicitly and baldly expressed. This is from The Culture of Critique: The quote is from Jewish academic activist Earl Raab:

“The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever (Raab 1993b, 23)”

 Positive attitudes toward cultural diversity have also appeared in other statements on immigration by Jewish authors and leaders. Charles Silberman (1985, 350) notes, “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief—one firmly rooted in history—that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of U.S. Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.”

The footnote is as follows:

 Moreover, a deep concern that an ethnically and culturally homogeneous America would compromise Jewish interests can be seen in Silberman’s (1985, 347–348) comments on the attraction of Jews to “the Democratic party . . . with its traditional hospitality to non-WASP ethnic groups. . . . A distinguished economist who strongly disagreed with Mondale’s economic policies voted for him nonetheless. ‘I watched the conventions on television,’ he explained, ‘and the Republicans did not look like my kind of people.’ That same reaction led many Jews to vote for Carter in 1980 despite their dislike of him; ‘I’d rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than by those I saw at the Republican convention’ a well-known author told me.” 

 I recall reading that in the 1930s well-meaning Whites advised Jews not to ally themselves with Blacks — obviously to no avail. The Jewish-Black alliance, although a bit shaky at times, has been remarkably strong over the last century, and now the alliances are expanding to other non-White groups. Shaffer goes on to discuss current projects aimed at making alliances with non-Whites, claiming disingenuously that it’s good for “all Americans.” 

I think this is going to result in huge management problems down the line for Jews — not the least of which is White anger at the role of Jews in these transformations when they find themselves as a minority surrounded by an alliance of hostile non-White minority groups.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: Further Evidence for the Racial Polarization of American Politics

Sunday, February 7th, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: Recent election trends clearly indicate an increasing White disenchantment with the Democrats, especially among the working class. The enraged Whites who are expressing themselves in the tax revolts, tea parties, and town hall meetings of 2009 are middle- and lower-middle class.  Ronald Brownstein points out that their incomes have been stagnating or declining for years, even during periods of economic expansion of the Bush years. Bush did nothing for the White working class, but still only 40% voted for Obama.

The Democratic vote among Whites in 2010 will probably be quite a bit lower than in the next election. In Massachusetts there was a huge shift from 2008 to 2010: In the 2008 presidential election, working class Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama: 75% for incomes between $30-50K; 65% for incomes between $50-75K. But Brownstein notes that 60% voted for Scott Brown.  Moreover,

Much of the Democrats’ distress among blue-collar whites results from long-term changes that have re-sorted the electorate more along the lines of cultural values than of economic interests. These working-class voters, mostly conservative on cultural and foreign-policy issues, have moved toward the GOP …. But the disaffection from Democrats among blue-collar whites is especially severe now. That is probably because their financial pain has intensified. (The unemployment rate among this group, at 10.4 percent, is well over twice the level for college-educated whites.) Polls suggest that these voters have focused their discontent more at government than at business.

One can’t help thinking that “cultural values” is a code word for implicit Whiteness. No matter what they say to the pollsters, it’s hard to believe that concerns about foreign policy or gay marriage really trump economic issues in a group that has been the most negatively affected by all the economic shifts of recent decades, including mass immigration. Indeed, the shift is apparent in all White groups: “In opinion polls, college-educated white men, always a tough group for the party, are hardening in opposition; college-educated white women, Democrats’ best constituency among whites, are softening in support.”

It’s often said of Jews that they earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans. Now, as ethnic interests become central even for Whites, economic interests are an increasingly poor predictor for everyone. Working class Whites vote Republican just like the Episcopalians— their cultural values are to vote along with people like themselves. Similarly, non-Whites vote Democrat whether they are successful Asians and Jews or Blacks and Latinos at the bottom of the economic ladder. Their cultural values are to vote against the Republicans at least because they see the Republicans as the party of Whites.  These trends have been apparent for some time, but there seems to be increasing polarization now.

Quite a few people anticipated that an Obama presidency would produce an upsurge of White identity — that an Obama Administration would be a clear harbinger of the non-White future of America. They were right. Many Whites got caught up in the emotion of the election — the feeling of moral righteousness of putting America’s racial past behind us. But the party is over and the Obama administration is in shambles. I can’t imagine that anything like amnesty for illegal immigrants would be possible now.

If, as seems likely, the Republicans get 70% or more of the White vote in the 2010 elections, the media is going to have to confront the racial polarization of American politics. It’s definitely not the multicultural future envisioned by the activists on the multicultural left and the mainstream media for the last 40 years. If there is a racially lopsided vote, we’ll hear a lot of talk about racist Whites. But at some point, thoughtful people will realize that it is entirely legitimate for Whites to want to retain control of their country, and explicit expressions of White identity and interests will begin to be heard whether the media wants to hear them or not. And that’s all to the good.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Smith v. Berghuis: The Black Defendant’s Right to a Not Guilty Verdict

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

Christopher Donovan: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Smith v. Berghuis, quite possibly the most absurd lawsuit of the year.  Needless to say, the claim was racial discrimination. 

Equally needless to say, he’s got supporters in the media and among whites.

Diapolis Smith, a Black man, shot and killed Christopher Rumbley during a bar fight in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1991.  He was convicted of second-degree murder.  On appeal, he claimed that he was denied a fair trial because the jury pool had too few Blacks. 

Get this:  The percentage of Blacks in the community was 7 percent.  For Smith’s jury pool, it was 6 percent. 

How this laughably trivial complaint makes it to the Supreme Court is a testament to the insanity of the multiracial society.  The slightest claim of racial discrimination — provided it’s lodged by a non-white — throws our whole administrative apparatus into a tailspin. 

Caselaw does say, however, that a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury pulled from a fair cross-section of the community.  This has been interpreted to mean that “identifiable groups” cannot be excluded. 

So, how were Blacks “excluded” from Smith’s jury pool?   A big sign declaring “no Blacks”?  An evil White racist jury administrator who tossed every other Black person? 

Not quite. 

Blacks, evidence showed, were more likely to be excused because they asked to be excused, often for child-care or transporation reasons. 

Or, they were kept off because of their felony records. 

In other words, the slightly lower number of Blacks was because of their own behavior, not because of any exclusionary intent.  And imagine if the court refused to excuse Blacks who complained that they couldn’t serve because of a lack of money — another lawsuit would have resulted.  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

But all of this is only one level of insanity — a level that assumes the “cross section of the community” demand is a legitimate one to begin with. 

The supporters of Black murderer Smith, interestingly, don’t seem to doubt the existence or importance of race, despite the constant left-wing assertion that “race does not exist” or is “only a social construct.”  As always, this argument only applies when it benefits non-Whites.  Just ask Sonia Sotomayor, who whipped hostile questions Michigan’s way — but of course found no fault with New Haven, Connecticut’s exclusion of White firefighters.  

Dig a little deeper, and you see that what Smith is really claiming is the right to be tried by fellow Blacks, not Whites.  Or at least as many Blacks as he can get on his jury. 

Dig deeper still, and you see that what he’s claiming is a right to be found “not guilty” — because he presumes that his racial brothers and sisters will side with him, the evidence be damned.  There’s simply no other reason for Blacks to demand that they be tried by fellow Blacks. 

Nevertheless, I am beginning to suspect that the dreaded “all-White jury” doesn’t sometimes acquit Black defendants for fear of being seen as “racist.”  If anyone’s got evidence of this, let me know.  

Despite the insanity of Smith v. Berghuis, I see almost no critical media coverage of this suit.  Look at the “friend of the court” briefs, and you’ll see plenty — filed for Smith.  One lonely brief takes Michigan’s side. 

It all makes me want to stand on a mountain and scream, “Can’t anyone see what’s going on here?” 

If it’s the case that Blacks are wrongly accused and convicted — or cannot be fairly judged but by fellow Blacks — then I have a solution:  racial separation.  Could it be any crazier than the status quo?

Bookmark and Share

James Murray: NAACP official legitimizes killing White police

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

James Murray: Seattle NAACP leader James Bible has demanded a role in selecting the new police chief (and justified Black terrorist attacks on police) because the Seattle Police department is a racist force of “occupiers.” Bible made this statement during a press conference in Seattle on Thursday (1/21/10), and it was broadcast on KIRO-TV during the 5:00 Evening News segment. The same report was rebroadcast during the KIRO-TV 6:00 pm news segment but with the statement about the police as a force of “occupiers” deleted. The same clip appears on Fox Q-13 at 9:00, again with the “occupiers” clip omitted. 

Bible made it clear that resistance to the police “occupiers” is legitimate. It is always legitimate to fight White racism, it seems. 

Among the radical Black and other supremacists, the new idiom for the United States is “Occupied America.” In minority supremacist magazines in Seattle like ColorsNW (”The Northwest’s premier diversity resource”) (which turns up in BING but not GOOGLE), the “Occupied America” ideology is advanced by a mixture of Mexican supremacists, Black supremacists, Asian supremacists, and Muslim supremacists, (including Muslims like Majid Al-Masaari, son of the CDLR (i.e., “Committee for the Defense of the Legitimate Rights in the Kingdom”) director Mohammed Al-Masaari who was Osama Bin laden’s personal representative until 9/11, and who was in charge of medical records security at the University of Washington Medical Center until he was deported, if he ever was deported). 

So when Black Supremacists kill five police officers in Seattle and Tacoma (see here and here) we have local NAACP and National Action Network leaders asserting the legitimacy of the attacks, asserting the precise moral equivalency of the Black racist murderers and their all-White police victims, and then demanding to pick the new police chief. 

I suppose it is now racist to oppose the Black supremacist murders of White police. But I refuse to accept these murders are, as the NAACP claims, legitimate self-defense against the “Occupiers.”

Bookmark and Share

Joe Webb: On skin lightening creams for people of color.

Monday, January 18th, 2010

Joe Webb: The main theme of this NY Times article (”Creams offing lighter skin may bring risks“)  has to do with the health dangers of skin lightening agents. However, it provides more bad news in the annals of race.

The piece begins journalistically by focusing on one person who has had trouble. The reason one Allison Ross uses the skin lightener is “to be more accepted in society.” Apparently these lighteners thin out the skin and make bruising very likely. Steroids are delivered in at least some of these creams that are “prescription strength” and are routinely purchased in beauty stores.

Ms. Ross is from the Caribbean and was influenced by her friends, also from the Caribbean, to start using the creams. “Dermatologists nationwide are seeing women of Hispanic and African descent, among others…” with “severe side effects” from the use of these creams. Dermatologists “with practices that cater to dark-skinned women say the side effects are on the rise.”

“Dr. Erin Gilbert, a New York dermatologist, says “…that [her] hospital serves an ‘amazing international cross-section of color.’ [The patients] are Ph.D’s to women from corporate America, teachers to engineers–the entire broad spectrum of women of color.” said another dermatologist.

This last statement indicates the mind-set of the speaker, a Dr. Eliot F. Battle. Apparently the ‘whole broad spectrum of women of color’ does not include non-professional ‘dark-skinned’ women — another victory for Liberalism. Not only are Liberals ideologically color blind, all the while delivering Whitening services to the dark of skin, but these women are, really you know, Professionals.

The article continues in describing how international skin lightening creams have become. “Senegal, India,…Philippines…” are mentioned. Sports figures, TV announcers. “Evelyn Nakano Glenn, a professor of gender and women’s studies at UC Berkeley, said it was wrong to assume that skin-lighteners is a cultural ananchronism or an effort to negate one’s racial heritage.” She says it is because of the corporations who market them and link attractiveness to skin color in their advertising.

Here we have yet another example of the Race Deniers sophistries. That White standards of beauty are universal cannot possibly be Real. It is just the corporations and whiteracists(!) who falsify the consciousness of dark-skinned women.

A president of the American Sociological Association also laments the fact that African Americans and Latinos link skin color with socio-economic status. Senator Reid’s remark about the President and his light skin is noted.

More side effects of the use of steroids is noted, high blood pressure, elevated blood sugar, and the suppression of the body’s natural steroids.

The story returns to the Miss Ross that the story started out with. She is recovering from being the “queen of bleaching creams”, her own description.

Noteworthy was the lack of mention of Michael Jackson’s face and his death. One can also observe in TV ads how Black women are always much lighter than their Black men. I also noticed a few days ago the first ad featuring very light skinned “Hispanics”, gathered ’round the Family dining room table having a grand time acting White.

Also, there is a “cultural” phenomenon at work here which has men, even White men, appearing darker than their White women, in the media. Apparently, “darker” is more masculine and “lighter” is more feminine.

However, it is possible that our enemies who control the media are darkening White men in the ads as well as in shows, to achieve a positive psychological association with Darkness. More and more one sees Black men alongside White women in ads and in shows. This is association, psychologically, in preparation for black males with white women explicitly. These cultural manipulators never link up Black women with White men. That is because dilution of the White gene pool is far more important than a lightening of the Black gene pool, for reasons of subversion of White Racial Identity.

Asians, Blacks, and now “HIspanics” are now getting (maybe) as much air-time as Whites…in the commercials.
—-

This article documents the Pain of multi-racial societies. Multi-racial societies which feature a large subsection of Whites, will continue to inflict pain on dark-skinned people. (Never mind the pain of low intelligence compared to Whites.) Multi-racial societies can only go in one direction, as documented by Robert Putnam’s study from Harvard a year or so ago which compared racially Diverse versus racially Homogenous areas in the U.S., finding that diversity is linked with lack of trust and social isolation for all groups. The Future of multi-racial societies is downward.

No racially Diverse society has ever succeeded. Multi-racialism, per this article, is causing needless pain to “People of Color.” Nor is there any reason to believe that the absence of Whites would make any difference. The universal correlation of intelligence with skin color (as the most obvious physical phenotypic marker), would still be used by ordinary people of any color, undisfigured intellectually by Gender Studies, RAce Equality Myth, etc, as a guide to socio-economic status.

The kindest policy, for people of color, is race separation. The wisest policy for Whites is separation from what will be eternal racial antagonism.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: If You Look Over to Your Right, You’ll See a Dying Country

Sunday, January 17th, 2010

Christopher Donovan: Who says you can’t make some money from the multiracial decay of California?

Only miles from the scenic vistas and celebrity mansions that draw sightseers from around the globe – but a world away from the glitz and glamour – a bus tour is rolling through the dark side of the city’s gang turf.

Passengers paying $65 a head Saturday signed waivers acknowledging they could be crime victims and put their fate in the hands of tattooed ex-gang members who say they have negotiated a cease-fire among rivals in the most violent gangland in America. …

“We ain’t going on no tour saying, ‘Look at them Crips, look at them Bloods, look at them crack heads,’” said Frederick “Scorpio” Smith, an ex-Crip helping narrate, who helped broker the cease-fire among the Grape Street Crips, 18th Street, F13 and the East Coast Crips.

Out of sensitivity to residents, passengers are banned from shooting photographs or video from the bus. The only place that is allowed is near the end of the trip, when they can step off the bus and film an outdoor area where graffiti is allowed. …

Gang crime has fallen in recent years, but groups continue to grow and gain influence. Over the past quarter century, officials in Los Angeles County have spent $25 billion fighting gangs only to see the number of gangsters double to as many as 90,000 and a six-fold increase in the number of gangs.

Bookmark and Share

Reginald Thompson: How Should a White Female Evaluate Potential Rape Threats?

Friday, January 8th, 2010

Reginald Thompson: If a White female encounters a White man and a Black man in the same day, the Black male is at least 9 Times More Likely to Rape her. 

Obviously, if a woman is wary of being raped she’ll assess a Man in his twenties as a greater potential threat than an old man or a little boy. Also, it is thought by many women that certain traits in the appearance of a Man, such as a scuzzy hairstyle and clothing, tends to correlate with an increased likelihood of him being a rapist. But what about the most obvious and unmistakable of appearance traits, whether a man is White or Black? Would it make sense for White females to assess the threat of rape as being significantly greater from the average Black male she encounters?

The answer from the Statistical Data is a very clear yes.

Looking at the 2005 FBI Uniform Crime Report we find that though Blacks are only 12.4% of the US Population, they commit 33.6% of the rapes of White females.

This means that even if we assume totally random racial assortment, where a White female is just as likely to encounter the average Black male as she is to encounter the average White male, we would still have to conclude that a Black male is 2.7 times more likely to rape a White female than the average male she encounters.

But here’s the thing: There’s clearly not random racial assortment in America, so the increased rape risk to a White female for every Black male she encounters is even greater than that.

Probably the closest thing we can find to a meaningful estimate of what percentage of the Males encountered by a White female are Black is to look at how Black a neighborhood the average White lives in.

I found some data taken from the 2000 Census saying the average White lives in a neighborhood that is 6.7% Black.

There are two problems with using this as the baseline for the Percentage of Rapes of White females committed by Blacks though:

1. It is only data for Metropolitan Counties, and leaves out Rural Counties that have fewer Blacks.

2. It fails to take into account the effects of intra-neighborhood racial assortment resulting from implicit Whiteness.  For example, it could be there’s a neighborhood that’s 50% White and 50% Black, but where the Whites primarily go to the restaurant that serves food White people like, while the Blacks go to the restaurant that serves food Black people like. This sort of thing will create a situation where even in a 50% Black neighborhood, the White females living there will have much less than 50% of the males they encounter be Black.

So bear very closely in mind that using 6.7% as the proportion of Black people met by White females is likely a strong overestimation, and therefore that the figures below underestimate the degree of increased rape risk a White female incurs when she encounters a Black male.

                                                 White Males   Black Males

Percent of Encounters          80.2%             6.7%       

Percent of Rapes                   44.5%              33.6% 

Impact Value                          .55                    5.01     

This means that while the average Black male encountered by a White female is 5.01 Times more likely to rape her than the average male, the average White male she encounters is almost half as likely to rape her as the average male. It also implies that if a White female encounters a White and Black male, the Black is 9.1 times more likely to rape her than the White.

It is all too clear from this data that Black rapists are deliberately targeting White females.  This could be because of racial hatred for Whites, and possibly also because they perceive White females as being more sexually desirable than women of their own race.

Strong evidence in favor of the racial animus explanation playing a crucial role here can be found in the fact that when a Black man marries a White woman, he is 82% more likely to Murder her than if he was married to a Black women.

In conclusion, White women have every right to be “paranoid” about Black men. It’s the White women who aren’t afraid of Black men that have something wrong with them.

Reginald Thompson is the Pen Name of an Advisor to an International Software Company. He lives on the American East Coast and is proprietor/manager of a recently created Blog called Statsaholic.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: In Berekely, Ca., Robbing Whites to Pay Non-Whites

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

Christopher Donovan: Occasionally, injustices confronting whites are too diffuse to be seen clearly.  We fight wars on behalf of Jewish causes, but it’s rarely discussed.  We pay a heavy tax burden for the non-whites in our midst, but the cause and effect takes a few mental steps to track.

Recently in Berkeley, California, however, the issue was put squarely for all to see.  The science labs at a school — which were patronized mostly by Whites —  were voted to be scrapped to provide more resources for “struggling” black and Hispanic students.  In other words, a direct wealth transfer from whites to non-Whites, in such a tight proximity that it may as well have been a street mugging.

We are not “enriched” by living with non-Whites.  We are impoverished.  Even parents in the lefty mecca of Berkeley are starting to notice.

Christopher Donovan: New York City Begins (More Precipitous) Slide Detroit-ward

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

Christopher Donovan:  I learned a lot in my seven years of living in New York City.  It’s got allure for a reason.  For bright lights, big adventure and sheer cliffs of challenge, New York is unmatched.

It is also, for a White person, no place to make a home.  New York City is essentially a boiling cauldron of competing racial and ethnic groups, all of which scrap and tear for a share of the spoils.  The job of the mayor, his chief lawyer once told me, is to figure out “which ethnic group is mad at him that day and how to make them happy again”, or words to that effect.  The effect is an atmosphere thick with barely suppressed tension.  Every human interaction is fraught, suspicious, and pregnant with explosion.  It’s all very bad for the blood pressure.

From the mayor (and that chief lawyer I mentioned) on down, New York is Jewish territory.  A few white ethnic groups have some presence, chief among them Irish and Italian (though always as those specific ethnicities, and never just “white”).  Blacks and the Hispanic groups loom large.  But it has been a long, long time since WASPs like John Lindsay held sway (and power for him meant sucking up to minorities).

If, like me, your heritage is “undifferentiated, but mostly Anglo-Saxon, White”, you are operating in New York without an ethnic safety net.  You might find a niche, like Taki, provided you’re mind-bogglingly rich.  But even talented ad execs or white-shoe law firm partners are ultimately toiling in the vinyards of a city they’ll never be completely at home in and can barely afford.

The numbers are now official.  Whites are a minority in New York as both citizens and voters.  None of it points in a good direction for whites living there.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Ricci Decision Hurts Whom, Again?

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

Christopher Donovan: It’s amazing the tidbits you find while crumpling up old newspaper for kindling for a Christmas fire. “Employers Hurt By Bias Decision” was the odd headline I spied in a July edition of LawyersUSA, a trade rag for the legal profession, while trying to get the logs to ignite.

My first thought was: Imagine a Supreme Court decision on a “civil rights” case benefitting blacks being described by the media as anything but divine wisdom revealed. “Decision long overdue”, “Blacks commend decision” or “Decision hailed, but more work needed” is more like it.

But as I read the story, the point was fair enough — in the wake of the Ricci decision, employers are put into yet another “sued if you do, sued if you don’t” situation. If an employment test keeps out too many non-Whites, tossing it out could get you into “Ricci” trouble. But keeping it in could get you into “disparate impact” trouble.

Of course, this is just the sort of impossible situation you’ll find yourself in when you try to reconcile the irreconcileable: a Black and Hispanic population that is inherently less intelligent than the white population, and a policy that requires equal outcomes for members of all racial groups.

Better headline: Whites Hurt By Multiracial Society. Watch for it soon.

Christopher Donovan: Boys Choir of Harlem No More

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Christopher Donovan: It says a lot about the organizational inabilities of blacks that the venerated Boys Choir of Harlem, a 41-year institution that once ranked as an American cultural icon, is now reported as dead.

Consider the magnitude of the incentive to keep it going.  Here you have a perfect storm of America’s hopes and aspirations for race:  They’re young, they’re Black, they’re from America’s most famous and recogizable poor black neighborhood.  And rather than spew rap laden with foul language, they make White NPR listeners swoon by singing   “Mozart in Latin and Bach in German”, as the New York Times put it.  From the rubble of their White oppression, they shine forth like the jewels they truly are, proving racist Americans everywhere that they’re wrong.  It’s like a self-writing movie. 

The raw material for even a large choir wouldn’t seem difficult to come by.  New York is filled with poor young Blacks, many of whom can probably sing very well.  Little overhead is needed —  a space to sing in, a few leaders, some blazers to wear.  The white liberals are tickled by it, sure, but there’s some nice self-interest for blacks, too:  they can use the experience to launch to an entertainment career, or just put it on a resume and sail into a nice college.  And who doesn’t like to hear a nice choir singing, anyway? 

It’s further baffling to me that nobody — with the slight exception of (of all things) a White country duo — would come to their financial rescuse.  Straightening out their tax woes sounds like a gem of a pro bono project for a big New York City law firm, and I would have thought that Fortune 500 companies would fall over themselves for the opportunity to fund them.  For just a few bucks, you get to trumpet your dedication to noble Blacks — a win-win, as the corporate types like to say. 

And where are rich Blacks?  None of them could have pitched in?  If money were the only problem, Oprah’s interest earnings for the weekend could cover it. 

Ah, but we’re talking about Black people here.  The well-known IQ differences, the shortened time-horizons, and the rest of the inherited behavioral differences are what’s likely at work here.  The problem with blaming whites or other external factors for their failures in this case is that all that’s been factored out. 

The reality is that their own, Blacks are woefully unable to perform the organizational tasks that keep an advanced society functioning.  In multiracial societies, it’s Whites who carry that burden.

Christopher Donavan: A Quick Confession of (Tempered) Jealousy

Saturday, December 19th, 2009

Christopher Donovan:  From libertarian (and law school) days, I remain on the mailing list of a group called the Institute for Justice, a libertarian pro-bono legal group dedicated to fighting eminent domain, free speech restrictions, government-backed market cartels, and so on.  I’m looking at their most recent “Liberty & Law” (no link, but their website is here), and I have two thoughts.

One, I’m jealous of The Institute for Justice.  I wish white advocates had a legal outfit as on-the-ball as the Institute for Justice.  Law students want to join them, they get press, their litigators went to Harvard, and so on.  They’re established, they’re slick, and they’re having an impact on the law.

But two, they’re absurd.  For years, for instance, they’ve pushing the issue of African hair braiding as an enterprise that ought not be subjected to cosmetology licensing because it involves no chemicals or even equipment.  In the most recent newsletter, they have an emotional article titled “The Power of One Entrepreneur” featuring lovely photographs of the black woman helped by their lawyers.  The rest of the newsletter is peppered with photos of smiling black people who’ve all been helped by the power of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

“Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic” doesn’t begin to describe it.  It reminds me of what Sam Dickson once called “the silly right”, i.e., obsessing about details while ignoring the larger white dispossession.  In the face of an oncoming white minority, these jokers are dedicating their lives to African hair braiding.  Do the smarty-pants people of the Institute for Justice get any of this?

Bookmark and Share

Christoper Donovan: In Philly, Failed System… or Failed Demographics?

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

Christopher Donovan: The Philadelphia Inquirer is running a series on the low rate of convictions secured by police and prosecutors in the city.  The system’s overcrowded.  The sheer volume of cases makes the system unwieldy.  Defense lawyers postpone cases in the hopes that witnesses will disappear.  The black “stop sntichin’” culture keeps witnesses off the stand.  Judges dismiss worthy cases.

So, the blame comes to rest on the White “system” and its players (realizing that many in this system are actually minorities).  But the larger demographic reality is that Philadelphia is a heavily black urban area, and it’s plagued with crime and chaos for just that reason.  Juxtapose this with a criminal justice system that developed over centuries in all-white Britain — and was tweaked by all-white American Constitution framers — and you have a recipe for disaster. In fact, you have a recipe for complete unworkability, no matter how hard whites try, or how many tax dollars are squeezed from Whites.

The failure isn’t with the criminal justice system.  The failure is with the multiracial society.  Will the Inquirer take a look at that?

Bookmark and Share