Sotomayor was a longtime board member of the racist, irredentist, Hispanic supremacist group, La Raza (The Race), which is the equivalent of a white being a Grand Kleagle of the KKK. She has a history of bullying lawyers. She has publicly made in-your-face racist and sexist statements about her approach to deciding the law, and publicly bragged, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers, of legislating from the bench.
Not only did Sotomayor ignore the cast-iron cinch of an argument for the white firemen plaintiffs in Ricci v. DeStefano that came before her three-judge appeals panel, but with her two colleagues engaged in unethical deception, in seeking to “bury” the case with “a one-paragraph, unpublished, summary order with no mention of … the ‘questions of exceptional importance’ raised in the appeal,” in an attempt to hide this fundamental constitutional case from the Supreme Court. And they would have succeeded, had Judge Jose A. Cabranes, a colleague from the full Second Circuit, not publicly dissented.
Sotomayor has repeatedly lied, in insisting that it has been “proven” that all mental and professional tests—on which she admittedly performed mediocrely—are “culturally biased.” “… my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates. And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.”
That would be an Asian cultural bias.
As Larry Auster and others have pointed out (from here to here), Sotomayor has also repeatedly engaged in deception during her sworn testimony before the Senate this week, in misrepresenting her repeated racist (“wise Latina woman”) and unethical statements (about making policy from the bench). All the training in the world from David Axelrod, et al., couldn’t help her there. What has saved her, however, has been the cowardice of the Living Dead Party. If there were any men left in the Senate, they would have announced that Sotomayor’s racism disqualified her from the bench.
Any judge worth his salt would be ashamed to use his ethnicity as a “qualification” for the bench, because it would be a confession that he was an unqualified, incompetent interpreter of the law. Yet Sotomayor revels in her ethnicity.
At every step of the way, Sotomayor has benefited not from her ability, but from affirmative action, in other words, from racism. Indeed, she has bragged, “I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby.”
She has agitated for Hispanics’ “right” to be admitted to “highly selective” universities, despite demonstrably inferior test scores, and to be hired as professors despite a lack of scholarship, based on nothing more than their ethnicity, and for “Hispanic” litigants’ (who, since she assumes they do not know English, sounds like a euphemism for illegal aliens) “right” to have Hispanic judges preside over their court cases, i.e., take their side against non-Hispanics and American institutions. Thus would Sotomayor reduce all public life to a rigged ethnic spoils system, thereby throwing generations of valid mental and professional testing and scholarship, the merit principle, 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and 1964 Civil Rights Act out the window.
Is there a single positive reason why this woman should be sitting on the bench in traffic court? To ask the question is to answer it.
But Sotomayor is not only unqualified to serve as a traffic court judge. As former U.S. attorney—but please don’t hold it against him—Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, Sotomayor is unqualified even to serve as a juror in the lowest level court.
You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in the case. This is your job, and yours alone. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them…. Perform these duties fairly and impartially. Do not allow sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion to influence you. You should not be influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.
McCarthy then asks,
Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to "transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law"; and that there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning." If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request? Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?
For what job, then, is this self-proclaimed “wise Latina woman” qualified? If she were a man with a strong back, I’d say digging ditches. But that’s not an option, though it would be fit punishment.
What do we do with racist, treasonous, incompetent “persons of color” who are good for nothing? Why, we make them President!
Just Say No to the Hate Crimes Bill, and Tell Your U.S. Senators to Do the Same
Since I never get involved in the nitty gritty of political activism, you know things have to be bad, if I’m doing so now. And they are bad. Today, Thursday, July 16, the Senate was scheduled to vote on the totalitarian “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA),” aka the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” aka “S. 909.” The plan was to attach it to the Defense Authorization Bill, and sneak it through, but the attachment subterfuge, which was supposed to be done Wednesday night, at last report, had not yet been carried out.
Imagine that. Smuggling the Hate Crimes Bill in through the Defense Authorization Bill. The Hate Crimes Bill that, by Attorney General Eric Holder’s admission in his June 26 Senate testimony, wouldn’t cover the vicious racially and religiously-motivated murder, allegedly by black Moslem convert Carlos Bledsoe, aka Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, of white soldier Pvt. William A. Long, 23, at a recruiting station in Little Rock.
The man calling himself “Barack Hussein Obama” and his senatorial henchmen seek to attach the bill to the Defense Authorization Bill, in order to exploit support of the military on behalf of a bill that would not protect white, presumably heterosexual military victims of racist and political hatred such as Pvt. Long and Sgt. Jan-Pawel Pietrzak, the newly wed white Marine, who with his black bride was tortured and slaughtered, allegedly by a racist black gang, but not before she was gang-raped, because Sgt. And Mrs. Pietrzak had had the temerity to fall in love across racial lines.
I’m not condemning the Hate Crimes Bill because I want a hate crimes law that will protect whites, though I do demand of any Hate Crimes Law that is enacted that it be applied to crimes committed by blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, women, etc., against heterosexual white men and women, but because all such laws are unconstitutional, racist, and all the other “ists.”
Like so-called civil rights laws, so-called Hate Crimes laws are part of America’s growing system of Shadow Law, which forces most white Americans to live in the shadows, without legal protection, while racist blacks, Hispanics, illegal aliens, heterophobic homosexuals, etc., enjoy unconstitutional and illegal privileges. Shadow Law is no longer limited to laws with special modifiers (“Civil Rights”, “Hate Crime,” etc.), but have come to dominate all criminal and civil law, as those who belong to “non-protected classes” (a status which changes, based on the offender’s political identity) have been disenfranchised vis-à-vis members of “protected classes,” an unconstitutional designation, which nevertheless is routinely used by police and prosecutors.
“Barack Obama” knows that a substantial majority of the American people would not support S. 909, if they knew about its character. That is why he had Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (Racial Socialist-Maine) limit Senate hearings to two hours of dissimulation and sophistry by racist Attorney General Eric Holder, and has ordered his MSM henchmen to tell the American people as little as possible about the bill.
As powerful as “Obama” is, however, despite the 60 vote Senate supermajority that ACORN succeeded at providing him, through stealing a Minnesota U.S. Senate seat for Al Franken, after Norm Coleman had beaten Franken in the actual election, he seeks much more power. S. 909 is designed to give it to him. (Not that that will satisfy this aspiring totalitarian dictator; nothing will.)
In a nutshell, S. 909 would, if passed and enacted (and “Obama” will certainly sign it, if it passes the Senate), disenfranchise white, heterosexual, politically right-of-center men, while giving even more privileges to blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals and illegal aliens, the latter of whom, according to American law, have no rights. It would also pioneer new frontiers in the unconstitutional violation of double jeopardy. Not only would the hate crimes law “permit” the feds to re-prosecute whites who had been acquitted in state court, it would “permit” the feds to re-prosecute whites who had been convicted in state court, but whom political leaders felt had been insufficiently punished!
While Eric Holder claimed the law would protect Jews, this is one Jew who has been repeatedly racially assaulted by blacks in New York, yet who has always been treated like a criminal by Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau’s office. The only Jews who will benefit from S. 909 are racists like Morgenthau, who are already so wealthy and powerful, that privilege is second nature to them, and who have for generations done everything in their substantial powers to harm poor, working, and middle-class Jews. (Bernard Goetz, the man who defended himself against a mugging attempt in broad daylight in front of multiple witnesses by four violent, young, black career criminals, and against whom Morgenthau then directed an obsessive, years-long, persecution campaign, is a Jew.) The notion that “Jews” will benefit, as Jews, from S. 909 is a myth.
Minutes ago, my VDARE colleague Patrick Cleburne blogged that the Christian Family Research Council has just put together a powerful video update opposing the Bill, which they rightfully argue (as have I), is designed to intimidate Christians out of preaching the Christian Gospel. (That is but one of the bill’s nefarious purposes.) I placed the video at the top.
We don’t know when the Senate’s Democratic leadership will try and sneak through the Hate Crimes Bill—perhaps Thursday, perhaps Friday—so my advice to you is to e-mail your senators now, call the Senate switchboard first thing in the morning, denouncing the Bill, and call your U.S. senators, demanding that they vote against it.
U.S. Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121.
Telephone number and e-mail address for each individual U.S. senator: here.
Today is D-Day! Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor's First Day of Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings
Sonia Sotomayor is waging war on “racism.” If you don’t believe me, just ask her. Why do blacks and Hispanics not do as well as whites on standardized tests? “Racism.” (Never mind about the Asians.) Why are more blacks and Hispanics in jail than whites? “Racism.” We can’t have capital punishment, either. As The Urban Grind observes, “Judge Sotomayor also believes that capital punishment is racist.”
During the 2000 Great Florida Disenfranchisement Hoax, as the overlapping groups of Democratic operatives, white leftists, and black supremacists sought to steal the election after the fact, they employed at least two different strategies:
• Telling ever more exaggerated race hoax stories supporting their claim that Republican forces in Florida had stolen the election via the disenfranchisement of black voters (in reality, some of the black voters claiming disenfranchisement, at three segregated black colleges, were found to be guilty of vote fraud, through having voted twice, but none was prosecuted); and
• Projecting their contemporary hoax onto the past, by inventing a white conspiracy to disenfranchise blacks through denying felons the vote, after they had served out their sentences.
(According to the Miami Herald, some 5,000 convicted felons, 75 percent of whom were registered Democrats, illegally voted in Florida in 2000. To my knowledge, none of the felons who committed vote fraud was prosecuted, either, as Florida officials backed off, in the face of black racial demagoguery.)
Back then, the purpose of strategy #2 was to get all black felons who had finished their jail sentences reinstated as voters, under the assumption that the overwhelming majority would vote Democratic. (It wasn’t clear whether they had to have actually finished their sentences, i.e., including their terms of parole or probation, meaning that the hoaxers likely sought to get the convicts’ franchise re-instated while they were still convicts.) The Village Voice even made this racist strategy explicit, with references to Marcus Garvey and black power.
Sotomayor’s position came in a terse dissent to the 2006 case Hayden v. Pataki. The case argued that New York’s law barring convicted felons from voting until they are released from prison or complete parole is racist and thus unconstitutional. Its supporters made this argument on the grounds that “[m]ore than 80% of the New Yorkers disenfranchised…are Blacks or Latinos, who lose their right to vote at more than ten times the rate of other citizens.” Plaintiff Joseph “Jazz” Hayden, before he began his humanitarian crusade on behalf of the disenfranchised, was convicted in 1987 of stabbing a sanitation worker to death.Most Second Circuit Court of Appeals judges disagreed with him, but Sotomayor found Hayden’s objection supported by the “plain terms” of the Voting Rights Act.
Her minority opinion (no pun intended) puts into perspective precisely what a judicial activist she is and how deeply concerns of ethnicity color her view of the law.
Johnson then enters into a scholarly discussion of the ancient Greek roots of the practice of disenfranchising felons, and shows that, contrary to racial socialists’ phony claims, in America the practice is older than the black franchise.
Note Sotomayor’s further radicalization beyond the 2000 talking point. Back then, forbidding ex-convicts to vote was “racist”; now, forbidding current convicts from voting is “racist.”
And one may not disagree with Sotomayor, et al. Merely disagreeing with these people is “racist.” Referring to them as “these people” is “racist,” too! Given Sotomayor’s documented viciousness from the bench, just imagine oral arguments in a Supreme Court on which she sat. It would be like a contemporary university faculty senate meeting!
In case anyone should accuse me of hyperbole, the practice whereby black and Hispanic racists and their white allies constantly harass whites with charges of “racism” regarding the most innocent, trivial linguistic usage, in order to continuously keep them on the defensive, is an over 20-year-old tradition.
(When Sotomayor’s critics argue that she lacks “judicial temperament,” they are implicitly making the same sort of character requirement of jurists that was a given in pre-affirmative action, pre-“diversity” higher education, back in those benighted days before “diverse” faculty and administrators had their own goon squads, with which to terrorize colleagues. In City on a Hill: Testing the American Dream at City College (1994), James Traub showed how tenured black supremacist Leonard Jeffries used his personal goon squad—almost certainly at taxpayer expense—to physically intimidate people, including Traub, at the City College of New York. Thanks to thugs like Jeffries, and the jettisoning of all moral and academic standards, in a few short years, City College deteriorated from America’s most rigorous undergraduate college, to a racist, ghetto hellhole.
How long will it be, at this rate, before Supreme Court justices have personal goon squads, with which to “persuade” their fellow justices as to the power of their arguments?)
Note too Sotomayor’s rationale: By assuming that any law that “impacts disproportionately” on blacks’ or Hispanics’ versus whites’ voting rights (or, apparently, blacks’ or Hispanics’ murder rights) is racist, she is applying what is called “disparate impact” to voting rights (and the death penalty).
“Disparate impact” is the pseudo-scientific fig leaf that has been used since circa 1970 to cover the racist power grab that successfully, more often than not, illegally violated civil service law, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in order to racially discriminate against qualified whites and East Asians on behalf of radically unqualified blacks and Hispanics, destroy the merit system, and turn America into a system of racial spoils.
According to “disparate impact,” any government action, regardless of intent, that results in rewarding “protected classes” (initially blacks, then Hispanics and American Indians, now the handicapped and homosexuals, and sometimes, depending on political expediency, white women) in a smaller proportion than it does non-protected classes (white, heterosexual men and sometimes, depending on political expediency, white women), is discriminatory.
“Disparate impact” made the counter-factual assumptions that, absent discrimination, all racial (and due to political alliances since) and other demographic groups which, due to political expediency will be counted in a given situation, will have identical average IQs, test scores, grades, poverty rates, school and college graduation rates, crime rates, etc. (Those indices, such as professional sports, in which “protected classes” have disproportionately higher success rates than non-protected classes are either to be ignored or attributed to the virtues of the protected class in question. ‘Heads we win, tails you lose.’)
The combination of using “disparate impact” and screaming “racist!” (or “sexist!,” etc.) at every critic, and if those tactics didn’t work, firing, “whitelisting,” and/or assaulting him, ushered in a counter-scientific revolution. “Scholars” and lawyers no longer had to marshal evidence and prove intent. All they had to show was inequality of results, in order to “prove” their case.
The sophistry of “disparate impact” is central to the racial profiling myth. If it is declared unthinkable, the facts be damned, that blacks and Hispanics commit crime at higher rates than whites, and whites are blamed for every social ill, higher rates of black and Hispanic imprisonment must necessarily be the fault of white racism.
These are the logical consequences of disparate impact dogma, which Sonia Sotomayor and “Barack Obama” both embrace. If we accept disparate impact’s backwards theory of the law, whereby the law’s legitimacy is determined after the fact, based on whether its enforcement results in parity of imprisonment between minorities and whites, there can be no criminal law. It must be jettisoned, while anti-white civil rights laws must be retained.
“Disparate impact” dogma demands that the worse blacks and Hispanics conduct themselves, the more whites and Asians must be punished, especially when the original black and Hispanic misconduct entailed victimizing whites and Asians! And there must be ever more blacks and Hispanics, and ever fewer whites and Asians. “Disparate impact” is a weapon of ultimately genocidal race war.
“Disparate impact” is incompatible with science or any rational, fair, system of law. For Sonia Sotomayor, as for the man who nominated her, there is no law or science; there is only race war.
Unfortunately, unlike the original D-Day, in which we stormed the Nazis at Normandy, today the Nazis are storming us, and most Americans still refuse to admit that they are being attacked.
Black Fairy Tale, White Nightmare? Hillary Clinton’s Race Problems By Nicholas Stix
For her entire adult life, Hillary Clinton has promoted anti-white racism. Unfortunately for her, black voters have recently discovered that Clinton is herself white.
Bill Clinton on Monday accused Barack Obama of fudging his early position on the Iraq war, and then said, “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.” The comment provoked criticism from black leaders and Obama supporters.
New York Times reporters Carl Hulse and Patrick Healy led their January 12 story,
The Clinton campaign moved Friday to try to quell a potentially damaging reaction to recent comments by Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton that have drawn criticism from African-Americans just as the presidential primary campaign reached Southern states with significant numbers of black voters.
In a call on Friday to Al Sharpton’s nationally syndicated talk radio show, Mr. Clinton said that his “fairy tale” comment on Monday about Senator Barack Obama’s position on the Iraq war was being misconstrued, and that he was talking only about the war, not about Mr. Obama’s overarching message or his drive to be the first black president.
“There’s nothing fairy tale about his campaign,” Mr. Clinton said. “It’s real, strong, and he might win.”
But of course the impeached former president was fudging, since the truth is unspeakable, to wit, that Barack Obama’s entire campaign is an affirmative action fairy tale.
The Clintons have also caught heat from blacks over Hillary’s statement that, as the AP phrases it, Martin Luther King’s “dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” That’s true, of course, but blasphemous, due to its suggestion that all racial good things have not flowed directly from the will of St. Martin.
AP’s Beth Fouhy, et al.:
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Sunday that Barack Obama's campaign had injected racial tension into the presidential contest, saying he had distorted for political gain her comments about Martin Luther King's role in the civil rights movement.
In the run-up to today’s South Carolina Democratic primary, in which 50 percent of voters are expected to be black, both Clintons spent much of the last two weeks in intensive damage control, with Bill calling in to black radio talk shows, and Hillary appearing on Meet the Press, hosted by Tim Russert, longtime chief of staff to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Hillary Clinton’s immediate senatorial predecessor.
Beth Fouhy, et al.:
“This is an unfortunate story line the Obama campaign has pushed very successfully,” the former first lady said in a spirited appearance on NBC's “Meet the Press.” “I don't think this campaign is about gender, and I sure hope it's not about race.”
But of course the campaign is about “gender” (sex) and race. What else could it possibly be about?
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both leftwing Democrats. They both rabidly support affirmative action (AA) and multiculturalism (MC), which form the entire foundation of Obama’s political career. And what of Hillary, you ask? Hillary Clinton’s political career is based entirely on having married a privileged white male.
Affirmative action was originally the 1960s’ federal policy of racially discriminating against qualified whites and white-owned firms that were competing for certain scarce goods (jobs, admissions to selective universities, and contracts let by public agencies), and instead giving said scarce goods to unqualified blacks and unqualified black-owned firms.
The Consequences of Bad Intentions
AA was later illegally and unconstitutionally extended to the private sphere, and even to the political realm: Just as the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act was reinterpreted by Justice Department officials and the federal courts to mean not simply guaranteeing equal opportunity (non-discrimination against blacks) but, turning the Act’s explicit wording upside down, to entail engaging in egregious racial discrimination against whites, the 1965 Voting Rights Act was reinterpreted by the same parties such that rather than guaranteeing blacks the franchise, it guaranteed them rigged elections.
As Arch Puddington persuasively argued in Commentary, circa 1990, multiculturalism, or what I call hate studies (black studies, women’s studies, gay studies, Hispanic studies, etc.) exists to rationalize affirmative action.
I’ll see Puddington, and raise him. MC was developed by Marxists to destroy liberal democracy, the market economy, and the rule of law, and replace them with a totalitarian dictatorship. Institutionalized sexual and racial hatred are for Marxists means towards that end. The Marxists worked hand in hand with black racists, who also seek to impose a totalitarian dictatorship, though for different reasons, while the latter bleed whites dry.
Multiculturalism is not a philosophy or a science, but rather an attitude for guiding revolutionary political struggle. All words and acts must be geared towards aiding privileged identities, and harming disenfranchised identities. (This is not to be confused with identity politics. Identity politics would simply benefit members of certain groups, but in MC, members of those same groups are enemies, if they do not embrace the revolutionary struggle. Thus, a privileged, white, heterosexual male—e.g., Bill Clinton—who embraces the struggle is an ally, while a black—e.g., Clarence Thomas—who opposes it, is an enemy.)
Since inequality is the one sure thing about human (sexual, racial, etc.) groups, and hate studies all insist, the facts be damned, that all human groups are equal, and that only discrimination can explain inequality, multicultural “scholarship” consists of the constant production of lies, hoaxes (nooses, anyone?), and hate, and is imposed through school and college classroom indoctrination, diversity and sensitivity training, and news and entertainment propaganda.
Indeed, while claiming to support equality, tolerance, and compassion, multiculturalists spend all of their energies promoting hatred, intolerance, and inequality. But they play word games, defining things such that promoting hatred and discrimination against “privileged white, heterosexual males” doesn’t count as hatred and discrimination. In practice, actual privileged white, heterosexual males almost all support AA/MC, while the white men whom the multicultural alliance targets are typically working or lower-middle class, though as America becomes less white, the persecution must perforce move up the political food chain.
Just as well-to-do whites who supported AA/MC never thought they would suffer because of it, so too the privileged politicians who supported this reign of hatred never thought they would suffer under its whip. It was supposed to help Democrats demagogue against those “racist” Republicans.
For instance, during the 1993 New York City mayoral campaign pitting black socialist incumbent David Dinkins in a rematch against white liberal Republican challenger Rudolph Giuliani, one leading Democrat condemned white New York City voters, saying many white voters are “still too unwilling to vote for people who are different than we are.”
That leading Democrat was one Bill Clinton, in the first year of his presidency.
Like almost all talk about race in America, especially by socialists/multiculturalists, President Clinton’s statement must be translated out of its racial code. Since over 90 percent of black voters had voted for Dinkins in 1989, while over 30 percent of white voters had crossed racial lines by voting for him rather than Giuliani, in fact it was black voters who were “still too unwilling to vote for people who are different than we are,” and who thus needed to overcome their racism. But in multicultural rhetoric, selfish, racist speech and actions by blacks are virtuous, while any self-interested behavior on the part of whites is “racist.”
Early in President Clinton’s second term in office, he set up a phony, rigged “national dialogue on race.” Like all “dialogues” on race that white leftists and black racists call for, it was to be a monologue. After initially choosing only Democratic shills for his panel, which was chaired by black historian and race hoaxer John Hope Franklin, for one episode Clinton added a token critic of affirmative action, neo-conservative scholar, Abigail Thernstrom, for the purpose of harassing and humiliating her on live, national TV, as a proxy for all white critics of affirmative action.
(Clinton, who as president successfully fought every attempt to limit AA, also thereby got a measure of personal revenge against Thernstrom. who had just co-authored, with husband Stephan, the seminal study, America in Black & White. According to the Thernstroms, Clinton had broken the law, by having his aides, Christopher Edley and George Stephanopolous, violate Supreme Court decisions limiting affirmative action.)
Affirmative action is unconstitutional, in violating the 14th Amendment. It is illegal, in that it violates the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act. And it is a moral outrage. But for most blacks, as for their white patrons, support for affirmative action is a political and moral litmus test. Any white who fails that test is for them a “racist” and irredeemably evil. (I am aware that opinion polls have shown a majority of blacks nationally opposing affirmative action. Other opinion polls, cited by the Thernstroms, show almost all whites saying that they have no problem with a black family moving in next door. The one poll result is as incredible as the other.)
Supporting AA is a package deal. It includes, among other things, never criticizing blacks, excepting those few blacks who oppose affirmative action, and that any and all criticism of non-conservative blacks by whites, or their even hinting at the existence of shortcomings or pathologies of blacks for which they do not fault “white racism,” is racist.
Thus, according to the package deal, which both Clintons long ago signed off on, the only thing for white voters to do who don’t want to be guilty of racism, is to vote for Obama in the coming primaries.
And as the Great Florida Disenfranchisement Hoax of 2000 showed, if whites do not vote as blacks demand, blacks will invent a race hoax, and with their white allies, seek to steal the election.
Hillary’s “Qualifications”
Hillary Clinton has argued that voters should choose her because she is more “experienced” than Obama, but according to multicultural rhetoric, such claims (like the claim to be “more qualified”) are merely racist code phrases. Besides, she doesn’t have more experience! Obama ran in his first election in 1996, when he was elected to the Illinois State Senate. Clinton’s first election was her 2000 U.S. Senate victory, in New York. When she says she is more “experienced,” she is either lying outright, or counting her time as Arkansas’ and America’s First Lady. But that’s nonsense. “First Lady” is not an elected or appointed or any kind of post. Hillary Clinton was simply the wife of a privileged white male.
And what was her experience as First Lady? It was the experience of Travelgate, in which she engineered the malicious prosecution of White House Travel Office director Billy Dale, which ruined him financially, just so she could turn the office into a cash cow for her friend from Arkansas, socialist TV producer Harry Thomason. And Filegate, wherein Hillary Clinton collected and kept FBI files on hundreds of Republican officials and staffers whom she considered political enemies. It was the experience of conspiring to obstruct justice, when she had her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, go into the office of presidential counsel (and her old Arkansas law partner) Vince Foster, who had just committed suicide, to illegally remove files. The experience of seeking illegally, through secret meetings with her health policy guru, Ira Magaziner, to impose on America a nightmarish, socialist health scheme. And it was the experience of leveraging her status as the wife of the world’s most privileged, white, predatory, heterosexual male, into a seat in the United States Senate.
No, the “experience” issue is not in Hillary Clinton’s favor.
Blacks vs. White Feminists
Hillary Clinton has spent her adulthood supporting anti-white racism. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
And yet, there is a separate racial issue involving blacks’ attitude towards well-to-do, assertive white feminists. While the political marriage of white, middle and upper-class feminists (most of whom are heterosexual) and middle and upper-class blacks has paid dividends for both groups, when push comes to shove, it is always the white feminists who have to take one for the team.
White feminists have for over a generation supported blacks’ every racist demand, and yet, when they show their appreciation of “color” by falling in love with a black man, instead of welcoming them into the family, black women stare daggers at them, and wish them dead. In 1999, I caught the standup routine in a Manhattan club of a white comedienne, who recalled when she had had a black boyfriend.
“I love black women. You're all so confident. You know what you think and what you want ... and Lordy, Lordy, do you hate me!”
The typical white feminist lacks such insight.
I first saw such hostility in 1978, at SUNY Stony Brook. While my beautiful, feminist, Jewish history professor was lecturing or aggressively engaging the class in discussions, a group of three black girls who sat near me would mutter hostilely about her amongst themselves.
In April 1989, a majority-black (the other members were Hispanics) gang beat a young investment banker, who came to be known as “the Central Park Jogger,” from head to toe, while sexually fondling her. (One attacker, Matias Reyes, raped her either then or after the rest of the gang had left.) Rather than show compassion for the victim, who had lost 75 percent of her blood, had spent weeks in a coma, and never fully recovered, black New Yorkers embraced her confessed attackers as victim/heroes, and demonized the white victim. Even New York’s white elites eventually came around, in 2002 granting the attackers an AA bonus, “exonerating” them. (The attacker had since of course claimed that their confessions had been coerced. Never mind that police had scrupulously respected all of the suspects’ rights, and that all but one suspect had made a videotaped confession in his parent’s or guardian’s presence.)
As Vincent Bugliosi wrote in Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away With Murder, prior to O.J. Simpson’s 1995 murder trial, in mock juries black women were uniformly hostile towards prosecutor Marcia Clark, a youngish, attractive, aggressive white feminist. But you couldn’t tell Clark that. Like most white feminists, she was convinced that she knew black women, and enjoyed an easy rapport with them.
And when black women across the country exuberantly celebrated Simpson’s acquittal by a racist, black-dominated jury, they were also celebrating the murder of his white estranged wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson. (Poor Ron Goldman. O.J. murdered him, too, but outside of Goldman’s family, no one seemed to care.)
In 2000, when a black-dominated group of young men ran amok in Central Park following the Puerto Rican Day Parade, sexually molesting (and in at least one case, manually raping) largely white women, the media misrepresented the episode, as if the attackers had mostly been Hispanic, and the victims mostly black and Hispanic. Since the majority of the NYPD – which had been explicitly ordered to avoid confrontations with minority males – then consisted of white men, white feminists dutifully attacked it instead of the black assailants. But no blacks expressed sympathy for the white victims.
And of course, in March 2006, when prostitute/stripper Crystal Gail Mangum made transparently ridiculous, mutually contradictory and ever-changing charges against innocent, white Duke lacrosse players, white feminists across the country leapt to her defense, and heaped scorn on the three white men who were the real victims.
The socialist MSM and the feminists even made a point of suppressing the fact that women in Duke’s Durham, NC home had little to fear from white men, but that black men targeted white coeds for rape.
According to a March, 2006 news story from just short of two weeks after Mangum made the fraudulent charges against the white men, at which point Durham was the site of a campaign persecuting all of Duke’s white men lacrosse players,
“The [white men] students need to realize they live in a community, and people are going to talk back if they do something, or potentially [?] do something, that is disrespectful to women,” said Faulkner Fox, a visiting instructor in the English department and one of the organizers of the candlelight vigil.
Organizers at the candlelight vigil and the “wake-up call” at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. [where some of the white lacrosse players lived, Mangum situated her hoax, and white feminists banged pots early in the morning, in order to ruin the players’ sleep], said the demonstrations were acts of support for the black exotic dancer…”
Imagine a white feminist saying anything like that about the black men who actually were raping white Duke coeds. And imagine black women organizing protests on behalf of white women victimized by black men. It seems like the more white feminists support black men, the more black men—with black women’s enthusiastic support—target them.
Hillary Clinton thinks that she is blacks’ friend, but they are not her friends.
Hillary can’t win. If she loses the nomination to Obama, she loses everything she has hoped and planned for, virtually her entire adult life. And yet, if she beats him, her victory may prove to be pyrrhic. Blacks are already insisting that Clinton only beat Obama in New Hampshire due to racism (i.e., that “racist” whites lied to pollsters). Next to come: That Hillary conspired to rig the voting machines (this rumor is already making the rounds among white leftists) to change Obama votes to Clinton votes. Blacks were never going to vote for her in the primaries anyway (they lied to reporters about being “undecided,” and to pollsters about supporting her), and will use the “racism” of the primary campaign to rationalize sitting out the general election, which could well lose it for her.
Poor Hillary. In the words of Alan Jay Lerner, “How simply frightful! How humiliating! How … delightful!”
Since June 2006, the Chandler Rapist in Chandler, Arizona has raped at least five girls between 12 and 14 years of age, and will rape many more, if local Spanish radio station KMYL (1190 AM) has anything to say about it.
Although according to descriptions by all five rape victims, the Chandler Rapist is Hispanic, the folks at KMYL, as represented by vice president for programming Mayra Nieves at New Radio Venture, KMYL’s parent company, don’t want anyone to know that crucial fact. Nieves has demanded that Chandler police stop informing the public that the rapist is Hispanic. She ordered police to instead refer to the suspect as having “dark skin.” She said, “I think this is racial profiling,” and also accused police of “stereotyping.”
East Valley Tribune staffer Nicole Beyer reports, “Nieves said Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race — and many Hispanics are white or black. She said ethnicity should not be used when describing an attacker.” [Calling rapist a Hispanic irks radio station, By Nicole Beyer, East Valley Tribune, November 10, 2007.]
Aside from the issue of whether “Hispanic” is even an ethnicity (traditionally, “ethnicity” refers to one’s nationality, or that of one’s forebears, e.g., “Mexican”), when people hear “dark skin,” they tend to think, “black.” And so, had the Chandler Police Department acquiesced to Nieves’ demands, in the vicinity of Andersen Junior High School, where the five rapes and a sixth attack in November that stopped short of rape have all taken place, people would be on the lookout for a black rapist, and lower their guard in the face of a Hispanic.
Misleading the public in this case serves the interest of only one person: The rapist.
Fortunately, the police were insubordinate to Mayra Nieves.
“But Chandler police spokesman Sgt. Rick Griner said his department will stand by its description, saying they release the details the victims give them. “‘It would be irresponsible on our part to change or alter that,’ he said.”
The rapist is described as “Hispanic, 28 to 40 years old, short [5’6” in some reports] with a muscular build, dark hair and hazel or brown eyes,” and during last month’s attack “was wearing a white T-shirt and blue jeans.” He has also been described as having black hair and a mustache.
Fox News’ Melissa Underwood quotes the CPD’s Sgt. Griner as responding,
According to reporters Kevin Tripp and Sandra Haros of news radio station KTAR (92.3 FM), “Radio station 1190AM refused to use the word ‘Hispanic’ when it broadcast the description.” Apropos of nothing, Mayra Nieves “said the man may look Hispanic, but may not be.”
Nieves told WTAR that police should ignore victim reports (or is that just victim reports by non-Hispanics?) identifying assailants as Hispanic, even when the assailants speak fluent Spanish, and also spoke of Mestizos as an exclusively non-Hispanic group.
‘`It’s feeding more into the anti-Hispanic sentiment that everybody’s saying is not there, but is seen everywhere,” Nieves said “For me, saying he’s Hispanic because the victims are saying he’s Hispanic, is actually doing racial profiling.”
“By the fact that someone looks dark doesn’t mean that he’s Hispanic,” she said. “Even if he has an accent, as some people have said, it could be an Arab, it could be someone from mestizo descent. We don’t know. We don’t know if he’s Hispanic….”
“But, she said, 1190 AM listeners, are ‘confused and enraged because we are saying this person is Hispanic and immediately profiling this guy. And we don’t know, we don’t know if he is Hispanic or not. That is something people are very disgusted about.’”[Hispanics Protest Rapist’s Description, By Kevin Tripp and Sandra Haros, KTAR, November 9th, 2007.]
But 1190 isn’t saying the rapist is Hispanic!
(Unfortunately, KTAR’s editor further muddled things with a misleading title: It wasn’t “Hispanics” who protested, but one radio station.)
Tripp and Haros also published the letter (reprinted below in its entirety, including spelling and grammatical errors) that Nieves claimed to have sent to the Chandler PD, but which the CPD denied having received.
Dear Public Information Officers,
I would like to call your attention to a misleading detail in the description of the suspect that you are providing regarding the case of the Chandler rapist.
You describe him as a “Hispanic male, 28-40 years old, short and stocky with muscular build, dark hair, hazel or brown eyes. Base [sic] on your description the person [sic] skin color is not mentioned. It doesn’t tell me if the suspect is white, black or mestizo. The fact that the suspect may also speak English and Spanish fluently, by the accounts of witnesses [sic], doesn’t make this person necessarily a Hispanic. There are people from other ethnic groups that also speak fluent Spanish. By calling this suspect a “Hispanic male” we are stereotyping the suspect and hurting the search by limiting what people should be looking for. There are many other ethnic groups that could also fit the description that we see in the drawing. By your sketch, this suspect could also be a [sic] Phillipino [sic], Arab, African American, French, Italian, Morocan [sic], etc… [sic]
I hope you can make the correction. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mayra Nieves
VP Programming - New Radio Venture
“Colorado’s and Phoenix [sic] only Spanish News/Talk Radio”
As laughable as Mayra Nieves is, she should not be laughed off. A few years ago, her ilk wouldn’t dare pull such a pathetic stunt; today, the Mayra Nieveses have no inhibitions regarding such theatrics. Remember the recent incident in Los Angeles, in which Hispanic school activists called black American parents “racist” for demanding that school district advisory board meetings be held in English?
And no matter how idiotic the position of a Hispanic chauvinist, another Hispanic or non-Hispanic from the open borders lobby will come up with some shameless sophistry in support of her.
Thus did Ad Age’s affirmative action blogger and supporter of Hispanic rapists, Laura Martinez, come to Nieves’ defense by offering the existence of white, blonde-haired Spanish TV stars as “proof” that the term “Hispanic” has no descriptive power. As if the five rape victims might have been talking about some blonde-haired, white guy!
Illegal Hispanic immigrants and their Hispanic citizen and open borders lobby (OBL) supporters have learned the lessons of black race hustlers all too well. And patriots must be ready to stand up to them, as many times as it takes.
(Cross-posted at VDARE.com. Please hit this link to support VDARE with a tax deductible donation. Hit this link (and/or this one and/or this one) to learn why VDARE is worthy of your support.)
2007 Year-End Fundraising Appeal for VDARE.com By Nicholas Stix
(Last spring, I began an elaborate, ambitious call for readers to support VDARE.com, but have yet to finish it. Considering that a few days ago, VDARE founder Peter Brimelow saw fit to quote almost 500 words from that fundraising letter in his current one, I figured that if it’s good enough for him, it should be good enough for me, too. The alternative is to continue with the new fundraising letter, which I might not finish until next year. But Peter needs your money now!)
It’s that time of year again. You are bound to be inundated with telephone calls from the “National Police Officers’ Association,” or some such scam, which will claim to be helping out the widows and children of police officers slain in the line of duty, organizations which virtually never contribute one dime to the welfare of police officers or their families. But one organization, which does not seek, via cold-calling or any other method, to fleece the unwary good-hearted, and which, in fact, is indispensable, is VDARE.
Not only is VDARE (those mysterious typos, notwithstanding) the best-written Web site that I know of, it is the indispensable Web site, which has had more of a positive effect than any 200 GOP talking points sites (some of which are edited by would-be political consultants) combined.
VDARE is devoted to the National Question. As in, shall the United States of America endure, and what is necessary to do, in order to ensure that it does? Since presently, the greatest threat to the continued existence of these United States is mass immigration, legal and illegal, immigration is VDARE’s preoccupation.
How important is VDARE? Pat Buchanan’s just released work, State of Emergency, is easily the most important immigration book written since Michelle Malkin’s Invasion, four years ago. (It may be the most important book since VDARE founder Peter Brimelow’s 1995 work, Alien Nation.) The impeccable statistical research Buchanan cites in State of Emergency was provided by statistician Edwin Rubinstein, a regular VDARE columnist. And when the standard-setting report on race in America, The State of White America, appears later this month, it too will have statistical foundations provided by Ed Rubinstein.
But that’s not all, folks.
Steve Sailer, another regular VDARE columnist, may well be the most brilliant intellectual-journalist working in the English language today.
A listing of just a few of its exposés (including two from yours truly) follows:
S. 2611 Amnesty/Open Borders/Immigration Acceleration Bill – VDARE helped galvanize opposition that shelved the bill for now, and exposed the Pence Plan by Cong. Mike Pence (R-Indiana), that sought to backdoor amnesty, while claiming to be a “rational middle ground.”
Misrepresenting the Hispanic Vote: Steve Sailer has for several years continually exposed the myths whereby not only the socialist MSM, but their Republican counterparts, not to mention politicians from both major parties have proceeded as if Hispanics’ votes somehow counted for more than whites’ votes.
Naming Open Border Lobby names: VDARE writers have shown how low the OBL will sink, in order to defend the indefensible, such as in Patrick Cleburne’s exposé of Colorado horse farm owner Helen Krieble’s agitations for amnesty, whereby Krieble seeks to depress the wages she has to pay her workers.
VDAWDI: With his VDARE American Worker Displacement Index, Edwin S. Rubenstein has kept a monthly tab on the rise of “immigrant” employment, and concurrent decline in the employment of Americans.
EOIR: In what he should have turned into a book by now, immigration attorney and VDARE columnist Juan Mann has shown how the Executive Office of Immigration Review has undermined the enforcement of immigration law.
America’s Worst Immigration Journalist: VDARE columnist Joe Guzzardi presides over one of the fiercest journalism competitions in existence: determining who, of all the shamelessly dishonest open borders shills, is the worst.
God & Girl at a Catholic University: Athena Kerry’s series showed the decline into multicultural nihilism of one once proudly Catholic institution.
Diversity is Strength! It’s Also … Police Corruption: In 1995, the New York City Police Department hired illegal alien Martin Peters. When Peters came under suspicion in the murder of the mother of his child, and the NYPD showed reticence about promoting him to sergeant, Peters played the race card, and got his promotion. Sgt. Peters is now under indictment for Murder in the Second Degree, Assault in the First Degree, Intimidating a Witness in the Third Degree, Menacing in the Second Degree, three counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, defrauding HUD out of $38,724 in rent subsidies, bankruptcy fraud and last, but not least, immigration fraud.
“Disappearing” Urban Crime: shows the methods of statistical fraud the NYPD employs to make New York “America’s Safest Big City.”
The VDARE Blog:VDARE has one of the best blogs on the Web, with steady contributions from its regular columnists, plus bloggers Patrick Cleburne and Randall Burns.
If you doubt me, try for yourself!
Syndicated columnists: VDARE also runs and archives the columns of Pat Buchanan and Michelle Malkin. So, what’s the big deal about running columns you can read anywhere? The big deal is that nowhere else can you read these columns with the encyclopedic links that VDARE’s editors weave into the text.
Sam Francis: Over the past twenty or so years, Sam Francis was one of America's most important political thinkers, and one of her few honest writers on race. Francis died on February 15, 2005 of complications following heart surgery, at the age of 57. But during his brief stay in this vale of tears, Francis was as prolific as he was insightful. And all of the approximately 400 columns he wrote for VDARE are still available at his VDARE archive, which also contains links to obituaries honoring him, to his work for Chronicles magazine and townhall.com, and to the newly published collection of some of his work. This archive is a treasure trove.
Donate: Please give to VDARE. If you do so by December 31, you can write your contribution off your 2007 taxes. And tax write-offs aside, giving to VDARE is, in the words of one of my favorite ex-convicts, A good thing.
You may be politically colorblind, and not even know it. We provide therapy.
While “a rose is a rose is a rose,” it is not necessarily the case that “red is red is red.”
By long-standing tradition going back to Europe, political movements have colors. For instance, when I lived in then-West Germany (1980-1985), “green” referred to environmentalist-anarchists, as it does here (though in today’s America, “environmentalist” groups are often communist fronts); “black” referred to conservatives; “brown” to Nazis; “blue” to libertarians; and “red” to socialists and communists. Indeed, “red” had long been the worldwide expression and color of communism, by agreement of both Marxists and their enemies, though Marxists hated their enemies identifying them as such.
(When I lived in West Germany, it was only socially acceptable to make fun of Austrians in general as “brown”; living, West German Nazis were powerful and had legal privileges, such that calling a real Nazi “brown” could lead to a ruinous civil suit. Practically everybody who was anybody was a “former” Nazi, and even old workingmen Nazis were heroes to many of the younger German men they worked with.)
Blood Red
A competing, contemporary use of “red” is by genocidal black supremacists, who wear clothing, buttons, and such based on the red-black-green “pan-African flag” designed by Marcus Garvey (1887-1940), the Jamaican-born founder of the back-to-Africa movement. While the black stands for the “black” race, and the green for “our land,” the red is for the blood of whites that the wearer hopes to shed.
Garvey sought to lead blacks in a worldwide racial Armageddon, in which they would kill all whites, and take their place as the world’s dominant race.
“The Red, or the blood, stands as the top of all things. We lost our land through blood; and we cannot gain it except through blood. We must redeem our lives through the blood. Without the shedding of blood there can be no redemption of this race.”
Notwithstanding their wearing of black-green-red accessories in the shape of Africa, the land that genocidal “Africans” seek to gain is that of the good, old USA.
(Though I no longer see it used as much, during the 1990s, the black, green, and red were typically joined with yellow, as an expression of tenured City College of New York black supremacist Leonard Jeffries’ teaching that blacks are the “sun people,” the moral, intellectual, and biological superiors to the white “cave people.”)
“Brown Power!”
“Brown” also has an interesting contemporary significance. It is the political color of Reconquista, of the pan-Mexican, mestizo racial supremacy of groups like MEChA and “La Raza” (“The Race”). Note that the Reconquistas seek not just land that Mexico lost to America in the first Mexican-American War (and for which America compensated Mexico), but vast lands to the North and West of those, including Colorado and Washington, which they claim belong to “Aztlan,” a mythic, ancient Hispanic/Indigenous nation. And since “Aztlan” exists only in their fevered imaginations, I suppose that those lands do belong to it.
And that’s what they admit to. Like the black supremacists, the Reconquistas aim to conquer all of America and kill off all whites, or as the Reconquistas say, send them back to Europe.
Keepin’ It Red
But my color of concern is traditional red.
Since at least the Great Depression, American reds have sought to manipulate “blacks” into fighting their revolution for them. (Most American “blacks” would more accurately be termed “browns.”) In Woody Strode’s (1914-1994) 1990 autobiography, Goaldust (as told to ghostwriter Sam Young), the legendary athlete-turned-actor told of his folks warning him against getting sucked into the communist vortex, when he was a young man in Los Angeles. The reds would sponsor mixers at which pretty white girls would seek to seduce promising young black men into the movement.
White American socialists and communists—I call ‘em SCWs (socialist/communist/whatevers)—have no more regard for blacks than does your average WS/NN/W (white supremacist/neo-Nazi/whatever).
Twenty-two years ago in Brooklyn, I rented a room from a well-to-do, white political operative. I suspect he was a communist, because while socialists occasionally lapse into honesty, this guy could lie in his sleep. Anyway, he lived in an integrated, luxury co-op, with blacks who hated whites, Asians who hated whites, and whites who hated whites. The street around the corner from the building was all black, and variously working-class and poor. Although that street was dilapidated and desolate, with a numbers parlor hiding behind a phony fried chicken storefront, it had a lovely little Sinclair’s bakery (no longer there), a seedy (since buppified) supermarket, and even a butcher (I’m not sure if that’s still there).
If I was hungry, and knew that there were stores open, I went to that street and got something to eat, day or night, just as I would do anywhere else.
Not so, my landlord. (He called the set-up a “share,” but the sharing went one-way. What was mine was his, and what was his was his. While claiming to be against private property, reds are as greedy as your average venture capitalist.) Although he was almost a foot taller than me, and unlike me was trim and athletic-looking, and had all the right beliefs about treating blacks better than whites (whereas I said that blacks should be treated just as lousy as whites are), this guy was so terrified of blacks that he wouldn’t set foot on that street at high noon, accompanied by his dog, even though the next overpriced, yuppy shopping area was almost a mile in the opposite direction. Eventually, he hired a black West Indian woman to do all his family’s grocery shopping and cooking.
In the late spring of 1988, long after it was obvious to everyone that Tawana Brawley and the Three Stooges (Alton Maddox, C. Vernon Mason, and Al Sharpton) had engineered the most despicable race hoax in modern American history, many blacks, their media sycophants, and non-media reds still refused to admit it. At the time, another red political operative I used to know (based on her rare lapses into honesty, I’m guessing she was only a socialist), remarked to me in private, “You can’t expect blacks to participate as equals in public discourse.”
Translated into clear English, she was saying that blacks are mentally retarded, or on a par with the mentally retarded. Of course, had the operative made that statement publicly, her professional career would have been over, and she would have had to leave New York and change her name. And that was not only 19 years before James Watson, but her belief was more radical than his.
In mixed company, meanwhile, that same operative would ape black supremacists, with phrases like, “We need unity against those who would divide us.”
As Tonto says in the apocryphal joke, “Who is ‘we,’ Kimosabe?”
Since the 1960s, reds have likewise sought to conscript “browns” into the revolution, notwithstanding that blacks and Hispanics (excepting many New York Puerto Ricans) have always hated each other. The solution to overcoming black-Hispanic hostility was to engage in ever more intense anti-white rhetoric and practices. It never seems to occur to the reds that: 1. Racism is evil; and 2. They are white!
If you spend years indoctrinating blacks (who need no invitation to hate whites, in the first place) and Hispanics in anti-white racism, and giving them incentives to violently assault whites, at some point, they are going to notice that you are the same color as the “racist” whites. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the regimes of apartheid and genocide well underway in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Even then-82-year-old, “anti-apartheid” (read: red) writer Nadine Gordimer, who was rewarded for her literary activism with a Nobel Prize for literature, was targeted last year by racist black thugs, who robbed and beat her in her Johannesburg home. Or just take a look at America’s cities.
America’s reds think that the “blacks” and “browns” they seek to exploit politically are simple-minded and easily manipulated. Unfortunately for the reds, the blacks and browns know this.
Towards the end of the Weimer Republic (1919-1933) and the beginning of the Nazi Era (1933-1945), reactionary, “black” monarchists, who helped the Nazis ascend to power, thought the same way about Hitler and his henchmen. Hitler saw through their vanity. By the time the “blacks” realized their folly, they were climbing the steps to the gallows.
Red Hysteria
According to Democrat Party legend and the New York Times, if you’ll pardon the redundancy, the 1950s were an age of McCarthyite “red-baiting” and “hysteria.” On June 19, 2003, a New York Times house editorial commemorated the 50th anniversary of the execution of communist traitors and Soviet spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, for instance, by fabulating in Marxist language that they were the “victims” of “anti-communist hysteria” and “McCarthyism,” and called their case, including the execution of Julius, an “injustice.”
In other words, giving our mortal enemies atom bomb secrets which helped them build their own bomb was not a crime.
But then, the Times has since 1992 been run by “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr., who during the War in Vietnam supported the North Vietnamese communists, and who has never changed. And long before Sulzberger’s time, TimesmenWalter Duranty wrote propaganda for Stalin, covering up his Ukrainian Holocaust (for which Duranty was rewarded with a Pulitzer Prize), and Herbert Mathews provided similar services for Castro. Also typical of the left was Turner Classic Movies host Robert Osborne’s August 18, 2005 assertion that people merely “alleged” that the Hollywood Ten were communists. Such claims are on a par with Holocaust-deniers saying that Jews merely “allege” that the Holocaust occurred. But that’s what the Left has been engaging in for over 40 years—communism-denial. It can be hard, at times, to say where Marxist evil leaves off and Marxist ignorance begins. But if someone repeats a lie out of ignorance, he’s still a liar. For instance, for over fifty years, leftists have repeated the lie whereby Richard Nixon coined the term “the Pink Lady,” in referring to Democrat California Rep. Helen Gahagan Douglas, his opponent in the 1950 U.S. Senate race. As historian Irwin Gellman showed in his exhaustively researched Nixon-biography, The Contender: Richard Nixon: The Congress Years, 1946 to 1952, Nixon did not coin the term, Douglas’ Democratic primary opponent, Ralph Manchester Boddy, the publisher of the Los Angeles Daily News, did. If anything, calling Douglas, then one of the two most radically left members of Congress “pink,” was too gentle a description. “Red” would have been more accurate. The other congressman I alluded to above, East Harlem communist Vito Marcantonio, also lost the 1950 election, to Democrat James Donovan, who had stressed Marcantonio’s refusal to vote in favor of war against communist North Korea. (Marcantonio’s claim, “I vote my conscience,” was a code phrase for his following the Party – as in, Communist Party — line.) However, the leftwing campaign against Nixon, continued by dead-enders even today, 13 years after the man’s death, was always based less on his electoral victories over congressmen Jerry Voorhis (in 1946) and Helen Gahagan Douglas, than on his successful 1950 prosecution of Alger Hiss, who had earlier been the number-two man in the State Department, for perjury. Hiss had in fact been a traitor and a Soviet spy, but the statute of limitations precluded prosecuting him for those hanging offenses. Leftwing ignorance is so pervasive, that in an unintentionally comical moment in the 2005 propaganda film, Good Night, and Good Luck, director/screenwriter/communist sympathizer George Clooney felt the need to have his character, CBS News producer Fred Friendly, point out to another character—without irony—that the House Un-American Activities Committee is in the House, while Sen. McCarthy is in the Senate. But leftist propagandists have always worked hard to ensure that everyone in America is as ignorant and confused as the average lefty. Thus, they have since the 1960s labeled any political action or criticism opposing them, “McCarthyism” or a “new McCarthyism.” The tactic of calling opponents “McCarthyites” serves the dual purpose of making them look evil, and of reinforcing a fictional history, according to which, on the one hand, Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were victims, rather than traitors, and the State Department was not, as McCarthy revealed, lousy with communist infiltrators.
Conservative writer Ann Coulter returned to this issue in her 2003 book, Treason, vindicating the memory of McCarthy. Conservative journalist M. Stanton Evans has just published his 672-page swan song, blasting the leftwing, anti-McCarthy tradition, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight against America's Enemies.
Republicans and conservatives have unwittingly aided and abetted the Left by referring since circa 1989 to leftwing totalitarianism on college campuses and in the nation’s schools as a “new McCarthyism.” That unfortunate rhetorical habit is a form of surrender that it will take more than Evans to overcome.
Another form of surrender long practiced by Republicans and conservatives is in referring to “liberal bias” by the mainstream media. The media figures in question do not think of themselves as “liberals,” they think of themselves as socialists or worse.
But the socialist MSM’s ultimate victory in table-turning was in monolithically imposing, during the 2000 presidential election, the usage of the phrase “red states,” in referring to Republican-majority states, and “blue states,” in referring to Democrat-majority states.
Socialist MSM types no doubt cluck, whenever they get a non-leftist to speak of Republican areas as “Red America,” or “red-state America,” but “Red America” rightfully refers to America’s newsrooms and faculty lounges.
