Africans and African Americans

James Edwards on Mel Gibson

/128 Comments/in , , , /by

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

/31 Comments/in , /by

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

/63 Comments/in , , /by

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“

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

/51 Comments/in , , , /by

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

Jews and Other Minorities

/23 Comments/in , , , /by

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

Further Evidence for the Racial Polarization of American Politics

/24 Comments/in , , , , /by

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

/9 Comments/in , , /by

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