Africans and African Americans

Martin Luther King voted for Barry Goldwater!

/17 Comments/in /by

That’s what $arah Palin, Glenn Beck, William Bennett and a whole bunch of other conservatives would have you believe. They tell us that King stood for freedom, liberty and limited government.

Conservatives love to proclaim “Bull Connor was a Democrat! And Martin Luther King was a Republican!”

Here’s just a few samples:

Martin Luther King Jr Was a Conservative Republican

Martin Luther King’s Conservative Legacy from the conservative Heritage Foundation

The Conservative Virtues of Dr. Martin Luther King from the Heritage Foundation and William J. Bennett, the Book of Virtues author

Houston group says Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican

And don’t miss this, from a Black conservative:

King recognized the tyrannical nature of the government, and he would be standing shoulder to shoulder with Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Herman Cain, Allen West, and many others in an attempt to free not only blacks this time, but the entire nation from the very same government that was oppressing blacks during King’s lifetime. Read more

Edmund Connelly: Black Rage Means White People Die

/34 Comments/in , /by

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

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