The Package: A Bundle of Big Lies Which Insist on the Reality of Black Victimization
By Nicholas Stix

February 12, 2002
Toogood Reports

Many white folks like to kid themselves, that the problem with race relations is black demagogues like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who supposedly lead black folks astray. That is a comforting thought, but if it were true, it would mean that most black folks are mental defectives.

I expect to hear the demagogue theory repeated quite a bit in the days to come, due to the February 10 installment of The Boondocks, an Afrocentric cartoon strip by Aaron McGruder. White folks – and not a few black folks – like to joke, “What are you going to do with a degree in black studies?” Well, Aaron McGruder got his college degree in black studies.

In the strip in question, two black children are talking on the telephone. One says, “I keep getting this forwarded e-mail saying that the Voting Rights Act will expire in 2007, and black people won’t be able to vote anymore. Is that true?” The second child responds, “That’s ridiculous. The Voting Rights Act was a means to enforce the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which is what actually gives black people the right to vote.” First Child: “Oh. So, when does the 15th Amendment expire?” Second Child: “That expired November 7, 2000.”

In confusing the purpose of the Voting Rights Act, and lying about the 2000 presidential election, McGruder managed to kill two birds with one stone. I suppose he saw that dishonest strip as part of his contribution to Black History Month. Then again, for Aaron McGruder, every month is Black History Month.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was enacted in 1965, in order to combat the massive disenfranchisement of black voters in the South through poll taxes, selectively enforced literacy tests, threats and violence. For many years, however, the federal courts misrepresented the VRA, twisting its application beyond recognition. Based on the racist, unconstitutional notion that blacks must live in black-only districts, and be represented only by blacks, oddly-shaped patches of land were racially gerrymandered into congressional districts that joined distant people with no geographical bond. The Supreme Court has since struck down such gerrymandering. Many blacks, however, including Aaron McGruder, cling to the notion that it is racist for the feds NOT to engage in racism on behalf of blacks.

As for Florida, all of the claims that white authorities disenfranchised blacks have been discredited. Gore campaign manager, Donna Brazille, notwithstanding, no white police used “guns and dogs” to keep blacks from voting. And despite Jesse Jackson’s claims to the contrary, the one police roadblock for automobile registration checks was not near a voting site, and did not intimidate a single black voter out of exercising the franchise. Nor was it true that poor, black neighborhoods were saddled with malfunctioning keypunch voting machines, while wealthy, white neighborhoods had superior optical scanners. Indeed, when the chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, “historian” Mary Frances Berry, held hearings in January, 2001, seeking to perpetuate the Florida Hoax, not one person testified that he had been disenfranchised, or had witnessed anyone else being disenfranchised.

I have not met any black folks who would admit that the disenfranchisement charges have been disproved. Have they studied the matter? No; they “don’t have to!” White folks usually avoid such discussions. Even many hard-core, white racists will suck up to blacks, agreeing with them on charges of racism that the whites laugh about in private.

And “progressive” whites are hardly different. Back in 1988, at the height of the Tawana Brawley Hoax, a white socialist political operative said to me, “You can’t expect blacks to participate as equals in public discourse.” Had the woman made the same statement on her job, working for black socialist Manhattan Borough President David Dinkins, she would have had to find a new profession. And that was many hoaxes ago.

The Florida Disenfranchisement Myth goes deeper than Florida, and has nothing to do with issues of truth or falsity.

The Florida Myth is part of what I call The Package. The Package is a bundle of Big Lies, all of which insist on the reality of black victimization: The Texaco, black church arson, racial profiling and Adam’s Mark Hotel hoaxes (in many quarters, the Tawana Brawley hoax, too); the necessity for affirmative action; charges of rampant, white-on-black police brutality; and blaming racism as the cause of black kids’ failure in school and black males’ increasing troubles with the law. In New York, where I live, any white who fails to defer to any black on any aspect of The Package, is automatically labeled a racist, and consequently, in big trouble.

(Does that mean that no blacks are ever victimized by whites? Of course not. But those blacks who truly are victims of racism don’t get TV face time with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, or legal help from the NAACP. And the blacks who get such help almost always turn out to be frauds. The only high-profile case that occurs to me that contradicts this scenario, is that of Abner Louima, whom NYPD officer Justin Volpe sodomized with a broom handle in 1997. Volpe is currently serving a thirty-year prison sentence.)

Black expectations of white deference are not limited to race hoaxes. Beginning in August, 1997, while teaching college, I moonlighted as a security guard at Toys’R’Us stores in New York City. My first day at a store in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, I introduced myself over lunch to a 20-something, American black bicycle mechanic named Eddie. At some point in the conversation, Eddie suddenly got up from the table, stood a few feet away from me, and never spoke to me again. I have no idea what I said, but I know I hadn’t made a bold statement on a hot button issue.

Ultimately, The Package includes anything that any black sees fit to include in it, at any given moment.

I used to work in New York as a caseworker for foster children who had been abused and neglected by their natural (aka “bio”) parents. Almost all of my foster children and foster parents were black (most foster agencies refuse to place black children in white foster homes, even if there are no black homes available). A black American woman named Donna, about thirty years of age, worked a few feet away from my unit, in the Family Day Care department. We saw each other constantly, and developed a cordial relationship, while investigating, and ultimately terminating, a crooked family day-care provider who was also one of my foster parents. (The woman was my one Hispanic foster parent.)

One day, when I complained to Donna about one of my “church ladies,” she accused me of “racism.”

“Church lady” was not a racially inflammatory or ambiguous term. It referred rather to certain devoutly Christian, black foster mothers who were notorious for lying to the agency, breaking state laws, and thwarting case workers. For instance, although state law forbade foster parents from ever hitting foster children, church ladies all beat their foster kids. If you developed good rapport with a foster mother, and dug a little, you could sometimes get her to admit it. (One foster mother practically dared me to shut down her home, bragging, “You got to hit the children!,” but she was unique.) Friends and relatives comprised church lady foster parent networks, training each other to repeat, Stepford Wife-like, the same refrain: “I never beat the children; I only take away privileges.”

I could have defended myself to Donna, but why permit myself to be put on the defensive?

The truth has little to do with most accusations of racism. The point is to constantly bully whites and make them squirm, defend themselves, apologize and beg for forgiveness. And then, often as not, blacks get the white in question fired. It’s all about power.

I told Donna, “Don’t you dare pull that. And don’t talk to me anymore.”

My Chinese-American supervisor had already told me, regarding problems I’d had with an incompetent, black supremacist supervisor (who was fired), “The only reason you’re still working here, is because this agency is run by white males.” And she was telling the truth!

At the agency where I had previously worked, black workers would threaten whites, “I’ll kick your white ass,” right in front of the director, without suffering any repercussions. The director, a white woman of Irish descent, would play deaf.

Note that the above stories are from the good old days of the late 1980s!

During the same period, just before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Timothy Garton Ash reported, in The Uses of Adversity: Essays on the Fate of Central Europe, that in the Soviet East Bloc, there was a division between “public” and “private” opinion. “Public opinion” referred to Communist Party propaganda; “private opinion” referred to the truths people talked about away from the prying ears of party officials and informers.

That America is not a dictatorship, makes it all the more incredible, that it should have the same split. “Public opinion” in America refers to the fairy tale that blacks constantly suffer from white racism. “Private opinion” refers to the truth that whites and other non-blacks share among themselves: That American-born blacks are the single most racist group in America.

While there are exceptions to The Package, they are just that, and they are increasingly rare. While economists Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are two black men who are arguably the most trenchant critics of The Package, in black America, they are two very lonely men. Old men, too, for whom no successors are in sight.

During the early 1960s, Martin Luther King reportedly said that, because of the threat posed by racial separatist Malcolm X, whites were forced to deal with King. Today, blacks’ refusal – aided by white elites – to permit honesty to play any role in talk about race, is making white separatism look more legitimate by the day for unsophisticated young whites who see no reason for playing the private-public game. At the rate things are going, blacks may someday need to pray that white Martins will arise to offer an alternative to the white Malcolms that will prove to be the surprise inside The Package.

Video of Black Police Looting a Wal-Mart in New Orleans, One Day After Katrina Hit, and the NOPD Cover-Ups
By Nicholas Stix



I was amazed to see that this video was still available on the Web, at Elliot Lake’s blog. This story was shown on Herr Keith Olbermann’s show on MSNBC, of all places.

After the smoke had cleared, Acting Police Superintendent Warren Riley, who would soon be named chief proper, said that it was o.k. for police to loot.


New Orleans Police Department: When Cops Loot, It’s Not Looting
By Nicholas Stix
March 24, 2006

Well, it took almost seven months, but the New Orleans Police Department has finally gotten its lies straight, concerning pilfering police officers who availed themselves of other people’s property in Katrina’s aftermath. The official word: Looters in uniform do not count as looters.

The pronunciamento concerned four female officers – Olivia Fontenot, Vera Polite, Debra Prosper and Kenyatta Phillips – caught by an MSNBC news crew in a compromising position inside a Wal-Mart. According to a report from the New Orleans Times-Picayune’s Michael Perlstein:

When a reporter asks the officers what they're doing, one of them responds, “Looking for looters.” She then hastily turns her back to the camera….

In the video, the officers never offer an explanation as to why they're filling a shopping basket with merchandise. Instead, Fontenot tells (MSNBC's Fred) Savidge that they are “looking for looters.”

When Savidge points out that he can see looters everywhere, the following exchange takes place:

Fontenot: “That's what I see, including you. What are you doing in here?”

Savidge: “I haven't taken anything, ma'am.”

Fontenot: “But you're in the store, huh?”

Office Fontenot was clearly seeking to intimidate Savidge out of doing his job by making a veiled threat of arresting him, while letting all the looters run wild.

According to Perlstein, earlier that day, several Times-Picayune reporters also saw officers taking items such as fishing poles and electronics, “while dozens of other officers stood by.”

But that was then, this is now. Speaking through a department flack, Superintendent Warren Riley said, “It was determined that all four officers had received permission from their commanders to get clothing for fellow officers who were soaking wet. They did not steal anything.”

Thus, the officers who were stealing in the Wal-Mart in front of the MSNBC crew weren’t “really” stealing, because they had their commander’s permission. Now, if they had really had their commander’s permission, don’t you think they would have simply said so, instead of hiding from the camera, making the idiotic statement that they were “looking for looters,” and threatening to arrest a reporter?

When I was a department store security guard, it was really easy to profile most shoplifters before they stole anything, because they practically had a big “G” for guilty written on their foreheads. They’d look around in a paranoid fashion and otherwise draw attention to themselves. Those New Orleans policewomen were acting guilty as hell. If they weren’t looting, why did they feel so guilty?

And what are we to make of a modern, big-city police department that requires almost seven months to come up with such a pathetic cover-up. Heck, my six-year-old could have come up with a better fib, off the cuff.

However, although the four officers were not, let me repeat, NOT looting, they still got suspended “for 10 days without pay for ‘neglect of duty’ because ‘people can be observed illegally inside the store with property in their possession and you took no police action to prevent or stop the looting,’ according to their disciplinary letters.”

Officer Fontenot was also suspended for three days for being “discourteous” to MSNBC’s Fred Savidge.

The message is clear: Should a reporter catch you in the act of looting, remember to be courteous.

Considering how many NOPD officers stood around while civilians looted, I guess we can expect to see Assistant Chief Marlon Defillo (remember that name!), commander of the Public Integrity Bureau, to hand down a few hundred such ten-day suspensions. Hahahaha! Just kidding.

(Public Integrity is often called “Internal Affairs” in other urban police forces. Police departments periodically change the names of such divisions, thinking that a name change can confuse the public about the corruption the division is supposed to ferret out.)

In another case, in which two NOPD officers were photographed looting inside a store, Assistant Chief Defillo did not suspend them, saying that in the photograph, no one else could be seen looting in the store. I know what you’re saying: What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Translation of Defilloese into English: It’s ok for NOPD officers to loot, as long as they don’t tolerate civilians looting.

This is a new one on me. I’ve never before heard of an internal affairs division trying to cover up corruption, and whose boss sounded more like a PR flack than a corruption investigator.

Warren Riley became chief when his disgraced predecessor, Eddie Compass, was forced out following the Katrina non-looting. But Assistant Chief Marlon Defillo (remember that name!) now tells us that police looting was a myth perpetrated by the media.

People were saying a lot of things at that time, but we had to separate fact from fiction. Each of the cases that were presented to my office were thoroughly investigated and based on all the facts and circumstances, we found that officers either weren't looting or they were taking essential items. A lot of media ran stories about looting without proper validation.

Meanwhile, Lt. David Benelli, the president of the Police Association of New Orleans, said “It’s all a matter of perception.” The Times-Picayune’s Michael Perlstein quotes Lt. Benelli as saying,

[I]t was easy for witnesses to misinterpret the actions of police in the chaotic environment after the storm. He said he was the target of uneasy glares when he went to the Lower 9th Ward in September and retrieved jewelry and other valuables through the window of his mother-in-law's house on Caffin Avenue….

“There were wild aspersions that the NOPD had run amok, but a lot of these stories came out before all the facts had been gathered and investigated. We were the whipping boys right after the storm. What you don't see is, months later when a police officer is exonerated, the media coming back to do that story.”

If the stories about police officers looting were fake or matters of mistaken “perception,” why can’t Chief Compass get his job back?

But the police officers weren’t exonerated, they were given a pass as part of a bungled official cover-up. There’s a huge difference between the two.

If Chief Riley, Assistant Chief Defillo, and Lt. Benelli’s purpose is to guarantee that the NOPD remains the butt of jokes, they’re doing a bang-up job.

Are New Orleans burglars now going to be able to get off by claiming that the arresting officer “misinterpreted” their actions?

“The butt of jokes” brings us to the Times-Picayune, whose editors and some staffers perpetrated to my knowledge the most ambitious media cover-up ever when, on September 26, they essentially told the public, regarding the early reports of anarchic, post-Katrina violence, “Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?”

The odd thing is, though the reporters writing the cover-up story wouldn’t admit it, the Times-Picayune had itself been the source for the most gruesome stories.

Do the editors now lead staff meetings by saying, “Today, we’re telling the truth about story X, but we’re lying about story Y”?

In any event, for those of you keeping score—and you really need a scorecard—the NOPD is covering up for post-Katrina police looters, while the Times-Picayune is covering up for violent civilian criminals.

[April 27, 2010 postscript: The NOPD also covered up reports that its officers had stolen dozens of new cars, most of them Cadillacs, from a car dealership.

In a third cover-up, local and federal officials swept under the rug the conspiracy at the highest levels of the NOPD that had fabricated 250 “ghost” officers, in order to defraud federal taxpayers out of millions of dollars, which were used to enrich real NOPD officers.

In case readers should object to my emphasizing that the known police looters were black, it was no accident that the officers in question were black. Prior to Katrina, the NOPD had for years ruthlessly discriminated against qualified white officer candidates, and on behalf of morally and intellectually unfit black candidates. In order to fill the officers’ ranks with blacks, by any means necessary, the Department dropped all moral and intellectual standards, where blacks were concerned, even going so far as to knowingly hire sociopaths such as Antoinette Frank and convicted felons such as Len Davis, both of whom would go on to commit murders while on the NOPD, and both of whom are currently on Death Row. Frank murdered three people, was caught while on her way to murder two witnesses, and is suspected of having murdered her own father.

After Katrina the NOPD agreed, over the vehement objections of black New Orleanians, to temporarily relax its official policy of anti-white discrimination.]

In Diversitopia Chicago, at Least 58 People are Shot in One 10-Day Stretch; Mayor Daley Blames Gun Makers
By Nicholas Stix

Crime blogger Nivius Vir has been even busier than usual, documenting out-of-control black crime. But have no fear: By year’s end, enlightened, progressive, urban elected officials and their public order impression managers (aka police chiefs) will tell the public that violent crime is down in their municipalities, each of which will compete for the title of “the safest big city in America.”

Americans used to call this sort of environment “anarchy,” but now we call it… “diversity”! And always remember: “Our diversity is our strength!”





Thanks to Nivius Vir, for the diverse videos!