2. A Statistical Review of the Condition of Whites in the United States
By Edwin S. Rubenstein

[N.S.: This page is currently a placeholder for Ed Rubinstein’s chapter, so that I can maintain the order of SOWA-2007's different sections. I couldn’t simply copy and paste it, because every page has tables and there is also a graph or two, without which the text won’t make much sense, but I haven’t had time yet to copy all of the graphics.]

The State of White America–2007Release Date: April 5, 2007Prepared by and for the National Policy Institute by Nicholas Stix, Project Director

[Reader’s note: I was shocked to learn of the death of Louis Andrews, who ran the National Policy Institute for at least the last six or seven years of his life. In 2005 or 2006, Kevin Lamb honored me by hiring me to edit and co-author this report. I wrote an ambitious, detailed outline for the report, which Kevin greenlighted.

After Kevin left NPI, I worked directly under Louis Andrews, who gave me complete editorial control, never interfering in any way with my work. Louis was already in the fight of his life, with cancer that had spread from his colon all over his body. I was sure he was a goner, which also caused me to worry that I’d never get paid! Well, Louis made a miraculous “recovery”—the scare quotes are because there are no real recoveries, once cancer has taken up residence in one’s body—and when I saw him in 2008 at the American Renaissance conference, he looked hail and ruddy-cheeked, and fit to wrestle grizzly bears, his white hair and beard notwithstanding.

And he looked just as good the next year, at the Saving Western Civilization conference.

But the cancer came back, and claimed him on December 29.

According to the ADL, SOWA-2007 put NPI on the map. The link to the report was always prominently displayed on NPI’s front page. NPI’s editors had also posted excerpts and links to dozens of my articles since then.

I learned of Louis’ death when I checked the link to SOWA-2007, and found it was dead. Before Louis’ body was even cold, some blackguard had deleted every trace of me from the site—the links to SOWA-2007, and every single Web page promoting my articles.

Why would someone do such a thing? It would require a contempt for intellectual standards, and a complete lack of moral integrity. The blackguard in question could not carry my jock strap, and he besmirched Louis Andrews’ legacy.

And so, I am reprinting SOWA-2007 at this blog and, hopefully, at others, as well.

Enjoy!

Sincerely,

Nicholas Stix  

The State of White America-2007

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. A Statistical Review of the Condition of Whites in the United States
3. Education: Pseudo-Pedagogy, Real Hatred
4. On the Job: No White Americans Need Apply?
5. Crime: One Thing White Americans are Lousy at

April 5, 2007

To the reader:

We at the National Policy Institute are pleased to release The State of White America–2007. Our thanks goes to Nicholas Stix, project director, for his production of this original work, as well as to the other authors and researchers, some named, some not, who participated in this lengthy project.

If you find this publication useful, please consider a donation to the National Policy Institute [address no longer valid] so that we may continue this and similar valuable work.

Bound printed copies of this report are available from the above address for $10.00 each.

Sincerely,
Louis R. Andrews
President
 

Introduction

The past 53 years have not been kind to white America. And as white America goes, so goes America.

The following report gives in concentrated form, a statistical and narrative portrait of the war on white America, and thus, on America herself. We at NPI were fortunate in being able to benefit from the contributions of one of today’s most rigorous quantitative researchers, Edwin S. Rubenstein, the president of Indianapolis-based ESR Research Economic Consultants, and one of the most brilliant and elegant writers presently working in the English language, Melbourne, Australia-based historian R. J. Stove (The Unsleeping Eye: Secret Police and Their Victims). SOWA blends journalism and social science, in analyzing and criticizing developments, taking the present day as its point of departure, and reaching back over the past couple of years and the past fifty-odd years.

On May 17, 1954, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 9–0 decision outlawing racial school segregation. In the Warren Court’s contempt for constitutional precedent, embrace of fraudulent social science, and casually dismissive attitude towards common sense and tradition, Brown was arguably the worst decision in the Court’s 216-year history.

And things have only gotten worse since. Brown was followed by the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act, another unconstitutional action, which was supposed to bring about racial comity and equality. Instead, it immediately inspired race rioting by blacks, and soon enough, quota systems privileging unqualified blacks (and later,Hispanics, and today even illegal immigrants!), at the expense of qualified whites.The next year saw the enactment of the Voting Rights Act and the Immigration Act, respectively, and Pres. Johnson’s signing of Executive Order 11246, which began affirmative action. The Voting Rights Act was yet another federal usurpation of states’ rights, whose immediate result was yet more black race riots, and whose long-term result was to initiate a regime of federal mischief-making, in rigging elections for the benefit of black, and later Hispanic, candidates.

And then came forced busing.

As terrible as Brown, the U.S. Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, and forced busing were, they wreaked havoc in a nation that was still almost 90 percent white. Thus, although integration and the civil rights movement led directly to the destruction of great cities; and to millions of whites suffering terrible injustices,including assault, robbery, rape and murder, and losing everything they had through the ensuing destruction of their neighborhoods and their property values; the majority of whites were able to escape ascendant black supremacy.

But on October 3, 1965, the Immigration Act changed all that. Although its floor manager, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), assured voters that the bill would not change America’s ethnic balance, it has in fact brought about the biggest ethnic upheaval in American history, and threatens to abolish America. At the time, Kennedyguaranteed the American people,

First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area.

Sen. Kennedy now seeks to finish what he began in 1965. Instead of apologizing to the American people for his deception of 41 years ago, his response to opposition to his new plan for a massive amnesty of as many as 20 million predominantly Hispanic illegal immigrants already in the U.S., plus tens of millions of theiroverseas relatives, is to damn his critics as “racists” and to play demagogue to illegal aliens.

And so, a nation that was almost 90 percent white in 1960, is now only 67 percent white, with that percentage decreasing a little each day. The now dwindling white majority cannot escape both black and mestizo supremacy.

Perhaps the oddest thing about the movement to make America a majority non-white nation, is the glee with which non-whites and their white supporters, such as Sen. Kennedy, go about their business. Were they really so concerned with helping Hispanics and blacks exploit the American welfare state, they would want to limit Hispanic and black immigration. For it is only within the framework of a predominantly white nation, that America can be economically, legally, and culturally exploited by blacks and Hispanics. (But then, how supportive of blacks and Hispanics can community “leaders” and “educators” be, that prevent minoritychildren from learning English, and who encourage them to lead lives of crime?)Welfare programs are expensive in both their direct and indirect costs; they can only be supported by a thriving, modern economy in which almost everyone works. And that economy can only thrive if the society is dominated by people who respect the rule of law, have a strong work ethic, a certain level of intelligence, and maintain assorted cultural and political traditions (respecting their neighbors’ property, speaking a common language, having a sense of national loyalty, and thus of common citizenship, etc.).

Should America’s borders be abolished, at the same time that lawless foreigners, whose loyalty is to foreign flags, are granted privileges superior to those of loyal Americans, the ensuing economic, legal, and cultural collapse would cost blacks and Hispanics all of the wonderful things they now routinely demand of whites,and which brought most Hispanics here in the first place. They will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

But not all developments currently hurting whites spring from an explicitly racial animus. The outsourcing and insourcing of jobs previously done by Americans was done out of the profit motive, but it also disproportionately hurt whites.

The only change in the economic landscape benefiting foreigners which some observers claim has largely harmed American blacks is the increasing use of illegal immigrant labor for low-skilled and unskilled work, and even that claim is debatable. In many cases, illegal immigrants are doing work that whites still did, but that most blacks in the meantime came to consider beneath them.

In the cases of insourcing and outsourcing, American firms are also killing the goose that laid the golden egg. As Paul Craig Roberts has observed, by seeking “absolute” rather than “comparative advantage,” and thus increasingly refusing to hire Americans for millions of jobs serving the American market, American firms are contributing to a situation in which that market will eventually no longer be able to support their products and services. Such firms have already largely destroyed the value of American engineering degrees. And as Roberts has warned, by forsaking manufacturing and even research and development in favor of simply slapping American labels on outsourced foreign goods, American firms are hastening the day when the foreign companies that today do those jobs for them simply cut out the American middle man, slap their own labels on their goods, and export them to America. That would spell the end of many American high-tech firms.

Meanwhile, Americans may not even publicly complain about the impending destruction of their nation. The entertainment and news media, the public (and in many cases, private) schools, the private and public universities, social work agencies, and increasingly, even police agencies, have been taken over variously by proponents of multiculturalism, or by cynical managers who appease them.

Multiculturalism is an explicitly anti-white, racist movement that was created by Marxists during the late 1950s, when they saw that the white American working class was not fulfilling its “historical role,” in bringing about the socialist revolution. The Marxists conscripted the Third World, in the place of working-class whites.

Anyone questioning anti-white dogma in the aforementioned institutions is variously fired and blacklisted; given terrible grades or expelled, if they are students; or forced into sensitivity training, until, sufficiently chastened, they give the “correct” answers, and stop ever challenging the anti-white creed. These institutions teach Middle Americans to live in fear, while emboldening blacks, Hispanics, and white “anti-racists” in their attacks on them. Some whites have even landed in jail, simply for using language unacceptable to multicultural sheriff’s deputies and jurists.

The late Sam Francis coined the concept of “anarcho-tyranny,” to describe the novel situation in which some groups (Middle Americans) are tyrannically oppressed, while other groups (blacks, Hispanics, and especially, illegal immigrants) are above the law. In a related vein, Paul Craig Roberts has spoken of the return of a “feudal” legal order.

While some whites are standing up to such racism, the white majority’s yielding to it is one of the saddest, and most maddening sights in contemporary American life.

During the late 1980s, in what would later prove to be the last days of the Iron Curtain, socialist British historian Timothy Garton Ash would travel about the East Bloc. In Ash’s reportages, which would later be collected in book form as The Uses of Adversity, he spoke of the difference between “private” and “public” opinion. “Public” opinion consisted of the lies that comprised Communist Party propaganda, which ordinary people had to repeat, if they didn’t want to land in the gulag or starve. “Private” opinion consisted of the truths that people could speak only behind closed doors, or which hardy samizdat journalists risked their livesto publish.

Things aren’t as dramatic in the U.S. as they were behind the Iron Curtain—yet. But life in America is heading inexorably in a totalitarian direction. While I doubt that an American dictatorship would necessarily be communist, whether a dictatorship arises indirectly from anarchy or directly via tyranny, a liberal society cannot long endure multiculturalism. However, rather than resembling Soviet Russia or Red China, America is heading for a reality that more likely will look like a cross between Zimbabwe and Mexico, but with Hispanics holding the whip hand.

As the late Christopher Lasch (in The Revolt of the Elites), Samuel Huntington (in Who are We?), and other critics have noted, America is today ruled by “transnational elites,” who have no loyalty to nation, race, or ethny. The elites in question run the gamut politically from Marxism to neoconservatism to libertarianism.

And yet, these elites have for over forty years promoted policies and practices supporting the rise of blacks and Hispanics with intense loyalties to “blood and soil.”

White elites and those successfully indoctrinated by them seek constantly to minimize the role of race in human affairs, while blacks and Hispanics insist that everything is racial. This comical disjunction even affects relations between allies. White Marxists who support black supremacy deny the very reality of race, while the black supremacists they support insist that race isn’t everything, race is the only thing. Thus it was that during the 1996–1997 debate over so-called Ebonics, Marxist professors of linguistics could not even understand what the Oakland Ebonics Resolution was saying, when it claimed that ebonics is “genetically based.” The linguistics professors insisted that in the resolution, “genetic” meant “historical.”

For a more recent example, some whites have sought to explain to blacks calling for the railroading of three innocent white men in the Duke Rape Hoax, that “This isn’t about race.”

Whites have been so cowed out of speaking in explicitly racial terms, except to grovel at the feet of minorities, or to support the latter’s hoaxes, that when something is as obviously racial as the attempt to imprison three innocent men in the absence of any crime, basely solely on the color of their skin, they seek to translate the incident into non-racial terms.

When white writers who oppose multiculturalism write on race, they must adopt rhetorical strategies that can undermine their works, if they are to be published. For one thing, they must say nice things about famous black scoundrels whom they rightly, if only privately, hold in contempt.

Another strategy is to throw in platitudes saying that blacks still suffer from racial discrimination, as neoconservatives Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom (not the author to whom I was just referring) did in their magisterial work criticizing affirmative action, America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible: Race in Modern America. A lot of good that did the Thernstroms. One influential critic (Nicholas Lemann) threw the platitudes back in their faces, arguing that such an admission undermined their entire critique of affirmative action, while another prominent critic (Philip Klinkner) asserted, in what amounted to a political-intellectual death warrant, that the Thernstroms were indistinguishable from white supremacists.

In Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, author William McGowan felt so constrained to emphasize the benefits of a more “diverse” newsroom, that he gave the lie to his entire book, which otherwise consists of showing, in case after case after case, how affirmative action and multiculturalism have resulted in fraudulent reporting.

Most talented political writers simply avoid race, if at all possible.

And yet, if someone doesn’t show some courage, all will be lost. America wasn’t founded by weaklings, and she won’t be saved by weaklings.

The founders of the National Policy Institute have the requisite courage. They speak for us. And in the irony of ironies, they speak for blacks and Hispanics, too. For it will only be via a reassertion of white prerogatives, that the social order which once helped so many blacks and Hispanics to overcome their “communities,” and which once redeemed those communities from their own baser instincts, that black and Hispanic Americans will be able to enjoy the fruits of American civilization.

Nicholas Stix

Mugged by a Bobo: On the Danger SWPLers Pose to the White Working Class
 

Ivy League weenie/SWPLer, Brian Goldman
 
By Nicholas Stix

The Goldman Effect concerns how upper-middle-class whites (“SWPLers” or “Bobos”) can, through their thoughtlessness, place themselves in dangerous situations that their white social “inferiors” must then rescue them from, whereupon the now ruthless “SWPLers” leave their rescuers in the lurch, misrepresent and exploit the situation, and never so much as thank their benefactors.

SWPLers—“Stuff White People Like” types—refers to an idea that blogger Christian Lander got from David Brooks, who had dubbed the demographic in question, the “Bohemian Bourgeoisie,” “Bobos,” for short. Brooks thinks this is a praiseworthy demographic. SWPLers/Bobos are well-to-do whites who combine previously antipodal categories such as bohemian and capitalist, and who embrace Third World peoples—from a safe distance, as illegal household help, or in terms of safely “exotic,” but not too exotic vacations.

SWPLers/Bobos represent a menace to society, particularly to working-class whites.

If you’re a white Philadelphia cabbie in Center City, who poses the greater danger to you: An SWPL/Bobo Passenger, or a racist, black, lynch mob?

The question was rhetorical.

Crime scene: Center City, Philadelphia, infamous for almost three years for racist black mob attacks on whites, Saturday, January 28, 2012.

White Ivy League weenie Brian Goldman rides in a cab, leaving the windows wide open, blissfully unaware of his surroundings, and gets sucker-punched at a traffic light by a member of a black lynch mob that spews racial epithets at him. Instead of closing the window, locking the doors, and telling the cabbie what happened, Goldman gets out of the cab to see what’s going on. And gets hit again. The white, working-stiff cabbie then gets out and grabs a tire iron, risking his life to save Goldman from the racist mob, while scores of people watch.

While the cabbie takes a beating on Goldman’s behalf, Goldman runs away, and cannot be bothered to call 911.

(Unbeknownst to Goldman, the cabbie did call 911, and reported everything to the police, including the racial epithets. For those suspecting me of hyperbole, due to my use of the phrase “black lynch mob,” the traditional legal meaning of “lynching” refers not to a murder, but to a mob attack. Unfortunately, the public has been unduly influenced by racist blacks such as the NAACP and professors of black studies, as well as white leftists.)

Goldman continues on to his scheduled date, where he uses the story as an “icebreaker”—“It was a good icebreaker. The date went very well.”—and then quickly types up a column about it in his school paper at the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”), being careful to misrepresent just about everything that happened. He leaves out the racial epithets, the fact that the attackers were all black and the victims both white, instead speaking abstractly of “flash mobs” and “the bystander effect,” condemning “bystanders” who failed to call 911, even though one bystander, the cabbie, risked his life to intervene and did call 911, while Goldman did not, even when he saw the cabbie who had just rescued him getting beaten up.

“There was not an officer in sight and all the traffic behind us had stopped. People got out of their cars to watch. The Wendy’s right across from us was filled with spectators eager to catch the bloody battle.”

“Flash mobs” are harmless, planned, predominantly white gatherings of people who suddenly engage in collective performance art in public places. Goldman used the MSM’s euphemism for a racist black lynch mob attack against whites and/or Asians. Speaking simultaneously out of both sides of his mouth, Goldman emphasized the attack’s character as a “flash mob,” while explicitly denying its racial character in interviews with local reporters, to whom he also denied having heard any racial epithets.

As for the “bystander effect,” he misused that, too, to the degree that it had any validity to begin with. “The bystander effect” was formulated as a credulous response by social scientists to a journalism hoax that they swallowed whole: The New York Times’ misrepresentation of the Kitty Genovese murder-rape in Kew Gardens, Queens. (By the way, Goldman is from Queens, as is this writer.)

In 1964, racist black serial killer-rapist-necrophiliac Winston Moseley stalked, stabbed, murdered and raped Kitty Genovese, but either New York Times “reporter” Martin Gansberg, or his editor, A.M. Rosenthal lied, asserting that 38 of Genovese’s neighbors had heard her screams, but did nothing. The truth is, Moseley had stabbed and punctured Genovese’s lung, making it impossible for her to scream, had initially fled when a neighbor shouted at him, and later returned to the back of the building, where he found the disabled Genovese, whom no one else could see or hear, where he finished her off and raped her.

The other reason Goldman’s invocation of “the bystander effect” is dishonest, is because the people watching the attack on him were likely black, thus that they were not apathetic “bystanders” at all, but spectators enjoying the show.

Social scientists claim that the bystander effect—of people not doing anything when they see an injustice being committed—is more likely to occur, the more witnesses there are. (I have to admit to having at least one experience that supports the theory. In 1972, a lone black woman saved my life when she called out from behind her apartment door, “What’s going on out there,” thus interrupting an older kid named Tyrone Huffman, who was busy stomping me to death.)

While the phenomenon of people witnessing evil and doing nothing certainly occurs, we’ll never get a straight answer out of antiversity researchers, who are paid to lie.

And we will never get honest, rigorous research on this topic because the majority of the time when people witness evil acts committed in public in this country, the assailants are black (in urban areas, most of the rest are committed by Hispanics). Although blacks constitute only 12.6 percent of the population of citizen and non-citizen residents in this country, they account for an absolute majority of reported violent crime, including murder. (Not to mention, millions of unreported or “disappeared” violent crimes—see also here, annually.) In every profession responsible for reporting on society—the media, academia, social work, government agencies, the schools—telling the truth about black evil is a firing offense.

When people hear or see someone being victimized and do nothing to help him, the two easiest explanations are not apathy, but that:

• They do not give a damn; or
• They enjoy the victim’s suffering.

Other explanations are that a person has previously gone to others’ aid, and suffered negative consequences, such as:

• Being condemned;
• Being ignored (e.g., calling 911 with no police car responding);
• Seeing someone else who did nothing get praised; and/or
• Being himself victimized.

Since 1988, I have observed a new wrinkle that goes beyond the so-called bystander effect: Whites who see a lone white assaulted by blacks or Hispanics, and who support the attackers, even to the point of lying to the police. (Blacks, of course, routinely lie to the police on behalf of black criminals.)

In addition to the problem of racially dishonest researchers, there are the problems of politicization (this sort of issue frequently gets raised in conjunction with loaded phenomena such as the Holocaust), and ubiquity. The problem of people committing public acts of evil and of witnesses doing nothing is pervasive, happens daily, and is getting worse.
 

A Sophist, or Worse?

I don’t mean to suggest that Brian Goldman is merely a sophist. I’m convinced, based on his denial of the racial epithets and the attack’s racist character, that he’s a flat-out liar.

Goldman also surely lied about the duration of the attack, claiming that he had to fight off a violent mob—which he suggested had 15 members—for “10 minutes.” Having been in such situations many times while younger (not to mention, having since reported on many more)—most of which I was able to bluff my way out of, after having protected myself from getting sucker-punched in the first place, and having also taken some horrific but very brief beatings, I can state with certainty that had the mob beaten Goldman for ten minutes that he would not have lived to tell the tale, let alone sloughed it off, and headed off to a fun date. The entire attack was probably over in one minute or less, thanks entirely to the heroism of the taxi driver, whom Goldman apparently never paid.

More credibly, Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Allison Steele wrote, “Goldman, who said he never heard [the racial epithets], fled the scene after a minute.”

Goldman probably got hit twice, at most. Unless he is Superman, if he had been repeatedly hit in the head by a mob, he would have gone down, in which case he would not have been able to run away. Once black racist thugs get a white victim down, they start to stomp on his head.

After Goldman’s column ran, the Philly newspapers approached him, and he lied to them about the character of the attack; and when the authorities refused to prosecute the attack as a hate crime, he inexplicably praised them.

As I see it, there are three problems with what happened in Center City that night: A spoiled, worthless, SWPL phony [hereafter: The Weenie] permitted a preventable incident to arise through his mindlessness; a righteous, white working stiff risked his life for The Weenie (who even quoted the father of SWPL, David Brooks, in his column!); and the mob didn’t hit The Weenie hard enough.

At the end of Goldman’s column, many readers ripped him a new one for his cowardice and hypocrisy. I was especially influenced by the second of the following three related comments.

Christine
February 2, 2012, 2:00 pm

[Goldman:] “The police cannot be everywhere all the time and I did not call 911 to alert them to the situation.” [N.S.: How’s that for a non sequitur?]

Brian, please write a follow-up to clarify. As a native Philadelphian, I’m ashamed that you were victimized in such a way, and hope you are recovering well. A question: did you call the police after you fled the scene of the crime? How can you, in good faith, write an opinion piece lamenting the lack of good citizenship and common decency in Philly, as it appears when given the chance to call 911 yourself (when for all you knew, the cab driver was gravely injured), you chose to run away and write a strongly worded piece for the DP? I see from Philly.com that you came forward on Monday… a full 24 hours at least, and after your words were published here. Unless you can explain otherwise, your piece smacks of hypocrisy.

Greg
February 2, 2012, 4:44 pm

I agree completely with Christine’s comment above. Brian took the initiative to write the intial article which has now become news in itself, and should write a follow-up to explain his logic. He probably won’t, so I will speculate what happened:
1. Brian ran from the scene, met his friend for dinner, used the story as an “ice-breaker” as philly.com reported, then went home.
2. Next day, Brian wrote this article perhaps without realizing that some one with a brain (i.e. the cab driver) alerted the police with as to what happened.
3. Brian paniced and called his parents
4. Media outlets began to call asking questions.
5. Brian gave what can only be described as a sad interview to the media, telling them that he “looked back to make sure the cab driver was ok” then went on his date.
6. Brian began to realize that he has to manage this thing in some way because he did something extremely stupid by not calling the police.
7. Brian’s parents advised him that it is best to talk to the police and to stop writing about this.
8. Brian is beginning to realize that he is part of the story in a way that could effect his future because google searches of his name will lead to a series of unflattering stories and articles about his inactions following the event.
9. Brian will not be writing a follow-up piece and will wait for this to die down.

You forgot to add
February 2, 2012, 6:08 pm

10. Is going out of his way to avoid acknowledging that race played a part, for fear of being accused of racism. He is happy, however to have the cab driver take that risk by saying things like “Well, gee if the cab driver said they were yelling racist things then I guess they were [so don’t call me racist – if anyone it’s that cab driver]”

By the way, although the racist black Philadelphia DA Seth Williams admitted that the mob spewed racial epithets while beating the two whites, the attack still didn’t rate for him as a hate crime.

“We have to be able to prove that race was the motivator for the crime,” said Tasha Jamerson, a spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office. “Just because epithets were said during the crime doesn't mean it was the reason for the crime.”

To return to my opening question, although the mob’s members are morally and legally responsible for their crimes, clearly Brian Goldman was the greater danger to the white cabbie than the racist black mob. Had the cabbie never picked up Goldman, he would never have been beaten up. And he still wouldn’t have gotten beaten up, had Goldman exercised some common sense, like not leaving his window wide open and sticking his head out, in the presence of a bunch of racist blacks. (In Center City, Philadelphia, with its history of racist black mob assaults, one must assume all young blacks are racist, until they prove otherwise). Goldman also cost the cabbie a few miles’ gas, the wear and tear on his vehicle and tires, and the time he spent both driving Goldman, and making a police report. And Goldman never paid his fare.

But Goldman is a danger to the general public, as well. He has a newspaper column at one of the nation’s most exclusive, overpriced, private universities (OPUs). Thus, he already has thousands of readers. He is likely headed for a career in the media or political consulting.

When a writer is a racial socialist (“liberal,” “progressive,” “multiculturalist,” etc.), everyone expects him to lie about racial attacks. The Left decided on race war as its path to power over 50 years ago. Thus, white leftists are loyal to racist blacks, and are waging war with them on the white race. As evil as such conduct is, we expect it, which is why over 100 million white Americans take everything the MSM say with a grain of salt.

But when a self-declared “conservative,” like Goldman, lies about racial attacks, both in the individual and the general case, the effects are disastrous. First, when people see “conservative,” they expect an alternative, yet Goldman offers none. That’s why some critics call people like him “Vichycons” or “Quislings.” Second, he takes a spot away from a more honest writer. Third, he discredits the very notion of telling the truth, consigning it to the cyber-netherworld. Fourth, he demoralizes many people from taking a stand against the race war, who otherwise might have. After all, they will be attacked not only by the racial socialists, but by desperately triangulating “conservatives,” like Goldman, as well. And there is nothing unique about Goldman, who is following in the footsteps of his ever-triangulating role model, David Brooks.

The late “godfather of neoconservatism,” Irving Kristol, famously said that a neoconservative was “a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” If that is so, what does one call a Brian Goldman?

Tennessee Appellate Court: Three Knoxville Horror Retrials on Temporary Hold; Vanessa Coleman Retrial May Proceed
By David in TN

The Appellate Court has issued a temporary stay of the retrials in the Knoxville Horror torture-murders. The attorneys for the defendants are being given a chance to reply to the Tennessee Attorney General’s office which has appealed the overturn of three verdicts.

The Vanessa Coleman case is still on schedule to be retried. This was not appealed, because the Knox County District Attorney General’s office acknowledged Judge Richard Baumgartner was impaired during the Coleman trial.

USCIS Admits Illegality of Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty
By Federale

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has admitted that the ongoing Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty, first first exposed by this blog, is without legal basis. In a report from the designated illegal alien representative, the CIS Ombudsman has stated categorically that there is no legal basis for the USCIS practice of granting illegal aliens “deferred action” and employment authorization, the foundation of the Regime’s current amnesty….

Case closed, cat out of bag. Impeachment is the only action for these years of lawlessness.

Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood Holds Hearing on Lemaricus Davidson, and Has Chosen Locales for New Juries, but Won’t Reveal Them (Knoxville Horror Update)
By David in TN

On Thursday, a hearing was held regarding “alleged” ringleader of the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, Lemaricus Davidson.

Special Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood revealed that he has already decided the locales from which juries will be selected to retry the defendants in what the WEJB/NSU has called the Knoxville Horror.

“It’s obvious I don’t want to disclose those locales,” Blackwood said. He did not want to stir up pretrial publicity in those locations.

Does this mean Nashville juries won’t be used this time?

Davidson is also being tried for robbing a Pizza Hut in Knoxville. This took place the day after the torture-murders. That trial is set for April 18. The retrials in the Knoxville Horror begin in June, with Davidson first up.

A jury outside Knoxville will be brought in for the Pizza Hut robbery also.

Three Race Murders in Seattle
Media pretend race was not a factor.
By Nicholas Stix

[Originally published on March 16, 2009, in American Renaissance News, and then re-published in the April, 2009 issue of American Renaissance magazine.]
 

Kristopher Kime, James Paroline, and Edward Scott McMichael had three things in common: They were white, they helped make Seattle a more civilized place, and they were murdered by blacks. Only Kime’s murder was officially recognized as racially motivated, but it is hard not to conclude that the other two men were also killed because they were white.
 

Edward Scott McMichael

Late last November 2 [2008] or early the next day, Edward Scott McMichael, 53, better known as “Tuba Man,” died of injuries he suffered several days earlier when he was stomped by five Seattle “youths” at a bus stop. Three of the five were arrested but their names were not released because they were only 15 at the time of the attack. McMichael, a lifelong Seattleite, had gained local fame as a busker, a street musician who played the contrabass tuba wherever people gathered for sports and cultural events. The gregarious eccentric could be identified by his tuba, Dr. Seuss or Uncle Sam hat, scraggly beard, horn-rimmed glasses, and by the fact that he often needed a bath. The classically trained McMichael took requests for a price, remembered old customers by name, and played rock songs, movie themes, American pop standards, and classical music.

 
“Tuba Man”
 
At about midnight on October 25, five teenagers attacked McMichael and stole his ring and wallet. After they knocked him to the ground he curled up into a ball but they continued to beat and kick him. A passing police officer arrested two attackers on the spot. Police have also caught one of the three who ran away but are still looking for the other two.

On November 12, an estimated 1,500 mourners, mostly sports fans, gathered for a hastily organized memorial service for Tuba Man at Qwest Field Event Center, where Seattle Mariners president Chuck Armstrong tearfully read a tribute written by Mr. Armstrong’s son: “It was just impossible to be sad while he was playing that tuba.” The New York Times even sent a reporter to cover the service.

At the service, someone handed out a flier, pointing out that McMichael’s death was part of “the hidden campaign of murder against white people.” An indignant Todd Dybas, editor of Seattle Sports Online, said this took “a staggering level of insensitivity.” The truth may be staggeringly insensitive, but not as insensitive as beating someone to death.

None of the many prominent news stories and columns I read about the crime gave any description of the attackers still at large or mentioned the race of the two who had been arrested. It took several days for me to find a quote from a message board, and follow it to a copy of the Seattle Police Department’s “morning press release” at a crime blog, which reported: “Unfortunately, the only description that we have is that the suspects were black males in their mid-teens.”

On November 7, an entry for McMichael appeared at Wikipedia, the Internet’s most popular reference (see “Wikipedia on Race,” AR, August 2008). The entry did not mention race, and still does not.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer published a column on the killing that attracted over 1,000 reader comments. The vast majority of responses were deleted for “insensitivity,” and a number of people whose responses remain were permanently banned after complaints by politically correct posters.

 
James Paroline

On July 9, 60-year old, Vietnam War veteran James Paroline was killed in his residential Seattle neighborhood of Rainier Beach, as he did his daily duty of watering the garden in a small traffic circle in front of his house. He always put out traffic cones to prevent cars from driving over the hose, which he ran from his house. This meant some cars had to drive the long way around the circle to avoid the cones.

That evening, three black women in their teens and early twenties in two cars refused to drive the long way around. They stopped their car, and started yelling at Paroline. A neighbor shot a video of the confrontation, in which Paroline tries to ignore the girls, while one can be heard claiming they were hosed and beaten by Paroline. One can be seen throwing a jug of water at Paroline. One girl then fetched her sister’s boyfriend, 28-year-old Keith David Brown, who walked up to the older man, spoke quietly to him, and then “sucker-punched” him in the face, according to court documents. The blow knocked Paroline to the pavement, fracturing his skull in several places. Mr. Brown got in his car and drove away. Paroline died that night in the hospital, without ever regaining consciousness.
 


 
The next day, a white Seattle television reporter at the crime scene described the killer only as “a man in his twenties.” That same day, the black women admitted to police that they had lied, when they claimed they did not know the man who killed Paroline. Police also found no evidence that Paroline had assaulted them.

Once Seattle police learned Mr. Brown’s name, they publicized his photograph but still could not find him. His mother contacted the NAACP, which arranged for Mr. Brown to give himself up at what it called a “neutral” and “safe” location, a black church known for “social activism.” One week after the killing, the police finally got their man. Mr. Brown had a previous record of nine criminal convictions, including theft, felony drug possession, criminal trespass, and two convictions for felony assault. On one occasion, he head-butted and nearly strangled a woman to death.

His mother said Mr. Brown was wracked with remorse since killing Paroline and had been “praying continuously.” She called him the “sweetest” of her three sons, and said he would have attacked Paroline only to protect the women. She also explained that he had moved in with foster parents when she had had to serve time for bank robbery. Shewanda Coleman, the mother of Mr. Brown’s seven-year-old son, reported that he was “a sweetheart,” who “tries to do everything to help everybody.” Mr. Brown has pleaded innocent.

Wikipedia has no entry for James Paroline.
 

Kristopher Kime

During Seattle’s 2001 Mardi Gras celebrations, gangs of blacks — male and female — charged into the crowd of predominantly white revelers, beating and robbing isolated whites, hitting them with brass knuckles, skateboards, rocks and bottles, and groping white women (see “Bloody Fat Tuesday,” AR, April 2001). White vandals smashed several cars, but the assaults were overwhelmingly by blacks against whites.

Kristopher Kime, a 20-year-old white man who worked in construction and attended Highline Community College, came to the aid of a lone, petite, white woman on the ground being stomped by blacks. One of them, 18-year-old Jerell Thomas, came up behind him and smashed a bottle on the back of Kime’s head. Kime went down, and the pack stomped him.

Seattle’s Finest were assembled nearby, some on the ground, and some on rooftops, and could see the savagery, but were ordered to stand down because Chief Gil Kerlikowske didn’t want to stir up the rioters. When Kime’s friends telephoned 911 for help, the dispatchers refused to send officers into the riot to rescue him. He died that night in the hospital as his grief-stricken father looked on.

After the murder, two Seattle police officers publicly condemned Chief Kerlikowske for ordering police to stay out of the fighting, and one sent the Kime family the $200 in overtime he had earned that night. He said it was to help pay for the funeral. Seattle police eventually recommended that the Kime murder and other black-on-white attacks be treated as hate crimes, but the King County prosecutor made no hate crime charges.

 
Seattle police officers publicly condemned Chief Kerlikowske for ordering police to stay out of the fighting.
 

Black Seattle preachers and community leaders were outraged — not by the racist violence — but because the media had dared to show that the perpetrators were black. Black preachers and the president of the Urban League, James Kelly, met with Mayor Paul Schell to demand that the media stop mentioning the riot’s racial character, calling complaints about black racism a “vilification of African Americans.” Chief Kerlikowske dutifully announced that race had had nothing to do with the race riot, and the media took the same line. Eventually, in a rare show of honesty, Chief Kerlikowske did admit that the attacks were racially motivated.

Jerell Thomas was convicted in 2001 of Kime’s murder and sentenced to 22 years in prison. In 2003, however, the Washington Supreme Court overturned Mr. Thomas’ conviction and those of hundreds of other killers in an arcane and controversial decision that appeared to require that murder convictions require incontrovertible evidence of an intent to kill. Mr. Thomas was then re-charged with manslaughter. In February 2006, he pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter and received a sentence of 10 years in prison.

Kris Kime’s family sued the City of Seattle for failing to protect him, and in 2002 received a settlement of $1.75 million, a small scholarship fund set up in Kime’s name, and a plaque in Pioneer Square.

At Wikipedia, the original May 10, 2005 article about the riot clearly described the racial nature of the riots, but it was quickly removed by censors and replaced with a vaguely worded, 39-word stub that mentioned nothing about race. The current version says the riot’s racial character is a matter of dispute.
 

Media Complicity

In all three of the above cases, the media were in some way complicit with the killers. During the 2001 Mardi Gras riot, the press photographed dozens of mob attackers, all of them black. After publicizing some images—the next day, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran a cover picture of a 250-pound black man wearing brass knuckles—the media remembered their duty to downplay black crime. The first images, however, were transmitted around the world via the Internet.

On the day following the murder of James Paroline at his traffic-circle garden, Karen O’Leary, a 24-year veteran of Cox Broadcasting’s KIRO Television, told viewers that “the suspect is a man in his twenties.” The police had, of course, told her the man was black, and she knew by then that she was reporting on a murder.

The black girls who claimed Paroline had attacked them followed the “don’t snitch” policy and falsely claimed to the police that they did not know who he was. The police quickly publicized his name, but the “don’t snitch” mentality ensured that Mr. Brown had a full week in which to think over whether to turn himself in.

In the case of Edward Scott McMichael, the “Tuba Man,” I looked through dozens of news articles and columns without finding a single reference to the race of the killers, even though I was able — after much digging — to find the description the Seattle police had originally given the media: “two 15-year-old black boys.”
 

Blacks attack a ponytailed white boy during the Mardi Gras rioting in which Kris Kime was killed
 

So how do you fight crime in a city in which race must not be mentioned and motives must not be examined? Seattle’s current mayor, Greg Nickels, first won office in 2001 with a promise that never again would a man be beaten to death in Seattle while police looked on. He said that if he were elected, he would hang Kristopher Kime’s death certificate on the wall of the mayor’s office. He kept that promise, but left Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske on the job despite campaign hints that he would fire him for incompetence. His latest crime-fighting proposal? Shortly after “Tuba Man” was killed, he proposed a new city regulation that would make it illegal for a private citizen to carry a gun in any city-owned building or park. This would include citizens who have the legal right to carry concealed weapons.

Most legally armed citizens are white, while a vastly disproportionate number of gun criminals are black. Law-abiding citizens would, of course, be the only ones who would obey this silly law, leaving them defenseless against robbers and murderers. If his proposal goes through, Mayor Nickels had better be prepared to hang more death certificates on the wall of his office.
 

[From WEJB/NSU’s Seattle files:

“De-Policing in America’s Cities: Erasing the ‘Thin Blue Line’” ;

“Race Hustler Alert at Wikipedia! Someone Has been Making Mischief Regarding Maurice Clemmons’ Lakewood Massacre”;

“Seattle: Diversity Trainers Wage War on Policing”;

“Ex-Cons May Gain Affirmative Action Status in Madhouse Seattle”;

“Seattle's Meanest Streets (Updated!)”;

“Seattle Cop Rails Against Affirmative Action Policing”;

“Seattle: Baby-Faced ‘Tuba Man’ Killer, Billy Chambers, Strikes Again”;

“Stone Killer Billy Chambers, Who Murdered Seattle’s Beloved ‘Tuba Man,’ Edward McMichael, is Undercharged Yet Again in His Newest Alleged Crime”;

“War on Competent, White, Male, King County, WA Prosecutor James Konat Continues Apace: NAACP Demands His Dismissal, and He is Removed from Two Murder Cases”;

“Is It Possible for Blacks to Have a Good Time Without Bloodshed? Seattle Reader Asks if ‘Bite of Seattle’ Festival Could Become Blood of Seattle”;

“A Riot in San Francisco, with More to Come! Cop Shoots Innocent Black Honor Student (from Seattle), Kenneth Wade Harding, 19, in the Back; the Brothers are (as Always) on War Footing”;

“Seattle Blacks Believe That They Can Resist Arrest, and Aid and Abet Those Resisting Arrest with Impunity Against White Policemen…”;

“Billy Chambers, Racist Killer of Seattle’s Beloved ‘Tuba Man,’ Edward McMichael, Pleads Guilty, Gets Minimal Sentence, in Attempted Murder of Witness”;

“One of Tuba Man’s Killers Goes to the Big House, but for a Mere 22 Months for Attempted Murder”;

“For Alleged Reporter Levi Pulkinnen at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, There are No Black Murderers of Whites, Only ‘Accused’ Ones”;

“AOL/Huffington Post and AP Manage the Black Air Jordan Riots Story”;

“Seattle: Since Blacks Support Black Criminals, City Needs Surveillance Cameras Everywhere”;

“Seattle: Nameless, Faceless, Raceless Suspect Arrested for Murder of Faceless, Raceless Victim in Belltown”;

“Belltown Murder: Still Raceless and Faceless in Seattle”;

“Cause and Effect? Seattle Reader Writes on Military Academy Diversity and Rape, and the Seattle Air Jordan Riots”;

“Seattle’s Good Nazis Watch Racist Black Mob Attack Couple for 4 Minutes, Without So Much as Calling 911; Racist Blacks Perform for Bus Cameras”;

“Seattle: The Raymel J. Curry Story”;

“WA Wants to Solve Crime by ‘Disappearing’ Videos; ‘Security’ Wants to Watch; Violent, Career Felon, Aiesha Stewart-Baker, 15, Wants Ghetto Lottery”;

“Seattle: Blacks Account for 7.7% of Residents, Yet They Seem to Have Taken the Entire City Prisoner”; and

“Seattle Police Have Pushed Down the Crime Rate—Through Discouraging Victims from Reporting Crimes!”]

Eric T. Burri vs. Whitney Houston: Which One was a Bona Fide American Hero? And You Will be Tested!

 

Army Specialist Eric T. Burri died June 7, 2005 while on active duty in Iraq

 

A flag at half-mast in Newark, NJ, as per the order of Republican Gov. Chris Christie, February 18, 2012

 

Did Whitney Houston die for her country?

 

Johnny Cash: That Ragged Old Flag


 

February 19, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Dad of fallen Michigan soldier burns N.J. flag to protest Houston tribute
By Steve Pardo
The Detroit News
75 Comments

Wyoming, Mich. - A Michigan man whose son was killed while on patrol in Iraq in 2005 burned the New Jersey flag on his outdoor grill in protest after learning flags in that state were ordered flown at half-staff for the death of Whitney Houston.

John Burri said lowering of flags should be for those who have given their lives for their country.

"It was a slap in the face. It cheapens the meaning of lowering that flag," said Burri, 60. "They're watering down the meaning of a hero."

Burri traveled to Flags Unlimited in nearby Grand Rapids and bought a New Jersey flag - just so he could burn it.

"It was $12.95 and it was the best money I ever spent," he said.

He purposely slammed it in his trunk and drove it home but at first passing through a veteran's memorial park in Wyoming where there's a brick with his son's name on it, in his honor.

"I didn't do this to offend the people of New Jersey," he said. "If I did and you're offended, I'm sorry. But I did this because it was wrong and it was to show the governor (of New Jersey) how wrong this was."

His son, Army Specialist Eric T. Burri, died June 7, 2005 while on active duty in Iraq. Burri, 21 of Wyoming, just south of Grand Rapids was killed when an improvised explosive device went off near his vehicle in Baghdad. Gov. Jennifer Granholm ordered flags to be lowered on June 15, 2005 for one day in honor of his service.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was criticized for his decision to order flags to be flown at half-staff. In published reports on Wednesday, he defended his decision. Christie said Houston was a "cultural icon" who was as source of pride to New Jersey residents.

Granholm absorbed criticism of her own in 2003 after she decreed that flags be lowered for every Michigan soldier killed in the line of duty. Defenders of the U.S. Flag Code said she went too far. The national flag code, adopted in 1942, says the flag shall be flown at half staff by order of the president " … upon the death of principal figures of the United States government and the governor of a state, territory or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory.

At the Michigan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs website The flag should be flown at half-staff when directed by the president or the governor.

President George W. Bush in 2007 signed into a law a bill named after a Michigan soldier killed in Iraq that requires federal facilities to observe a governor's decree for flags to be flown at half staff to honor slain soldiers.

The bill was named after Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks, a 22-year-old Rapid River man killed July 8, 2006 in Ar Ramadi after an explosive device went off near his vehicle during combat operations.

Then-U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, said he learned of "uneven respect" in areas of the state when it came to lowering flags by a governor decree. The legislation would "ensure consistency in how we honor fallen heroes," Stupak said in 2007.

spardo@detnews.com
(313) 222-2112

[Thanks to reader-researcher RC for this story.

Previously, on Whitney Houston, at WEJB/NSU:

“Whitney Houston Dead at 48: Racist Singer Found Submerged in Beverly Hills Hilton Bathtub Saturday; She Struggled for Years with Drug Addiction; Cause of Death Pending”;

“Thou Shalt Not Blaspheme the Diva: Fox Tampa Bay Facebook Censor Deletes Less than Worshipful Memory of Whitney Houston”;

“Hosts of KFI’s John & Ken Show Suspended for Telling the Truth about Whitney Houston; Reconquistas Demand Termination; Prosecution to Follow?”

“Whitney Houston Singing the Star-Spangled Banner at the Super Bowl (1991): Did She Set the Standard?”; and

“Whitney Houston’s Family Refuses to Invite Her Ex, Bobby Brown to Her Funeral Service, Then Invites Him, but (Says Brown) Harasses Him, Until He Walks Out.”]

 

A Different Johnny Cash Performance: 1990, at Star Spangled Branson



Thanks to Hippekuln!

 

Charles Murray’s The State of White America, as Reviewed by F. Roger Devlin

Charles Murray’s new work, The State of White America—not to be confused with the eponymous work of five years ago that I edited and co-authored—is to a large degree concerned with the yobbification of America, a theme he sounded, as a warning, in The Bell Curve (with the late Richard Herrnstein), 17 years ago.

Marriage and religion are both dying among the white working class. Simultaneously, both institutions are relatively robust—especially marriage—among the white upper classes. Social classes which 50 years ago dealt with each other on reasonably civilized terms, have become completely alienated from one another, and have little to do with one another. (The well-to-do whites eliminated working-class whites from their lives, and replaced them with illegal aliens, a topic that Murray apparently avoided, like the plague.)

F. Roger Devlin has written a brilliant, 7,100-word review of Murray’s book, in The Occidental Quarterly.

Roger is the most brilliant critic of the feminist project to destroy marriage, and turn sexual relations into a state of perpetual war, and not in the sense of the once-humorous phrase, “the battle of the sexes.” While he is eminently readable, he is, however, the hardest important contemporary writer I know of, to quote. He does not cooperate by providing the reader with sound-bites. He can, however be summarized, though I will do so using less elegant language than he did:

‘Charles Murray sees the decline in white, working-class marriages as being due to men being derelict in their duties. The truth, however, is that feminism robbed men of their previous status, while expecting them to fulfill their duties, while it gave women a condition of license. As a result, there was no good reason for working-class men to continue to act as their fathers had. Such behavior would merely result in their paying mercenary ex-wives who divorced them, and stole their children.

‘Working-class white men had always been expected to be selfless; feminism demanded a continuation of same, while demanding that women be granted license to be completely selfish.’

Devlin writes,

The author begins with a description of American life on the eve of the Kennedy assassination…

Only three and one-half percent of American families were headed by a divorced parent. In many neighborhoods, houses were left unlocked and children could go about unsupervised.

But American women had “much to be outraged about,” the author tells us, such as being expected to marry and have children! If Murray gets portrayed as a ‘hard-rightist,’ it is only because presenting data honestly is now all such a designation requires or implies.

College education occupies young people during their prime mate-seeking years.
Combine this fact with the cognitive sorting now performed by the college admissions process and you get intellectual homogamy: people marrying those with similar cognitive ability. This level of ability tends rather strongly to get passed on to their offspring. Most children within the cognitive elite have parents with an average IQ of 117 or more. Only about 14 percent of them are produced by parents from the bottom half of the distribution.

So while the brilliant son of a plumber from Podunk will still occasionally break into the Ivy League, there will never be enough others like him to determine the character of those schools. Most of his classmates will come from affluent families, and a disproportionate number from the new upper class itself. American meritocracy has ended up producing something like a hereditary upper class….

The number of children born to white, unwed mothers has skyrocketed from three percent in 1960 to nearly thirty percent today. For mothers without a high school diploma, the figure is now around sixty percent. Many of these mothers are teenagers, and their children often end up being raised by the grandparents. Yet among mothers with a college degree, the proportion of unmarried births has yet to rise above three percent.

So far as I know, Devlin has not written a book on American sexual relations, but I sure hope he does.

There are two main ways to approach Murray: In terms of race, and of sex. Devlin approaches him, based on the latter factor. It remains for someone to review him, based on his handling of the race question.

By Nicholas Stix