Fifty Years of Nightmarish Fraud

Many people know that Martin Luther King was not the virtuous saint the jewsmedia propaganda portrays him as. This is only the most blatant aspect of the fraud that has been perpetrated for the past fifty years. The more subtle yet far more significant apsect of this fraud has been the promotion and celebration of a short string of ambiguous words - a promise of hope and change disingenuously offered and naively accepted.

Here is just one perfectly typical example of the jewsmedia aiding and abetting the ongoing fraud, describing two starkly different perceptions of this string of words and attributing that difference to political partisanship rather than race.

King 'content of character' quote inspires debate, by Jesse Washington, AP, 20 Jan 2012:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

This sentence spoken by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. has been quoted countless times as expressing one of America's bedrock values, its language almost sounding like a constitutional amendment on equality.

Yet today, 50 years after King shared this vision during his most famous speech, there is considerable disagreement over what it means.

For at least two of King's children, the future envisioned by the father has yet to arrive.

"I don't think we can ignore race," says Martin Luther King III.

"What my father is asking is to create the climate where every American can realize his or her dreams," he says. "Now what does that mean when you have 50 million people living in poverty?"

Bernice King doubts her father would seek to ignore differences.

"When he talked about the beloved community, he talked about everyone bringing their gifts, their talents, their cultural experiences," she says. "We live in a society where we may have differences, of course, but we learn to celebrate these differences."

For many conservatives, the modern meaning of King's quote is clear: Special consideration for one racial or ethnic group is a violation of the dream.

The quote is like the Declaration of Independence, says Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank that studies race and ethnicity. In years past, he says, America may have needed to grow into the words, but today they must be obeyed to the letter.

"The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal," Clegg says. "Nobody thinks it doesn't really mean what it says because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. King gave a brilliant and moving quotation, and I think it says we should not be treating people differently on the basis of skin color."

Last week, the RightWingNews.com blog included "The idea that everyone should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin" in a list of "25 People, Places and Things Liberals Love to Hate."

"Conservatives feel they have embraced that quote completely. They are the embodiment of that quote but get no credit for doing it," says the author of the article, John Hawkins. "Liberals like the idea of the quote because it's the most famous thing Martin Luther King said, but they left the principles behind the quote behind a long time ago."

"To ignore color is to ignore reality," says Lewis Baldwin, an Alabama native who marched in the civil rights movement and now teaches courses on King at Vanderbilt University.

"Dr. King understood that we all see we are different. You accept color differences, affirm them, celebrate them, but don't allow them to become a barrier to human community," said Baldwin, author of a new King book, "In A Single Garment of Destiny: A Global Vision of Justice."

To reduce race to skin color, to the point of equating the two, is to willfully distort reality. Long before King's speech this distortion and others were promoted by Franz Boas, whose followers included it in anti-"racism" propaganda they produced in the 1940s.

Fraud works to the extent that the lie it is based on appears plausible on the surface. In this case the thinking goes like this: Race is just skin color, and color is unimportant, therefore race is unimportant. The article excerpted above depicts "liberals", i.e. blacks enabled and led by jews, as pimping this lie that they themselves don't believe. "Conservatives", i.e. Whites, are depicted as the only ones who have really taken King's demagoguery to heart, misunderstanding its true meaning and intent.

Skin color is only the most obvious racial difference. The lie is that it is the only significant difference, which disguises the fact that the content of character is too. In this light, what King actually said is revealed as tautological nonsense:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation (amongst those of common heritage, race) where they will not be judged by their race but by their race.

For fifty years "conservatives" have sought to judge people by their character and "liberals" have been telling Whites that non-Whites shouldn't be judged, period. Thus IQ statistics are "racist", violent crime statistics are "racist", stereotypes are "racist". Anything that reflects negatively on the content of non-White character is "racist". And in a sense it is.

Taking King at his word is "racist". The stark differences in understanding and reaction to what King said is itself a reflection of racial differences in character. Whites buy the lie. Non-Whites don't. Whites have deliberately shared and conceded power, setting aside their racial identity and group interests. Blacks, in contrast, have followed the lead of white-skinned jews. They shamelessly promote their own identities and group interests. The fraud comes through clearly in the rhetoric. The supposed ideal is equality, which can supposedly only be attained by celebrating differences, with the most important difference being that Whites must continue to defer to the moral authority and superiority of non-Whites.

The differences are as much in each groups' thoughts as in their genes.

It's high time for Whites to recognize the fraud, to assess the terrible cost of the false belief that race is just skin color and doesn't matter, to take heed of what non-Whites actually mean and do rather than blindly trusting what they say. Wake up. End the nightmare.

Discussing Trayvon/Zimmerman with Carolyn Yeager

Prayer, Anger and Protests Greet Verdict in Florida Case, NYTimes.com:

Lawmakers, members of the clergy and demonstrators who assembled in parks and squares on a hot July day described the verdict by the six-person jury as evidence of a persistent racism that afflicts the nation five years after it elected its first African-American president.

“Trayvon Benjamin Martin is dead because he and other black boys and men like him are seen not as a person but a problem,” the Rev. Dr. Raphael G. Warnock, the senior pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, told a congregation once led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Dr. Warnock noted that the verdict came less than a month after the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to void a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. “The last few weeks have been pivotal to the consciousness of black America,” he said in an interview after services. “Black men have been stigmatized.”

To the extent blacks have been stigmatized it is due to their own misbehavior and despite the best efforts of the jewsmedia, which has excused and even glorified them for decades.

I'll join Carolyn tonight to discuss this in the second hour of the Heretics Hour, which starts at 9PM ET at the White network.

UPDATE: Racial Politics in the Aftermath of the Zimmerman Verdict (mp3).

The Zimmerman Verdict - Rich and Famous Degenerates Moralize on Race and Justice

The pretense that blacks, as exemplified by Trayvon Martin, are the innocent victims of violent "racism" is a blatant inversion of reality. It is so blatant that some of the black and jew celebrities actually mock it.

Mandela and Friends

Government Denies Mandela Is "Vegetative", AP/ABC News:

Nelson Mandela is in critical but stable condition, the South African government said Friday, while a close friend said the anti-apartheid leader was conscious and responsive earlier this week.

BBC News was a bit more forthcoming about the "close friend", Denis Goldberg, identifying him as "a fellow anti-apartheid campaigner who was imprisoned for 22 years".

More on Goldberg from Wikipedia:

Denis Theodore Goldberg grew up in Cape Town and studied for a degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Cape Town. As member of the South African Communist Party, an organisation which was suppressed by the apartheid regime which came to power in 1948, he joined other leading white members in forming the Congress of Democrats, of which he became leader. This in turn allied itself with the African National Congress and other 'non-racial' congresses in the Congress Alliance. He was detained in 1960 and spent four months in prison without trial.

When the underground armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe was founded in 1961, Goldberg became a technical officer. In 1963 he was arrested at the Rivonia headquarters of their army. He was sentenced in 1964 at the end of the famous Rivonia Trial to four terms of life imprisonment. He was the only white member of Umkhonto we Sizwe to be arrested and sentenced in the Rivonia Trial to life imprisonment.

Goldberg described the issue of being white and involved with the armed struggle as follows: "Being black and involved (in the struggle) meant you had support of many people and it meant you got to be part of a community. Being white and involved meant being isolated."

More on Goldberg from South African History Online:

A Leading member of Congress of Democrats and political activist who was sentenced with Mandela and others to life imprisonment at the Rivonia Treason Trial. After his release he went into exile in London and returned to SA in 2002 to become a Member of Parliament, Special Adviser to Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry 2002-2006.

Denis Theodore Goldberg, an engineer by training, was born on 11 April 1933 in Cape Town, Cape Province (now Western Cape). He married Esme Bodenstein, who was born in Johannesburg, on 9 April 1954.

Bodenstein was also a political activist. She was subjected to solitary confinement under the 90 Day Detention Law in 1963 after Goldberg had been arrested and had escaped and been recaptured.

Goldberg was tried from June 1963 to October 1964 in the Pretoria Supreme Court along with Nelson Mandela, Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu and others in the Rivonia Trial. Goldberg was charged under the Sabotage and Suppression of Communism Acts for ‘campaigning to overthrow the Government by violent revolution and for assisting an armed invasion of the country by foreign troops’. The charge sheet contained 193 acts of sabotage allegedly carried out by persons recruited by the accused in their capacity as members of the High Command of uMkhonto we Sizwe.

When Mandela dies there will be more violence. As with past violence, it will be justified and excused by an extension of the jewish narrative, which paints Whites as stupid, crazy, evil oppressors, while painting non-Whites as noble victims and heroes. Guess whose side the jews are on?

Rob Eshman, writing at Jewish Journal, describes the jewish perspective in Nelson Mandela/Moses:

Mandela learned Afrikaans. The reason, he told biographer Anthony Sampson, was so he could convert his captors, his torturers, his oppressors, to his cause — the cause of freedom.

Think of Moses living among the Egyptians, eventually being able to speak to Pharaoh.

In fact, Mandela was as close to the biblical Moses as we’ll see in our lifetime.

It is a well-known and well-promoted fact that this Moses carried on his struggle side-by-side with Jews. The e-mails zinging about trumpeting Mandela’s Jewish connections are as ubiquitous and self-congratulatory as those listing Jewish Nobel Prize winners. But the facts speak for themselves. It was a liberal Jew, Lazar Sidelsky, who took an interest in a young Mandela, gave him his first job as a law clerk and, in Mandela’s words, became his “first white friend.”

Anti-apartheid activist Arthur Goldreich pretended to own the farm near Johannesburg where the fugitive Mandela hid. Nadine Gordimer helped write Mandela’s speech at his Rivonia Trial, at which Mandela’s co-defendant, Denis Goldberg, was also sentenced to life in prison. Mandela’s defense attorneys were Jewish (then again, so was the state prosecutor). The list goes on.

“I found Jews to be more broadminded than most whites on issues of race and politics,” Mandela once wrote, “perhaps because they themselves have historically been victims of prejudice.”

In other words, the Jews who supported Mandela fought out of the same sense of empathy that animated him. Because you were slaves in Egypt turns out not to be just a line we say at Passover.

Was it more impressive that Jews, who could have lives of white privilege in apartheid South Africa, aligned themselves with Mandela, or that Mandela, who suffered deeply at the hands of the Afrikaners, sought to empathize with them? Either way, the same powerful force was at work.

Mandela as Moses - the role of the jewish narrative in justifying violence against Whites couldn't be more explicit.

Note the importance of the dual nature of jewish identity, passing simultaneously as "white" and "victims". The cognitive dissonance created by such a pose serves to mask, somewhat, the reality of jews seeing themselves as having common cause with non-Whites, joining with them to do violence against Whites, and celebrating the results.

No Separation, No Peace

The whole purpose of throwing a self-righteous, self-conscious tantrum is to divert attention away from something even more disturbing than the tantrum.

In this case blacks are painfully aware they are their own worst enemy. They realize how violent and uncivilized they are. Most want to live in a nice, clean, peaceful White neighborhood. They want more welfare, not less. They want blonde, blue-eyed baby-mommas.

For this intolerable reality someone must pay, and it's not themselves.

Blacks, as a group, say: No justice, no peace. What they're implying is that if they don't get what they want they will cause trouble for the rest of us.

Our notions of justice are so different that they cannot be reconciled.

The Month Formerly Known as February

The title comes from the text of Counter-Currents Publishing's Black History Month Resources.

In the news, the first black president has announced his determination to secure the votes of the 5% of his people who didn't vote for him the last time around - Obama Announces 2012 Launch Of "African-Americans For Obama":

Today, we're announcing the 2012 launch of African Americans for Obama.

There's no better time than African American History Month to consider the tremendous progress we've made through the sacrifice of so many—or a better time to commit to meeting the very real challenges we face right now.

There's also no better time to enjoy this classic clip of Morgan Freeman explaining that he doesn't want a Black History Month, with Mike Wallace explaining that jews aren't White.

The photo captures an important moment in recent black history: Looterman's triumph over "racism" in the wake of Hurrican Katrina.

Who Writes This Crap

The Wire - The Most Dangerous Thing in America

The Heretic:

Much of [David] Simon’s work focuses on the troubles of low-income African Americans, be they heroin dealers or trombone players. It’s a preoccupation he shares with a long line of American Jewish social activists and cultural figures, from early abolitionists to the Jews who helped found the NAACP to the Jewish Freedom Riders murdered in the early 1960s. When I bring that up, though, Simon brushes aside the comparison. “The Freedom Riders and NAACP founders were doing something far more substantive, and in the case of the Freedom Riders, risking far, far more,” he says. “I wouldn’t put myself in that category under any circumstances.”

Nonetheless, he’s very conscious of that history.

The Miami Sound, Diversity Hitting the Fan

Caught On Tape: Miami Beach Shooting - Memorial Day Weekend 2011

Police, gunmen open fire on South Beach; two officers injured - MiamiHerald.com expands on what's happening in this video.

We could say that diversity, i.e. less White people, isn't "our" strength, it's their strength. But that would be "racist". When the diverse question how much diversity is good for themselves, that's another story.

Gay activist Herb Sosa: South Beach a 'war zone;' demands end to Urban Weekend:

It shows our city as nothing short of a warzone - Filthy streets, a drive by shooting, multiple cars crashed in the process, and total chaos on the streets. This is unacceptable and must be controlled before we totally lose our city, tourism & residents. It is not limited to Ocean Drive or Collins - there isn't a residential street in South Beach not affected by tons of garbage, crime to our vehicles, excessive noise 24 hours a day, and simply a lack of respect for our community, citizens & property. THIS is the image the world see of our "American Riviera".

When did perceived political or social correctness override the safety & well-being of a community? This is not a race, economic or ethnic issue, it is an issue of visitors who have a total lack of respect for our community, its property & citizens. I know hotel rooms are filled, but at what price and for how long?

If Whites were involved in violence of this sort in any significant way the media would no doubt be filled with outraged non-White voices directing fear and loathing at the ugly, stupid, greedy, lazy people involved. Heck, that's how they talk about the Tea Party, even when there is no criminality or violence they can point at.

But in this case, if you hadn't already guessed, the criminality and violence associated with Miami's Urban Weekend is ineffably black. So very circumspect odecay-eakspay is the rule.

Miami Beach Memorial Day parties still polarizing - MiamiHerald.com:

A decade after Internet buzz, radio DJs and word of mouth spawned the first Urban Beach Week — turning a typically busy but low-key holiday weekend into a hip-hop fueled street party that drew an estimated 250,000 people — the annual, unofficial bash still draws mixed reviews.

Hoteliers rejoice at booked rooms, while some restaurateurs and retailers lament that the often-rowdy crowds drive off locals.

Fans and performers say the parties have evolved, attracting older fans and even families. Yet some neighbors gripe about young people drinking and dancing in front of their homes. And then there’s the cost of policing the event, expected to reach roughly $1 million this weekend.

While the event draws a largely black crowd, David Kelsey, president of the South Beach Hotel & Restaurant Association, says friction over the holiday weekend has been less about race than the conflict between the young party crowd and the luxury tourist clientele Miami Beach actively courts.

“There’s still a gulf between the crowd we’re attracting and the crowd we really want to attract and need for future business,” Kelsey said.

Between the fact that the crowd is overwhelmingly black and its behavior is being criticized, you might think it's a slam dunk to paint "racism" as the problem.

As we've been told for decades now, "racism" is a White thing, and there just aren't many Whites involved here, except in running away. The people being imposed upon by diversity are diverse. Thus the story gets the "it's really really complicated" treatment. Like Miami's black/hispanic political squabble, this isn't about race - definitely not - it's about, well, stay tuned they're feverishly working on the narrative that ties it all to "racism".

Carlene Sawyer, former president of the Greater Miami chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she has seen more mature visitors recently.

“You hear all this rhetoric,” said Sawyer, who as in other years will be on South Beach to monitor the city’s policing of the crowds. “But the people who are coming are buying plane tickets and hotel rooms. And they’re not 18 anymore. They’re 25, 30 and 35 years old.”

Hip hop artists like Ludacris and Busta Rhymes have helped draw crowds typically estimated between 200,000 and 300,000 each year — rivaling even Super Bowl throngs.

“This is the best time of year for us,” said Monika Olimpiew, general manager of SoBe Live, a club that this weekend is featuring acts like rap group Travis Porter and R&B singer Keri Hilson.

People on scooters weave around the Lamborghinis and bass-thumping Cadillacs that crawl down Ocean Drive — which will be closed to traffic this year. The street scene has been good to Prestige Luxury Auto Rentals in Miami, which had rented out 80 percent of its stock by Tuesday, including all its $2,000-a-day Lamborghinis and even pricier Ferraris.

So much for the disingenuous suggestion in the quote above that the conflict is between "the young party crowd" and "the luxury tourist clientele". On Urban Beach Week these groups are one and the same.

Perception of crime and violence has been one of Urban Beach Week’s biggest issues.

Miami Beach Commissioner Ed Tobin said last year he rode with police to see what officers deal with, including gun confiscations — 24 last year, down from a peak of 73 in 2006.

“I would not want anyone that I know, a friend or visitor, to be outside on South Beach after 11 p.m. on this weekend because it is dangerous despite what seemed like thousands of police officers at every corner,” he said.

Perceptions are only taken seriously when they come from non-Whites. Perceptions are only taken as problematic when they reflect badly on non-Whites. In Miami we see both, and therein lies the media's conundrum in covering (literally) what's happening during Urban Beach Week.

For Police Chief Carlos Noriega, dealing with the crowds has been tricky. On one hand, his department has been criticized as being too lax. On the other, they were accused of racial profiling by the ACLU and NAACP in 2006 after arresting more than 1,000 people.

Now, police typically meet with ACLU representatives and the U.S. Department of Justice to go over enforcement plans. Noriega said police now overlook minor offenses and focus more on major crimes and crowd control.

“This is something we’ve become accustomed to,” he said.

Don't worry, the ACLU and NAACP are in control.

We long ago became accustomed to seeing violence in our cities. The same pattern of violent behavior repeats itself whenever and wherever a critical mass of non-Whites collect. Today a related pattern is associated with the critical mass of non-Whites in media and non-White activist organizations. They make excuses and redirect blame to protect the fragile egos of non-Whites. What's good for non-Whites is regarded as an important and interesting debate. The question of what's good for Whites is regarded as a sign of insane evil. In Miami, where so few Whites remain (82.4% diverse and quickly approaching perfection), the question doesn't even come up.

UPDATE 1 Jun 2011: The original video was withdrawn. Replaced it with another version.

Chris Rock Hates Whites

Chris Rock Quotes on Tea Party, Obama, Oscars Jude Law and More, interviewed by Scott Raab at Esquire, 16 Feb 2011:

SR: Like many nice Caucasians, I cried the night Barack Obama was elected. It was one of the high points in American history. And all that's happened since the election is just a shitstorm of hatred. You want to weigh in on that?

CR: I actually like it, in the sense that — you got kids? Kids always act up the most before they go to sleep. And when I see the Tea Party and all this stuff, it actually feels like racism's almost over. Because this is the last — this is the act up before the sleep. They're going crazy. They're insane. You want to get rid of them — and the next thing you know, they're fucking knocked out. And that's what's going on in the country right now.

SR: I hope so. Because it seems like a lot of people feel they just can't live with this man being president.

Rock has made a living on race-based comedy. Here's a skit that's right in line with what Rock told Raab, making it crystal clear how he and his black fans view Whites. If that wasn't clear enough, here's another.

Wikipedia says "Raab is a self-professed 'fat Jew from Cleveland'".

Joe Sobran wrote something apt that comes to mind here:

Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible.

It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself.

Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared.

The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation.

The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy.

Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.

- Sobran’s — April 1997

The Unspeakable Blackness of Section 8 and Crime

30,000 line up for housing vouchers, some get rowdy:

Thirty thousand people showed up to receive Section 8 housing applications in East Point Wednesday, suffering through hours in the hot sun, angry flare-ups in the crowd and lots of frustration and confusion for a chance to receive a government-subsidized apartment.

The Housing Choice Voucher Program, called Section 8, subsidized the rents of low-income families living in apartments and houses that are privately owned. The federal program makes up the difference in rent that the poor can afford and the fair market value for each area.

The same media pundits who pathologize the Tea Party as violent and greedy and too White won't be saying anything like that about this seething crowd of self-interested blacks, or how desperate they are to be delivered from their own kind.

Hanna Rosin's American Murder Mystery tries to bury the answer to the "mystery" of the relationship between Section 8 and crime in paragraphs of tedious, turgid obfuscation. I'll try here to cut through it.

Memphis has always been associated with some amount of violence. But why has Elvis’s hometown turned into America’s new South Bronx? [Lieutenant Doug] Barnes thinks he knows one big part of the answer, as does the city’s chief of police. A handful of local criminologists and social scientists think they can explain it, too. But it’s a dismal answer, one that city leaders have made clear they don’t want to hear. It’s an answer that offers up racial stereotypes to fearful whites in a city trying to move beyond racial tensions. Ultimately, it reaches beyond crime and implicates one of the most ambitious antipoverty programs of recent decades.

Note that neither Rosin or any of the people she quotes in this article, except perhaps the police, sympathize with the "fearful" Whites. Never once is the terrible cost to Whites mentioned. The main reason this is a "dismal" tale "they don't want to hear" is that Section 8 has not helped non-Whites as much as they would have liked.

[University of Memphis Criminologist Richard] Janikowski might not have managed to pinpoint the cause of this pattern if he hadn’t been married to Phyllis Betts, a housing expert at the University of Memphis. Betts and Janikowski have two dogs, three cats, and no kids; they both tend to bring their work home with them. Betts had been evaluating the impact of one of the city government’s most ambitious initiatives: the demolition of the city’s public-housing projects, as part of a nationwide experiment to free the poor from the destructive effects of concentrated poverty. Memphis demolished its first project in 1997. The city gave former residents federal “Section8” rent-subsidy vouchers and encouraged them to move out to new neighborhoods. Two more waves of demolition followed over the next nine years, dispersing tens of thousands of poor people into the wider metro community.

About six months ago, they decided to put a hunch to the test. Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Betts’s map of Section8 rentals. Where Janikowski saw a bunny rabbit, Betts saw a sideways horseshoe (“He has a better imagination,” she said). Otherwise, the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.

Betts remembers her discomfort as she looked at the map. The couple had been musing about the connection for months, but they were amazed—and deflated—to see how perfectly the two data sets fit together. She knew right away that this would be a “hard thing to say or write.” Nobody in the antipoverty community and nobody in city leadership was going to welcome the news that the noble experiment that they’d been engaged in for the past decade had been bringing the city down, in ways they’d never expected. But the connection was too obvious to ignore, and Betts and Janikowski figured that the same thing must be happening all around the country.

After decades of pathologizing millions of "fearful" Whites who objected to Section 8 and other government-imposed racial integration programs as morally and/or mentally defective, statistics show that our fears were justified. But that isn't what Betts is "discomforted" or "deflated" about. What's such a "hard thing to say or write" is that crime and poverty and blackness are connected.

Betts’s office is filled with books about knocking down the projects, an effort considered by fellow housing experts to be their great contribution to the civil-rights movement. The work grew out of a long history of white resistance to blacks’ moving out of what used to be called the ghetto. During much of the 20th century, white people used bombs and mobs to keep black people out of their neighborhoods. In 1949 in Chicago, a rumor that a black family was moving onto a white block prompted a riot that grew to 10,000 people in four days. “Americans had been treating blacks seeking housing outside the ghetto not much better than … [the] cook treated the dog who sought a crust of bread,” wrote the ACLU lawyer and fair-housing advocate Alexander Polikoff in his book Waiting for Gautreaux.

Polikoff is a hero to Betts and many of her colleagues. In August 1966, he filed two related class-action suits against the Chicago Housing Authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, on behalf of a woman named Dorothy Gautreaux and other tenants. Gautreaux wanted to leave the ghetto, but the CHA offered housing only in neighborhoods just like hers. Polikoff became notorious in the Chicago suburbs; one community group, he wrote, awarded him a gold-plated pooper-scooper “to clean up all the shit” he wanted to bring into the neighborhood. A decade later, he argued the case before the Supreme Court and won. Legal scholars today often compare the case’s significance to that of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

It could be argued that the genocidal monsters who imposed this nightmare might have done so out of ignorance. At least as first. For those who continue to support it now there is no explanation but anti-White animus. Here we can see that animus in the depiction of White violence, decades past, in the same tired pathologizing terms. Why else ignore the self-defensive motivations of Whites long since proven justified, and why present White violence as worse than the more brutal, more enduring, and more widespread black violence perpetrated since?

A well-known Gautreaux study, released in 1991, showed spectacular results. The sociologist James Rosenbaum at Northwestern University had followed 114 families who had moved to the suburbs, although only 68 were still cooperating by the time he released the study. Compared to former public-housing residents who’d stayed within the city, the suburban dwellers were four times as likely to finish high school, twice as likely to attend college, and more likely to be employed. Newsweek called the program “stunning” and said the project renewed “one’s faith in the struggle.” In a glowing segment, a 60 Minutes reporter asked one Gautreaux boy what he wanted to be when he grew up. “I haven’t really made up my mind,” the boy said. “Construction worker, architect, anesthesiologist.” Another child’s mother declared it “the end of poverty” for her family.

In 1992, 7-year-old Dantrell Davis from the Cabrini-Green project was walking to school, holding his mother’s hand, when a stray bullet killed him. The hand-holding detail seemed to stir the city in a way that none of the other murder stories coming out of the high-rises ever had. “Tear down the high rises,” demanded an editorial in the Chicago Tribune, while that boy’s image “burns in our civic memory.”

If replacing housing projects with vouchers had achieved its main goal—infusing the poor with middle-class habits—then higher crime rates might be a price worth paying. But today, social scientists looking back on the whole grand experiment are apt to use words like baffling and disappointing. A large federal-government study conducted over the past decade—a follow-up to the highly positive, highly publicized Gautreaux study of 1991—produced results that were “puzzling,” said Susan Popkin of the Urban Institute.

More fitting words for "the whole grand experiment", as well as those who aid and abet it: mendacious, fraudulent, genocidal. Criminal.

The best Popkin can say is: “It has not lived up to its promise. It has not lifted people out of poverty, it has not made them self-sufficient, and it has left a lot of people behind.”

For Popkin, Rosin, Janikowski, Betts, Polikoff, Rosenbaum, The Atlantic, Newsweek, 60 Minutes, and their fellow travellers, what's really important is that non-Whites haven't benefitted enough. No apologies to the victims of their violence. No refunds for those who have been forced to fund their own genocide.

The article concludes with a talmudic shrug, magically transferring the blame to Whites:

It’s difficult to contemplate solutions to this problem when so few politicians, civil servants, and academics seem willing to talk about it—or even to admit that it exists. Janikowski and Betts are in an awkward position. They are both white academics in a city with many African American political leaders. Neither of them is a Memphis native. And they know that their research will fuel the usual NIMBY paranoia about poor people destroying the suburbs. “We don’t want Memphis to be seen as the armpit of the nation,” Betts said. “And we don’t want to be the ones responsible for framing these issues in the wrong way.”

Pathologizing Whites as "paranoid" is how these issues have long been framed.

Alexander Polikoff's Gautreaux Proposal, written in Nov/Dec 2004, puts it this way:

Ending black ghettos wouldn’t end anti-black attitudes any more than ending Jewish ghettos ended anti-semitism. But it is not easy to find anything in American society that matches the black ghetto for its poisoning effect on attitudes, values and conduct.

Sixty years ago, Gunnar Myrdal wrote: “White prejudice and discrimination keep the Negro low in standards of living, health, education, manners and morals. This, in its turn, gives support to white prejudice.” Decades later, sociologist Elijah Anderson’s studies of a ghetto and an adjacent non-ghetto neighborhood led him to conclude: “The public awareness is color-coded. White skin denotes civility, law-abidingness, and trustworthiness, while black skin is strongly associated with poverty, crime, incivility, and distrust.” In American society at large, most whites act like the ones Anderson studied — their public awareness is also color-coded, and they steer clear of poor blacks and keep them in their ghettos. Predictable ghetto behavior then intensifies whites’ sense of danger, validates their color-coding and drives their conduct.

Sixty years ago this kind of anti-White guilt-tripping might have seemed brave or iconoclastic. Today the government and blacks are the ones inflicting violence on Whites. We can see that "prejudice and discrimination" don't cause black poverty, crime, and incivility. Blacks know it. They prove it by suffering through hours in the hot sun to get an application to be put on a waiting list so they can escape and live amongst Whites. We know that they bring their poverty, crime, and incivility with them.

Knowing all this, we are justified in distrusting, opposing, and even despising the professional grievance mongers who are complicit in it. Their sympathies for blacks, even if sincere, don't excuse the harm their twisted thinking has caused Whites.

UPDATE 12 Aug 2010: More on Janikowski and Betts via James Edwards.

Couple's findings link crime in Memphis to Section 8 voucher renters » The Commercial Appeal, by Fredric Koeppel, 11 Sept 2008:

In other words, crime follows poverty wherever it goes.

"Well, that's a bit of a simplification," said Janikowski, associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis and director of the Center for Community Criminology and Research, "though that's the way our studies have been interpreted. Crime and poverty are inextricably linked, there's no question, but it's not that poverty causes crime. Poverty creates a contact point that exacerbates all sorts of stresses on people. It's not that there's any one cause. It's a confluence of stresses."

In other words, crime and poverty and other stresses follow blacks wherever they go. There is no question that Section 8 has shifted crime and poverty to neighborhoods previously unafflicted by such problems. There is no question this has exacerbated all sorts of stresses on the people in these predominantly White neighborhoods, impoverishing them and making them miserable enough to leave, if they can. Clearly Janikowski isn't talking about these stresses. The attempt here is to obfuscate the link between blackness and crime and poverty. And it is done even while the problems are deliberately simplified and explicitly linked to Whiteness, which is consistently offered both as the only cause for the problems and as the only obstacle to ending them.

As outsiders to Memphis and as a couple committed to public service, Betts and Janikowski feel keenly the ambivalence of their position. They have, after all, and almost inadvertently, delivered the bad news that the Section 8 housing program in Memphis is not working. They are white college professors, trained in academic research; most residents of public housing are poor and black and uneducated.

The "bad news" here is not that Section 8 has been foisted on Whites who don't want it, justified by historic anti-White stereotypes and libels, and when it is empirically demonstrated not to lift blacks out of poverty and crime, that this too is blamed on Whites. That's just how the "bad news" (i.e. blackness is linked to crime and poverty) has been framed. It is classic blame-the-victim apologia from fulminating hypocrites who make their living sniffing out and pathologizing stereotypes, libels, and blaming-the-victim. The bad news for Whites is that Section 8 exists - that there's no question we, as a group, pay for it and are harmed by it.

At that meeting [where Betts and Janikowski presented their findings to the Memphis City Council] was Robert Lipscomb, director of the city's Housing and Community Development division. He remains among their most vocal detractors.

Lipscomb is black. He unequivocally describes Section 8 participants as "the victims of crime, not the cause".

"Well, Robert has his viewpoint," said Janikowski. "Maybe we should have put it differently, not emphasized vouchers so much. We have gotten local feedback that has been much more positive, but people have been saying racist things."

"There's been so much follow-up at the national level from people who have no background at the local level," said Betts. "The feeling that we share ideas with right-wing bloggers is devastating."

Janikowski regrets that he didn't try sooner and harder to frame the problems even more simply and explicitly as being caused by "racists" and "right-wing bloggers". The fact is that Whites at the local level have been deliberately harmed by the anti-White/pro-black policies. These policies are advocated by dishonest snake-oil salesmen operating at the national level, who are provided megaphones by media and academia and courts to broadcast their poisonous ideas.

Omar Thornton's "Anti-Racist" Killing Spree

Oddly, last night Manchester, Connecticut Shooting.: Several Dead; Omar Thornton Identified As Shooter, at the LA Times, was at the top of a Google news search for Thornton. The fact that Thornton was black was mentioned three or four paragraphs in. On page 4 the significance of the Hollander family was mentioned. Unfortunately I did not excerpt the story, and cannot find any archive of it.

Today that LAT link redirects to a two page report, Manchester Shooting: 9 Dead; Omar Thornton Identified As Shooter at Courant.com, which omits both facts.

Searching again today it is possible to find other stories that make Thornton's race and race-based motivation clear, eg. Omar Thornton: "I Killed the Five Racists" - Crimesider - CBS News.

However, most mainstream stories have, as of now, reduced the jewish angle to orthodox jew Louis Felder being amongst those killed.

The Hollander reference remains at Jewish father of 3 killed in Conn. rampage | JTA - Jewish & Israel News:

Steve Hollander, the company's head of marketing, and a member of the Hollander family that founded and owns the company, was reported to have been shot, according to the Hartford Courant.

“The Hollander family is probably one of the most venerated families in the Hartford area in the Jewish community," U.S. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) told the Courant. "There isn’t a charity that they haven’t contributed to.”

The LAT and Courant may have memory-holed this aspect of the story, but the New York Times hasn't: Behind Hartford Distributors, a Charitable Family.

When Whites commit crimes, nobody in the media makes excuses. If there's a racial angle it is magnified, not suppressed. Such incidents produce immediate calls to pathologize and silence "conservatives"/"teabaggers"/"haters", however tenuously linked to the incident. The insinuation, if not outright accusation, is that any expression of collective interests by Whites is immoral, unethical, and evil. Even when Whites don't explicitly identify or organize by race we are cynically accused of deviously hiding our true motives.

Of course the broad-based anti-White "anti-racism" pumped out by the media 24/7 can be measured by the same yardstick. The media uniformly treats "people of color" as having legitimate grievances both as a whole as as various independent non-White "communities". They serve up numerous narratives concerning suffering and perennial victimhood at the hands of Whites, encourage activism on this basis, and generally defend those who do act. Taken as a whole it constitutes a deliberate incitement to violence against Whites. And that's exactly what it produces.

Sometimes this impacts jews. To the extent Thornton was acting on a hatred of Whites he'll be painted by the media as a victim and "racism" will be blamed. On the other hand, if it is determined that Thornton was acting against jews he'll be demonized and the most politically incorrect form of "racism", "anti-semitism", will be blamed. Either way, "anti-racism" is both excused and validated at the same time.

See also Christoper Donovan: Hate-Fueled Black Mass Murderer in Connecticut Spun as ‘Disgruntled Man’ by Media at The Occidental Observer Blog, and Racism Charges Not Without Consequences at Mangan's.

Sport and Race - Toby Gerhart

Race factors into evaluation of Gerhart - NFL - Yahoo! Sports:

If you’ve seen Toby Gerhart carry the football, you’re well aware that the former Stanford halfback and Heisman Trophy runner-up is about as subtle as Iron Man. It’s no surprise, then, that as the NFL draft approaches, the player one AFC front-office executive described as “a bowling ball with butter knives” is hell-bent on obliterating the perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed in the pros.

I’ve spoken with numerous NFL talent evaluators about Gerhart over the past few months, and there are plenty of skeptics who don’t seem to be locked into mindless stereotypes.

Did skin color keep Stanford RB Toby Gerhart from being a first-round pick? - The Huddle: Football News from the NFL - USATODAY.com:

"One team I interviewed with asked me about being a white running back," Gerhart said. "They asked if it made me feel entitled, or like I felt I was a poster child for white running backs. I said, 'No, I'm just out there playing ball. I don't think about that.' I didn't really know what to say."

Opinions seem mixed on Gerhart, who was obviously productive but also absorbs a lot of punishment and isn't especially shifty. One scout told Silver that Gerhart's pigmentation was definitely working against him.

Nothing to see here, move along folks. When a White guy faces race-based bias it's a "perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed" and his "pigmentation" is "working against him".

Just last year Michael Silver, the jewish author of the first article linked above, was offended and outraged over race-based perceptions. In No excuses: Redskins need a new nickname - NFL - Yahoo! Sports, Silver wrote:

Last Friday, in a judicial decision that hinged on a legal technicality, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., upheld the right of the local pro football team to keep its unconscionable nickname.

Gloated team attorney Bob Raskopf, “It’s a great day for the Redskins and their fans and their owner, Dan Snyder.”

Alas, it was another shameful day for America.

In clinging to the most racially offensive moniker held by a major U.S. professional sports team since the Emancipation Proclamation – yes, I know, since forever – the franchise continues to offend some Native Americans and assault the sensibilities of a citizenry that should be long past such insensitive and shallow depictions.

How can a large majority of us not be offended? Imagine trying to explain “Redskins” to a foreign visitor or a time-traveler from the future? Every time I say the word, I throw up in my mouth a little and wonder why there is no widespread outrage.

Would we “honor,” say, Chicago’s African-American population by calling its NFL team the Brownskins?

If the NBA placed a franchise in Hawaii, would it consider paying homage to the islands’ Asian influences by competing as the Yellowskins?

And while I’m sure we could all come up with some Jewish slurs to continue the analogy, I submit that an anti-Semitic major league owner like Marge Schott might’ve been quite comfortable fielding a team known as the Foreskins.

Ridiculous? Absolutely. And Redskin is just as absurd, whether you’ve been conditioned to regard it as normal or not.

If Toby Gerhart were a jew Silver wouldn't describe the problem as "the perception that he lacks the foreskin to succeed in the pros". He'd describe it as "anti-semitism". He'd be throwing up in his mouth and wondering why there is no widespread outrage.

Gerhart isn't a victim of his skin color. He and other White players are subjected to a different race-based standard by sports and media machers who favor "African-Americans" over "whites". We are conditioned to regard this as normal. It's not.

Steve Sailer wrote an article about Gerhart last October titled Blackballed? Sailer wonders:

So, why are there a lot of white starting tailbacks in high school, very few in big time college football, and none in the NFL?

There are three general explanations:

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Blacks (A.K.A., Did You Know that Jewish Players Used to Dominate Basketball?) This is the dominant public explanation put forward by the sporting press. The party line is that blacks are forced by poverty to become multimillionaire stars, while wealthy whites relax in the lap of luxury by, uh, playing center or breaking up the wedge on kickoffs or … well, never mind. The facts aren’t important.

As Tom Wolfe implied in I Am Charlotte Simmons, this theory is motivated less by any serious urge to explain reality and more by Jewish pundits’ concerns over whether honest analysis of racial differences is good for the Jews.

In Wolfe’s 2004 novel, the frat boys watch a talk show on ESPN:

… four poorly postured middle-aged white sportswriters sat slouched in little, low-backed, smack-red fiberglass swivel chairs panel-discussing the ‘sensitive’ matter of the way black players dominated basketball. “Look,” the well-known columnist Maury Fieldtree was saying, his chin resting on a pasha’s cushion of jowls, “just think about it for a second. Race, ethnicity, all that—that’s just a symptom of something else. There’s been whole cycles of different minorities using sports as a way out of the ghetto. …

Maury Fieldtree goes on to talk about the Irish and boxing, Italians and boxing, Germans and football, and then, inevitably:

In the 1930s and 1940s, you know who dominated professional basketball long before the African Americans? Jewish players. Yeah! Jewish players from the Jewish ghettos of New York!”

The Rube Goldberg ish logic underlying the conventional wisdom is, roughly, that

A) If it became socially acceptable to admit in public that blacks might have on average genetic advantages in jumping and sprinting; then

B) It might become acceptable to admit that maybe blacks have lower average IQs for genetic reasons; which would then

C) Let the gentiles find out that Jews might higher average IQs for genetic reasons; thus,

D) The goyim will come for us with their torches and pitchforks; and therefore,

E) We must just bury the whole topic in mindless kitsch to prevent A from ever happening.

In contrast, the two serious theories are:

Genetics: As O.J. Simpson explained to Time in 1977: “We are built a little differently, built for speed—skinny calves, long legs, high asses are all characteristics of blacks.”

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Whites: The website CasteFootball.us has long been single-mindedly documenting outstanding young white athletes who have been channeled by coaches from traditionally black positions such as tailback, cornerback or wide receiver to whiter, less glamorous positions such as linebacker, strong safety, or tight end.

The conventional wisdom is actually a combination of all three theories. "People of color" are discriminated against and biologically superior and it's right and good to discriminate against Whites because of the stereotype that they've been discriminating against superior "people of color" for ages.

Nothing to do with Race, Nope, No Way

A black and white version of this photo was on DrudgeReport Wednesday morning with the caption "LANDSLIDE" just below. I didn't have time to save Drudge's image or read the story he linked, but it did occur to me how manipulative it was to make the image black and white, deliberately modifying it in a way that left the messianic dimension intact while obscuring the racial dimension.

Later I was able to find the original full-color version. According to the source the photo was taken on 6 July 2008. Since then it has apparently bounced around the internets via secret brotha chain email. Sorta like the Obama-is-a-muslim meme and worse have been bouncing around the jewish internets.

Oddly enough I'm not in either social circle, so I didn't see this picture until just now. After searching for it. Doesn't the media usually monitor and report on popular phenomena like this? The full-color image sure does make a dramatic impression. It's Pulitzer material. Why should Whites be shielded from the graphic reality this race is revealing about race? Oh, that's right. We're not supposed to think about race.

Until you read the next headline. And the next. And the next...

- - -

Also from Drudge Wednesday: Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black:

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

. . .

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Drudge's headline, "PAPER: 'Socialist' label called 'old code word for black'...", made the any-criticism-of-Obama-is-racism meme transparent enough. The hilarious thing about the article's actual argument is that in the "old days", before reality-twisting honesty-smothering political correctness came to power, nobody used code words for blacks. People spoke plainly and simply said "negro" or "colored" when they meant negro or colored. "Socialist" might be a new code word for blacks, but it isn't an old one.

On the other hand "socialist", or more precisely "communist", was indeed an old code word for jews. Even as early as 1917 many Whites were afraid of the stigma attached to being called "anti-semite". Many of these Whites, even the ones in government whose job it was to defend us from enemies foreign and domestic, couldn't bring themselves to actually say out loud what they could plainly see with their eyes. That's because their brains knew what would happen to their wallets if they didn't bite their tongues. Just as it works today, only the "social pricing" was not as expensive.

There were men who spoke out anyway. Henry Ford. William Dudley Pelley. Charles Lindbergh. They all paid a price.

By 1972 even presidents dared to express anti-jewish thoughts only in private. Today we're told by our enlightened elite that Nixon was an anti-semite, because he must have been imagining the jewish influence that only an anti-semite can imagine has since become ever more pervasive and obvious. And it's just in our wild imaginations that the country seems to be going down the drain, just as Billy Graham and Nixon feared. But that's just more raving. Here's what's really important:

There's no way to settle whether Nixon was an anti-Semite—not just because you can't peer into someone's soul, but also because there's no litmus test for anti-Semitism. No, Nixon didn't hate all Jews personally, nor did he use unreconstructed Henry Ford-style anti-Jewish appeals—though, of course, virtually no major public figure in the last 50 years has. Yet clearly he thought and spoke of Jews as a group, more or less united in their opposition to him, possessing certain base and malign characteristics, and worthy of his scorn and hatred. You don't have to call that anti-Semitism if you don't want to. But there's no denying it represents a worldview deserving of the strongest reproach.

Never mind that you can find in the media virtually every day - without looking hard - opinions expressed about Whites as a group (sometimes coded), as more or less racist and possessing certain other base and malign characteristics, and worthy of scorn and hatred. Never mind that Ford's warning is almost 90 years past, not 50. In jewish minds Ford inspired Hitler to almost exterminate their race just yesterday, and today's rising crescendo of White-bashing from on high isn't a crime at all. It's not even happening. La la la la la. And if it is happening, so what? It's justice. And if you notice any jews bashing away it isn't because they're "deserving of the strongest reproach". No. It's because you're an anti-semite throwback - like Ford, Nixon, Graham, Pelley, Lindbergh, ... Knuckledragging jackbooted ignoramuses one and all.

- - -

Among the things Lindbergh mentioned in Des Moines was how smears and slurs are used to manipulate us. Here's a contemporary example. It concerns Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota who "appeared on Hardball and pounded away at Barack Obama’s associations with his long-time minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and bomber Bill Ayers, suggesting that the media should be investigating these associations with very anti-American voices". This prompted Mike Malloy, the former CNN news writer, to say:

She represents a district in Minnesota, she's a Republican of course, and she’s a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She’s the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations. She’s the type of person that I’m sure believes that the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was good and the use of depleted uranium in Iraq served a purpose. This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman.

Note that Malloy implies that Whites who oppose Obama are not just guilty of being "racist", and we're not just guilty of genociding jews and indians. No. Now we're also guilty of genociding the poor vietnamese and iraqis.

Imagine what Whites will be accused of after four years of Change. I bet genociding somalis and latinos will be on the list. Read that link and see how those jews and socialists "fighting for equality" really get around. Somehow racist Whites will get the blame. You can bank on it. In fact you can build a Rube Goldberg-style business based on loaning somebody else's money to other somebodies you know will never repay while collecting a fat fee and selling the loans to other somebodies who will get screwed later. When that plays out you can get your distant relative in the government to "rescue" you with more money from some other people, so you can get out of that old used-up business and into another. Cha-ching.

If that "getting" and "making" stuff of Ford's is starting to make sense it's either because you're a loser who needs a non-White scapegoat to blame, or because it makes sense.

- - -

Such is the fruit of 60+ years of pretending race doesn't matter. Tastes a bit fecal, doesn't it?

Not the Last Brainwashing

Letter to the White Race, ostensibly written from the point of view of a non-white, provides a fair summary of how impotent and defeated Whites have been made to appear.

This is facilitated by decades of brainwashing, beginning in early school years, portraying Whites not as the builders of a great civilization, or the admirable leaders of the Free World, but in a lopsided, entirely slanted way as oppressors, enslavers, genocidal “Nazis”, southern Klansmen, imperialistic Colonials, and toothless hillbillies just itching for a chance to lynch the first colored individual that comes along. This brainwashing not only inflames the minorities in these now racially-mixed “schools”, but also inculcates a sense of “White guilt” that the Out Group finds particularly useful in maintaining control.

Tonight I watched a prime-time television documentary called The Last Lynching:

Just weeks before the history-making 2008 presidential election, the first in which any political party has nominated an African American as its candidate, Discovery Channel presents a one-hour special on race in America. Some commentators are now speaking of a “post-racial” period in American history. While the nation has come a long way on the road toward racial equality, there is still much left to accomplish.

It is a prime example of Out Group brainwashing.

The documentary focuses on a Ku Klux Klan-related murder that took place in Mobile AL in 1981. Ted Koppel, who is jewish, interviews 1960s "freedom rider" and current congressional representative from San Diego, Bob Filner, who is jewish, and the SPLC's founding hate-crusader Morris Dees, who is jewish. The moral of the story: Whites are lynch-happy racists - but we can redeem ourselves by voting for Barack Obama.

Daniel M. Gold writes in his New York Times review: "The past is never dead. It’s not even past." And concludes his critique-free review with this:

In these accounts Mr. Koppel offers inspiration and a tribute to an event — the nomination of a black presidential candidate by a major party — that many had not expected in their lifetime. Yet “The Last Lynching” also conveys how close to the surface racial resentments can lie, and how easily they can be channeled into blind rage. In the end the program is as much cautionary tale as celebration.

Racial resentments indeed. This documentary is an excellent example of anti-White resentments motivating jews to not-so-subtly nurse black victimology and channel black resentments against Whites. When their man doesn't win in November, whose "blind rage" is more likely to spill over? The blacks polling 95-1 for Obama and threatening race riots, or the Whites polling 55-40 for McCain who dare not make a peep about jews like Harold Meyerson who openly say "whiteness is a huge problem".

In The Last Lynching the mendacity begins at the beginning with a cliched glossing over of the history of lynching in America. Quickly flashing images and carefully selected words convey the impression that only blacks were hung, and that none of it was just or warranted. Some 5000 who were lynched between the civil war and the 1930s are described only as "victims" - as if they were all selected at random, or simply because they were black. There is scant mention of the victims whose rape or murder instigated more than a few of the lynchings.

In glossing over this past Koppel even brazenly refers to The Birth of a Nation, a 1915 film that tells a quite different story from his own. Koppel and friends used snippets of the film to flesh out their characterization of hooded Klansmen mindlessly murdering random negroes. They're counting on modern day viewers not to know the film's story and not to know that the Klan rose from the post-war chaos in reaction to the depravities and injustices visited upon southern Whites. As late as 1915 most Whites still knew this history and celebrated the KKK, but even by then racial resentments were brewing:

When Griffith released the film in 1915, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (or NAACP) and other groups protested; the NAACP published a 47-page pamphlet titled "Fighting a Vicious Film: Protest Against The Birth of a Nation," in which they referred to the film as "three miles of filth." W. E. B. Du Bois published scathing reviews in The Crisis, spurring a heated debate among the National Board of Censorship of Motion Pictures as to whether the film should be shown in New York. However, President and former history professor Woodrow Wilson viewed the film at the White House and proclaimed it not only historically accurate, but like "history writ with lightning." Like Woodrow Wilson, many whites felt it a truthful and accurate portrayal of racial politics, so much so that they flocked to join the rejuvenated Ku Klux Klan. The years after Griffith released The Birth of a Nation saw massive race riots throughout the country, peaking especially in the North in 1919; many historians lay the blame for this racial conflict on Griffith's The Birth of a Nation.

What happened between then and now? Well understanding that the early NAACP was organized, funded, and led by jews helps explain. It seems WEEJs (white eastern European jews) had an axe to grind with the WASP elite. It seems these WASPs were a wee slow in handing over control of the nation their forefathers gave birth to. After almost a century of "culture war" those busy little WEEJs are still grinding away. Today "KKK" is an epithet, and jews are making documentaries to explain how the ever expanding racial conflict they've poured gasoline on is all for the better. The only threat to their utopia are racist Whites itching to once again start lynching at random.

If jewish influence in the media were not so strong, or if jews did not so uniformly resent Whites, then perhaps today's mainstream journalists and pundits would not so strongly and uniformly insist on inverting reality. The reality of post-KKK, post-Jim Crow, post-White, jewish-dominated America is black on White violence:

The Color of Crime
New Century Foundation, 2005

Mapping The Unmentionable: Race And Crime
February 13, 2005
By Steve Sailer

CRIME IN THE HOOD
La Griffe du Lion
November 1999

THE RACE WAR OF BLACK AGAINST WHITE
Paul Sheehan
From the Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 1995

Guy White calls out "liberal" Tim Wise on his "lying" and "false logic" about this reality. Guy makes sense, except in failing to note that Tim Wise is a jew who makes a living channeling racial resentment towards Whites. Jewish race-based indifference, hostility, and even genocidal feelings toward Whites, no matter how hard we might wish to avert our eyes and pretend jews are "White Like Me", is another harsh reality the media won't discuss.

One final thought.

If an atypical murder from 1981 rates a prime-time documentary, then when might Ted Koppel make a documentary exploring the racial resentments behind the quadruple murder in Wichita, the rape/torture/murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, or the sickeningly common racial murder and rape of White women in America? When might Bob Filner spend time on a bus or in a jail cell for the benefit of White victims of racial violence? When might Morris Dees hound black rapists and murders in court?

I think they'll get around to these things right after making a documentary guilt-tripping jews for their involvement in the biggest fraud in history.

In other words: never.

UPDATE 15 Oct 2008: The image at the top of this post is a corrected version of the reality-inverting original that was attached to a Slate essay from May titled In Praise of Liberal Guilt - It's not wrong to favor Obama because of race. In that essay Ron Rosenbaum, who is jewish, delivers virtually the same message as Koppel/Filner/Dees: Whites should feel guilty because of slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow. We should feel guilty about it forever. And because of it we should vote for Obama.

He also neglects to address the black on White violence occurring today.

What a coincidence.

We must recognize these attempts to guilt-trip us for events that occurred generations ago, to libel and damn us forever because of the race we are born into. We must recognize that these smears are not only false, they represent attacks made by people who wish us ill.