The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersSam Francis Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

Like the fog in Carl Sandburg’s insipid poem, Martin Luther King Day this year seems to have crept up on the nation on little cat feet. We have heard few of the usual neo-conservative slobberings over how they wish they could have marched with King in Selma, nor even many of the usual lamentations of King’s now-decrepit comrades that nobody sufficiently appreciates their accomplishments.

Those noises may yet come, but the real reason we have not heard them so far may be that the festivities arrived a bit early this year, in the arrest of 79-year-old former Klansman Edgar Ray Killen for the 1964 murders of three civil rights workers in Mississippi.

The murders of course were notorious at the time and are immortalized by Hollywood in the 1988 anti-white film “Mississippi Burning,” which manages to smear every white man and woman in the state (and by implication everywhere else) by virtually stating that whites are by nature genocidal.

It’s therefore not too surprising that the media reaction to Mr. Killen’s arrest has been one of almost universal gloating. To bust a 79-year-old white Southerner for racial murders is almost as much fun as deporting 80-year-old concentration camp guards to communist countries to stand trial for war crimes, and that amusement has worn thin in recent years. Concentration camp guards have the habit of dying natural deaths eventually, but there’s an endless supply of white Southerners to put on trial closer to home.

But Mr. Killen wasn’t the only unusual suspect to win the interest of the national press last week. The New York Times, after a large story about his arrest and the murders and a long interview with the surviving relatives of the victims, also found space to tell us all about another killer of the same era—one who long ago was tried and convicted and today even acknowledges his guilt. For some reason, he doesn’t elicit quite the same reaction from the Times as Mr. Killen.

The case is that of Wilbert Rideau, who as a 19-year-old black man in 1961 robbed a bank in Lake Charles, Louisiana, kidnapped three white bank employees, and shot all of them near a bayou at the edge of town.

Two survived to tell the tale; the third, a woman, survived only briefly. Rideau polished her off by stabbing her in the heart and slitting her throat.

Like its report about Mr. Killen, the Times story about the Rideau case is full of woe—but not that of Rideau’s white victims. Its sympathies are all for the killer himself.

“All-white, all-male juries” convicted Rideau of murder and sentenced him to death, and they did so three times. Appeals courts threw out the verdicts on the grounds of “misconduct by the government.” We never hear too much about what that means, because the Times reporter, Adam Liptak, is too busy singing about Rideau’s achievements ever since. [With Little Evidence, 4th Trial Opens in '61 Killing, By Adam Liptak, January 11, 2005]

Prosecutors in Louisiana “are trying once again to obtain a conviction that will stick,” he writes, and that may be hard, in part because Rideau has been so “transformed.” (As it turned out it was too hard. A mixed race jury this week found him guilty of mere manslaughter, allowing him to go free after serving more than the maximum sentence for that crime.) “He has, from prison, become an acclaimed journalist and documentary filmmaker,” but, well, it’s Louisiana, you see, and we know what that means.

“The community’s rage lives on in this racially divided oil and gambling town near the Texas border,” and no doubt it’s all those white people, the kind Mississippi Burning warned us about, who keep nice fellows like Rideau in prison. “It’s ferocious, the way we hold on to this episode,” grumbled the Rev. J. L. Franklin, a black pastor who is monitoring the case.

Right, you’d think after 43 years, people would forget a white person being kidnapped, driven to the edge of town, shot and having her throat cut. But it’s those white folks, so full of hate and ignorance, just like over in Mississippi, where they’re probably mad about the prosecution of Mr. Killen after only 41 years.

“Little evidence endures” in the Rideau case, Mr. Liptak informs us, which only adds to the problems of yet another trial. It’s not very clear how much evidence endures in the Killen case either, but that wasn’t quite the point the Times wanted to make, was it?

The Times’ transparent double standard, its lip-smacking glee over the arrest of the white man in Mississippi and its weepy apologies for the black killer in Louisiana, tell us what the real point is.

What Mr. Killen is supposed to have done was not only murder but also an act of political and racial resistance, and that sort of thing has to be stomped on, regardless of how little evidence remains after 41 years.

As for a forgotten white woman in Louisiana who had her throat cut—who cares?

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

If there was any flash of humor to relieve the excruciating tedium of the Democratic National Convention last week, it probably came from the lips of the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was allowed his several minutes at the podium at a time when the grand masters of the convention hoped nobody was paying attention. Unfortunately, some people were.

The Rev. Al, as he now seems to call himself, is probably the nation’s foremost racial demagogue, having moved up from perpetrating the Tawana Brawley fraud some years ago to his presidential candidacy of the last few months. The Rev. is a failed demagogue, since his showing in the primaries was miserable. What do you do with a fellow who devotes his life to advancing himself by the most brazen chicanery and finishes last?

In the Democratic Party, you put him in the national spotlight, tell him what a great man he is and allow him to explain why American blacks vote for the Democrats. [Full Text of Speech]

“Mr. President,” the Rev. Al bellowed in his apostrophe to George W. Bush, “the reason we are fighting so hard, the reason we took Florida so seriously, is our right to vote wasn’t gained because of our age, our vote was soaked in the blood of martyrs. … This vote is sacred to us.”

Mr. Sharpton, you see, thinks that the right to vote that whites enjoy was somehow not gained by “the blood of martyrs” at places like Valley Forge and Bunker Hill. In the Rev. Al’s world, all that counts is what his own race did.

Well, what also counts is what his own race supposedly was promised by whites.

“You [President Bush again] said the Republican Party was the party of [Abraham] Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give 40 acres and a mule. … We went all the way to Herbert Hoover, and we never got the 40 acres. We didn’t get the mule. So we decided we’d ride this donkey as far as it would take us.”

The Washington Times reports that the Rev. Al’s comments were greeted with “thunderous laughter and applause.” I told you it was funny.

But Mr. Sharpton is angry because he and his race didn’t get their fair share of the swag the Republicans supposedly promised, and that’s why they keep supporting the Democrats.

His logic is that of explicit racial communism. The 40 acres he is buzzed about would have come from the land of white Southern landowners, and the idea was to confiscate it and hand it over to the emancipated slaves.

That’s essentially is what is being done today in Zimbabwe and may yet happen here if the Rev. Al’s progress to political prominence and respectability continues. Once the donkey no longer carries him and his race to the rewards to which they consider themselves entitled, they presumably will mount yet another beast willing to put up with them.

To be fair, the Rev. Al was by no means the only black celebrity to be showcased on what might be called Negro Nightat the convention. There was also the Rev. Jesse Jackson, whose own command of the art of racial demagoguery the Rev. Al has long since eclipsed, and a newcomer in the person of the Hero of the Week, the personable Barack Obama of Illinois.

Due to the inability of his Republican opponent to keep himself free of sexual peccadilloes, Mr. Obama is on the way to becoming the next U.S. senator from Illinois and, as the media that have created him the last few days keep telling us, the “only African American in the U.S. Senate.”

He also enjoys the advantage of being half white and half black, though he readily identifies himself as black. It’s an advantage because it means that, like Tiger Woods, he can play on the mythology of “color blindness” while simultaneously wallowing in a thinly masked racial identity.

The use of such a dual role is that it allows Mr. Obama to reject racial identity for whites while at the same time legitimizing it for non-whites. That, after all, is what the “multiracialism” of which he is supposed to be the latest and best symbol really means.

My guess is that while the Rev. Al may provide the funnies, Mr. Obama represents the real future of the Democratic Party and perhaps the nation. Already people at the convention were blabbering about “Hillary and Obama in 2008″ (a slogan that more or less seems to concede that it will be “George and Dick in 2004″). But I would also venture the guess that when you rip Mr. Obama’s thin mask away, what you’ll see is a face that strongly resembles the Rev. Al’s.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks 
🔊 Listen RSS

Slowly but surely the Democratic Party and its pals on the left are figuring out how they have managed to lose most presidential elections for the last 30 years or so—by alienating white males.

Now they are working on what they might do to get the white guys back, but progress on that front seems sketchy.

Last month the New York Times carried an article titled “Yes, Democrats Can Win (Some) White Male Voters,” and more recently the feminist website ““(for “individualist feminists”) ran an editorial on the importance of the white male as “the demographic group that holds the key to election success.”[White Males: Hot Demographic For The 2004 Elections, June 2, 2004 by Carey Roberts]

If feminists can figure it out, why not Republicans too?

Both articles note out that the last Democratic nominee to win the white male vote was Jimmy Carter (and he lost the white vote in general to Gerald Ford, 47 to 52 percent). Concentrating on the strategy of winning women, blacks and Hispanics, the Democrats adopted a plan that lost them the White House.

Even today, despite efforts by Al Gore in 2000 to win more white guys, the Democrats are still uncomfortable trying to do so. Last fall Howard Dean was raked by his rivals for even suggesting that “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks” ought to be an important target for Democratic efforts and that the party couldn’t defeat George Bush “unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.”

But, as the feminists also note, the tone of the New York Times article, as well as the occasional comments Democratic strategists make about appealing to white males , “betrays the fact that the Democratic establishment has no intention of taking the concerns of white men seriously.”

They cite the remark of Donna Brazile, the black female manager of Mr. Gore’s 2000 campaign, that “the only thing [Kerry] hasn’t done is sit down with a six-pack and chew tobacco with them.”

It’s rather like President Bush’s campaign manager saying he ought to appeal to blacks by eating some fried chicken and watermelon.

Indeed, the analogy is more exact than it may seem. Each party has built itself along racial and ethnic lines—the Democrats by appealing to minorities, as noted above, and the Republicans by capturing white males (and even whites pure and simple), and each harbors a more or less negative stereotype of the ethnic groups it can’t capture.

Neither is very interested in or even knows much about the missing ethnic groups, and the only real interest either party has is how to grab their votes.

Aside from the ethics of this situation, and despite the mass immigration that has brought more and more non-whites into the electorate, the pragmatic truth is that the ifeminists are right—white males are the demographic key to election success, far more so than low-income non-white voting blocs that may vote more solidly but don’t turn out as much.

Miss Brazile also noted that the Democrats remain largely clueless about how to win white males, and she’s no doubt right too—John Kerry currently enjoys the support of a whopping 36 percent of white males, the same miserable share Mr. Gore won in 2000, in contrast to Mr. Bush’s 60 percent.

But at least somebody in her party grasps that white guys even exist. If you listen to Republicans in recent years, you’d think the white male had gone the way of the smallpox virus. Appealing to blacks, Hispanics,homosexuals and women seems to be the main GOP plan to win elections and keep its majority.

That’s what you hear if you listen to Republicans. But what you see when you watch how they run their campaigns is that they depend on the white male vote. They just think they can take it for granted as long as the Democrats are so inept at cutting into it.

And they’re right too.

White males are far from being the beer-guzzlers and tobacco-chompers Miss Brazile imagines, but they do possess a unity that makes them vote together. During the last 30 years (since they started moving out of the Democratic Party actually), they’ve seen themselves stripped of their jobs, their cities, their sex roles, their values, their culture, their country, and their race.

If white makes still have any group identity left, they need to work toward building a movement that identifies their values, their interests and their needs as voters and citizens that both parties ignore.

It’s not clear they do share sufficient political interests to make them a solid bloc of votes for a single party, but they might start looking at creating an entirely new party.

They could call it the White Man’s Party, and if they let in women too, they might even start taking back their country.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, White Nationalists 
🔊 Listen RSS

The most recent contribution to racial harmony comes from Charlottesville, Virginia, where the Washington Post reports that some people are alarmed at “racial profiling” by local cops in their efforts to catch a black serial rapist. ['DNA Dragnet' Makes Charlottesville Uneasy, By Maria Glod, April 14, 2004]

Thanks to the foes of “racism,” the rapist may remain free to rape again.

The situation is that since 1997 an unknown black male has committed at least six rapes in the city, famous as the home of the University of Virginia, in one case, as the Post described it last week, beating his female victim “so badly that she needed reconstructive surgery.”The police know he’s black because the victims have described him as black. Also they have his DNA. That’s the problem.

It’s not clear if the Charlottesville police have had the rapist’s DNA analyzed to confirm his race, as police in Baton Rouge, La., did last year. In Baton Rouge, after months of looking for a white man as the perpetrator of a series of murders, the cops had a geneticist examine the killer’s DNA from crime scenes and realized he was in fact black. They nabbed a suspect shortly after.

In Charlottesville, the police already know the rapist is black; they just don’t know which black. Therefore, they’ve compiled a little list of black males who are believed to resemble a sketch of the rapist and who are suspects for other reasons. They then approach these gentlemen and ask them for DNA samples. If they comply, as 197 have, then they’re ruled out as suspects.

The problem, you see, is that this procedure is “racial profiling.”

Actually it’s not. Racial profiling usually means stopping, arresting or otherwise throwing suspicion upon members of a racial group simply because of the statistical patterns of behavior of that group. If the police were stopping black males in Charlottesville because black males commit most of the rapes in the United States, that would be racial profiling.

But that’s not what they’re doing in Charlottesville.

As Charlottesville police chief Timothy Longo explained to the Post, the cops are not stopping black males at random. They already know the rapist is black from victims’ descriptions, and asking only black males for DNA samples is therefore reasonable:

“In most cases, he said, police are responding to reports from residents about men who resemble a composite sketch of the suspect or who seem to be acting strangely.”

Nevertheless, the progressive set at the local university has decided it just can’t stand the prospect of the cops taking what one of them called “a step backward” by actually doing something that might catch the rapist—especially, one of them sobbed to the Post, “in a place where the echoes of slavery and segregation can still be heard.”

After the usual serenade of whines and whimpers from the churches, the university and the American Civil Liberties Union, the police announced they were “scaling back” the DNA sampling.

The rapist remains free.

One black man who was approached to give a DNA sample and refused has plenty to say about how oppressed it made him feel. “The way the police are conducting this investigation, because the suspect is a black man, every black man is a suspect,” moaned Steven Turner, a graduate student in education.

A police car stopped him while he was riding a bicycle last summer and asked him for a DNA sample from a swab inside his mouth. They told him someone had reported he was acting suspiciously and that he resembled the sketch of the rapist.

In other words, they were not stopping him because “every black man is a suspect.” They stopped him because he was a suspect.

Mr. Turner refused to give them a sample, but “after the police left, Turner said, he rode around in circles for a long time. ‘I felt broken,’ he said. ‘I felt like I didn’t have a home anymore. It was devastating.’”

Is that so?

Mr. Turner hasn’t even tasted devastating. Maybe he should try being raped and beaten so badly he needs reconstructive surgery. Then he can lecture us about being devastated.

The progressive set in Charlottesville has made one of their usual contributions to human progress.

By creating a fake controversy about a perfectly sensible, harmless and scientifically based method of criminal investigation, they have managed to impede the police and help the unknown rapist to remain at large.

They may also have helped establish a precedent that other police departments in other cities will think about when rapists, murderers and other criminals commit crimes in their jurisdictions.

And because of the fear for their careers they are able to inspire in police and other public officials, they may have helped destroy permanently the effectiveness of DNA testing as a tool of law enforcement.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

With Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry now the obvious winner of the Democratic primaries, it has proved to be true once again that highly unified black voters determine the party’s nominee.

Last fall I wrote a column arguing this would be the case this year as it has been in every election since 1988 where there was no Democratic incumbent, but I suggested—wrongly as it turned out—that Howard Dean might be the man who won it.

With Dean’s rapid decline after the Iowa caucuses in January, that’s obviously not what happened, despite his early promise of gaining key black support. But if the former Vermont governor was unable to carry the black bloc, the current Massachusetts senator was.

In doing so, he repeated the pattern that has been true in Democratic presidential primaries ever since the invention of “Super-Tuesday” in 1988—the series of Southern primaries held on the same day in which black voters deliver a huge wallop for whichever candidate they back.

The secret of internal Democratic Party politics is that blacks—more than almost any other group in the country—tend to vote as a block. This is obviously so in the national elections, where their vote has gone to the Democrats and against Republicans ever since the 1960s.

But it is true also inside the Democratic Party itself. And in the Southern primaries in particular, blacks have a heavy hand to wallop with.

Thus, in 1988, Jesse Jackson walked off with more than 90 percent of the black vote in the primaries and was for a while a major contender for the party nomination. He didn’t win it because Michael Dukakis was able to corner the white ethnics who then remained Democrats, a group that is dwindling fast.

In 1992, the black vote in the Southern primaries made Bill Clinton the frontrunner and soon the party nominee. Mr. Clinton, later called “America’s first black president” because of his popularity with blacks, took more than 70 percent of the black vote in the heavily black Southern primaries that year.

In 2000, Vice President Al Gore won the black vote in early primary contests with his main rival, New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley. Before the Iowa caucuses, the two candidates bickered over who would do more for blacks—they weren’t campaigning for the 98-percent white Iowa vote, but for the black votes in the Southern primaries that followed.

Mr. Gore won 75 to 90 percent of those votes in the early March primaries. Mr. Bradley dropped out, and Mr. Gore won the nomination.

A recent article by Democratic pollster Patrick Reddy in Insightmagazine [Analysis: Black Vote Key to Kerry's Charge Feb. 17, 2004 By Patrick Reddy] shows that the same pattern holds this year. John Kerry got a boost in the mainly white bastions of Iowa and New Hampshire, but since then his victories have depended to a large extent on the black votes he was able to capture.

“Kerry carried the black vote in Missouri handily,” Mr. Reddy points out, while in Tennessee he won 47 percent and in Virginia 61 percent.

Obviously, both Mr. Kerry and his rivals—now mainly North Carolina Sen. John Edwards—have white voting bases as well, but whites don’t vote as solidly as blacks do.

As Mr. Reddy notes, “If history were any guide, the Democratic nomination in 2004 likely would be decided by the votes of African-Americans and Hispanics. Blacks make up roughly 20 percent of Democratic primary voters nationally and more than 40 percent of Democrats in most Southern states, while Hispanics constitute about 10 percent of the primary electorate and twice that in big states such as California, Texas and New York.”

Like blacks, Hispanics, the party’s newest voting bloc, have already gone for Mr. Kerry. “Returns in heavily Hispanic New Mexico and Arizona have shown Kerry to be leading among Mexican-Americans,” Mr. Reddy writes.

On March 9, “the South, with the highest percentage of black voters (roughly 40 percent of Southern Democrats), will largely finish its voting. On March 16, black votes could well decide the critical industrial state of Illinois, where they will cast about 30 percent of the primary vote. Minority voters appear to be well-positioned in February and March to determine the next Democratic nominee.”

If Mr. Reddy, a professional pollster, understands this, you can bet your ballots the politicians themselves do too, which is precisely why all the Democratic candidates (not to mention the Republicans) regularly pander to black voters and demands as much as they do.

Whoever carries the Democrats’ banner this year, non-whites will have handed it to him.

Whites, though they constitute the vast majority of Democrats and of the nation itself, have little to do with picking the nominee of one of the country’s two major parties anymore.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Democratic Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

Sooner or later it was certain that the lawyers for black basketball player Kobe Bryant would start yelling “racism” in defense against charges that he raped a white woman.

Just as O.J. Simpson‘s defense was able to get him acquitted of the double murder of two whites in 1995 with the same tactic, so lawyers for Mr. Bryant are now deploying it to save their client from a serious prison sentence.

But the Simpson and Bryant cases are not unique.

Last week Mr. Bryant appeared in court in Colorado, where he faces trial on rape charges, with his white female lawyer Pamela Mackey, who pronounced to the judge, “My client stands accused of a very serious crime. There is lots of history about black men being falsely accused of this crime by white women.” [AP, Bryant attorneys raise race issue during hearing]

Everyone’s read To Kill a Mockingbird, in which a saintly black man is nearly lynched and then nearly convicted of raping a white woman, when it turns out the trashy white woman tried to seduce the black. Miss Mackey is hoping the judge and jury have read the book too, or at least seen the movie, and will allow reality to imitate art.

But the Bryant rape case is not the only one where the real villains are whites (either vicious and bigoted white men or sluttish white women) and all blacks accused of raping white women are simply innocent martyrs to racial equality.

The New York Times recently reported on an obscure case in Georgia involving a black high school senior sentenced to a 10-year prison term for raping a 16-year old white girl. That rape, too, you see, didn’t really happen.

The black convicted and sentenced is a young man named Marcus Dixon, who acknowledges that he had sex with the young woman but claims it was consensual. She had vaginal bruises that suggest otherwise, and Mr. Dixon, it turned out, had a history of sexual harassment of girls in the school (where, the Times was quick to point out, he enjoyed a 3.96 grade point average and had a football scholarship to Vanderbilt. What a guy!)

I have no idea whether either Mr. Dixon or Mr. Bryant is really guilty of rape, and from the facts so far available, both of them seem to have a plausible argument that they’re not. But in the Georgia case, the local Afro-racists quickly seized the chance to score racial-political points.

On the eve of a court hearing to appeal the Dixon case, the Timesreports, “nearly 100 people gathered outside the state Supreme Court here, holding candles and singing, ‘We Shall Overcome,”and they listened to the Rev. Joseph Lowery of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, who has decided that Mr. Dixon is innocent. “If the young lady was black and Marcus Dixon was white, I don’t think we’d be here,” Mr. Lowery declared to the crowd, in an astonishingly frank admission of racial motivation.

In fact, the Dixon story is not especially significant, even if the convicted man is innocent, and in itself, as a simple case of justice miscarried, it’s hardly worth the attention of the New York Times(which seldom reports at all on brutal hate crimes against whites committed by blacks).

The real purpose of the Times story is clear from the headline it used to telegraph the point: “Student Sex Case in Georgia Stirs Claims of Old South Justice.”

There’s that mockingbird again.

The point is not that either he or Mr. Bryant is really guilty but that the unspoken assumptions of black innocence and white guilt have now so permeated the minds—of whites as well as blacks, of the media as well as the courts—that yelling “racism” can be considered a reliable if not infallible tactic to get an accused black acquitted.

“Race plays a part in everything,” said Johnnie Cochran, O.J. Simpson’s black lawyer when his client beat the rap for virtually beheading his white wife and killing her white friend to boot. In that case, black jurors simply rejected any evidence pointing to Simpson’s guilt, whatever its merits. That they did so for reasons of racial solidarity was transparent.

Do blacks ever really commit any violence or harbor any hatred of whites?

Are all white women who claim they were raped by blacks simply liars who really sought sex from them?

Can blacks today be convicted in American courts of serious or notorious crimes against whites?

That may in fact be the case or may be soon, as the myth of black victimhood and universal white evil, with the assistance of media like the New York Times and big time lawyers like Mr. Cochran and Miss Mackey, continues to entrench itself deep within the minds of both races.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

“Malvo’s Drawings Attack U.S. Racial Bias,” the Washington Post’slead Metro story informed those readers who bother with the local news last week. [By Serge F. Kovaleski, December 5, 2003]

“Racial bias” is the Post’s way of covering up the dirty little secret painfully emerging from the trial of Jamaican immigrant Lee Boyd Malvo, charged as one of the two Washington snipers who terrorized the region last year and murdered 10 people.

The secret is that the snipers—at least Malvo—were driven by anti-white racial hate. The shootings were hate crimes, even though not all of them were directed at white individuals.

The senior hate-sniper in the duo, John Allen Muhammad, has already been convicted and sentenced to death, and the same fate may await young Mr. Malvo.

But the truth cannot yet be told, at least fully and directly, because we wouldn’t want anyone to think non-whites might be filled with murderous hatred against white people, would we?

But the truth will out, and it started leaking last summer, when the Post buried an important part of it in a news story of July 25th.

A Maryland police officer at the jail where Malvo was held said “Malvo told him the reason the snipers went on their rampage was that ‘there were a lot of ghettoes in America. They were trying to clean it up. It didn’t make sense to me.’”

Another guard reported that “Malvo told him that one of the reasons for the shootings was because white people tried to hurt Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam.” Those little snippets never made it past page A10.

Last week even more of the truth seeped into the Post’s reportage of the trial. Drawings that Malvo completed in jail and presented by his lawyers remove any doubt of what drove him.

As the Post reported,

“One drawing depicts a naked black man hanging in a public square from chains around his wrists. Nearby, a slave takes orders from his master. A caption says: ‘THIS IS WAR. IT WILL GO ON AND ON UNTIL YOU ARE TOTALLY DESTROY, YOUR WHITE STATE OF MIND . . . HOLY WAR! JIHAD.’”

Another shows a Star of David, a conventional symbol of Jews and Judaism, in the crosshairs of a gun scope, with the caption, “Wanted Dead.” Yet another shows a white police officer also in the crosshairs with the captions “wanted Pig” and “Copy This Fascist Police,” and the edifying message,

“You and your house [Negroes?] are the same white [deleted] who jailed [?] me 400 years ago. Same man. There is no past. The past is never dead. It Ain’t even past. We will destroy you and your progeny.”

Another shows the White House in the crosshairs, while the Postmoans that Harvard University is also assailed: ‘They still teach that black people are not as intellectually made as whites.’”

Then there are his pictures of his heroes: Saddam Hussein (“The Protector”), Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, Louis Farrakhan, and Osama bin Laden.

The Post readily acknowledges that the drawings and scribblings are “simmering with anti-American fervor against law enforcement,” and so they are. Other stories discuss Malvo’s “utopian vision” to use the $10 million the snipers tried to extort for their murders to “bring about a just system,” and the Post even drools about the learned Mr. Malvo’s allusions to “the Chinese philosophical work ‘I Ching’ and the writings of Socrates, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Jefferson.”

Someone should tell the Post (or maybe Malvo, or maybe both) that the “I Ching” is not a philosophical work but a means of prophesying the future and that Socrates never wrote anything.

What the Post cannot bring itself to notice is what was really driving Malvo to commit murder.

The main theme of the collected wit and wisdom of Lee Boyd Malvo is hatred of whites for all the proper liberal reasons that the Post’s own editorial pages regurgitate every week—that whites mistreated blacks, enslaved them, discriminated against them and said that blacks aren’t up to snuff in IQ points.

Young Mr. Malvo just drew his own conclusions from the anti-white premises liberalism brews: Kill the pigs and their progeny—Exterminate whites.

Malvo’s lawyers are dragging out the drawings and writings to try to show that it was really the senior sniper, Muhammad, who was the evil genius behind the killings. They’re also parading the usual headshrinkers to testify about Malvo’s deprived childhood and the rest of the voodoo.

But whoever was the leader and whatever the inner mechanisms, there’s now no doubt that hatred of whites, scooped from the perverse pit of liberal and leftist clichés about “white racism,” drove the murders that slaughtered 10 people and terrorized the country.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, DC Sniper, Terrorism 
🔊 Listen RSS

“I do not like the Confederate flag,” black pundit Shelby Steele informed the readers of the Wall Street Journal last week in a long commentary on Vermont ex-governor Howard Dean’s recent remark that he wanted to be “the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”

“It excludes me, profoundly,” Mr. Steele asserts. [Yo, Howard! Why did Dean have to embrace the Confederate flag? November 13, 2003]

It seems to follow that whatever excludes him—hotels and restaurants he can’t afford, your private home, most nations on the face of the earth—he dislikes.

But what was important about Mr. Steele’s pontification is not what it said about him or the flag but what it says about white people.

Misinterpreting Mr. Dean’s remark as an effort to use “identity to seek political power in precisely the same way that Rev. Al Sharpton does,” Mr. Steele went on to ruminate about why there is no white identity in American politics, even though, as he freely acknowledged, there are certainly non-white identities”

“It is quite acceptable for either party to explicitly go after the black, Hispanic, or even the Jewish vote,”

Mr. Steele wrote,

“In fact both parties gain an indispensable moral authority by doing so. But it is absolutely verboten for either party, or any white candidate, to appeal to whites as a racial identity group. Racial identity is simply forbidden to whites in America and across the entire Western world. Black children today are hammered with the idea of racial identity and pride, yet racial pride in whites constitutes a grave evil. Say ‘I’m white and I’m proud’ and you are a Nazi.”

Those who have said it know Mr. Steele is quite right, and so does Mr. Dean, even though that’s not what he said.

There is therefore a “double standard on race” in this country—it’s OK for non-whites to have a racial identity, but not OK for whites, let alone to base a political movement on white identity.

Moreover, Mr. Steele sees nothing wrong with the double standard, though he does understand it needs a little justification.

His justification is predictable—whites are just too evil to be trusted with racial identity:

“No group in recent history has more aggressively seized power in the name of its racial superiority than Western whites. This race illustrated for all time—through colonialism, slavery, white racism, Nazism—the extraordinary human evil that follows when great power is joined to an atavistic sense of superiority and destiny. This is why today’s whites, the world over, cannot openly have a racial identity.”

But in the first place, it is simply a lie—not just a lie but a whopper of titanic dimensions—that whites have the kind of monopoly on evil Mr. Steele attributes to them.

Colonialism, slavery and “racism” have been at least as common among non-whites as whites, and indeed until the superior technologies created by whites began yielding global power, whites were mainly on the receiving end of racial aggression—from Asians,Moslems, Mongols and others.

As for “Nazism,” OK, it was a white phenomenon, but the Nazis were pikers compared to what the Japanese, Chinese communists and Cambodians cooked up in the same era or a bit later.

Nor would such African apostles of liberty as Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe, among several others, have been far behind if they had the means to do it.

On its merits, Mr. Steel’s nakedly anti-white claim that whites illustrate for all time an “extraordinary evil” is not only flapdoodle but in fact illustrates his point—white racial identity, let alone pride, is forbidden.

Otherwise, a white controlled newspaper like the Wall Street Journalwould never have published his little gob of racial spit at all.

But the larger truth is that no one does forbid whites to have a racial identity—except whites themselves.

All the witch hunters in the world could not stop whites from resisting their coming dispossession and the not unlikely racial tyranny they face from the emerging non-white and anti-white majority if they wanted to do so.

What does it tell us that every other race and ethnic group can and does develop a group consciousness and pursues political power based on it, but whites don’t?

And what does the additional fact that whites are becoming a numerical minority in this country suggest is going to happen once they become a minority?

If you think—as Mr. Steele seems to—that whites are evil and other races aren’t, then not to worry.

If you know that non-whites are at least as capable of “extraordinary human evil” as whites, then the lack of racial identity among whites as a means of protecting themselves against their racial aggressors just might be a problem—at least for whites.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Diversity 
🔊 Listen RSS

It’s hardly news when the Rev. Al Sharpton denounces a white politician as “anti-black,” but when the veteran racial demagogue who gave the world the Tawana Brawley hoax blasted his fellow Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean last week, there was a ripple in the press. [Sharpton Calls Dean's Agenda 'Anti-Black,' By Brian Faler, Washington Post, October 29, 2003]

There was no reason there should have been more than a ripple, but what was really important about Mr. Sharpton’s accusation is not what it says about the black clergyman from Harlem but what it might tell us about Mr. Dean: He may be on his way to winning the Democratic nomination next year.

The reason is that Mr. Dean seems to be extremely popular with a great many of the black voters on whom Mr. Sharpton was counting to support his own candidacy.

And the larger point is that if you do win the black vote in the Democratic primaries, you are likely to win the party nomination.

Ever since 1988, when the institution of “Super Tuesday” was established, blacks who vote in the several Southern primaries held simultaneously on that day have largely determined who the front runner for the party nomination is.

In 1988, it was Jesse Jackson who walked off with what Congressional Quarterly called “nearly unanimous [black support] across the South on Super Tuesday” with only 14 fewer delegates than Michael Dukakis, who eventually won the nomination by mobilizing white ethnics.

In 1992, the Super Tuesday victor was the obscure governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, later called “America’s first black president.”He won (and catapulted himself into the front runner position) by taking 71 percent of the black vote in the day’s primaries.

In 2000, Vice President Al Gore and his main rival, Sen. Bill Bradley, spent most of their time in lily-white Iowa bickering over who would do more for blacks. Blacks went for Mr. Gore by some 85 percent on Super Tuesday. Mr. Bradley dropped out soon afterwards.

The brute fact of the Democratic Party is that black voters make up about 40 percent of the Democratic electorate in Southern primaries, and because those primaries come fairly early in the electoral season and because blacks almost always vote as a bloc, the contender who can win black support makes himself the front runner. Unless one of his rivals has a secret weapon of mass political destruction, he soon wins the nomination.

So why would Mr. Dean, a white Yankee from a white state, win black votes?

It’s not clear why, but he does seem to win a lot of black favor. The immediate reason Mr. Sharpton denounced the Vermonter is that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. endorsed him instead of the Harlem race-baiter. Mr. Jackson is not a major powerhouse himself, but his father’s name among black voters is. The father is staying out of the primaries, much to the displeasure of Mr. Sharpton, who wants his endorsement.

As for Mr. Dean, last summer he purported to a black audience that a song by a famous hip-hop artist was his own personal favorite. No doubt his wife and kids hear the governor humming it in the shower every morning. But—contrary to Mr. Sharpton’s accusations—he’s made pretty explicit appeals to blacks in the course of his campaign—and it seems to have worked.

The Washington Times reports that 10 of the 13 (all black) members of the District of Columbia’s City Council, as well as several black congressmen, state legislators and county officials, have already endorsed Mr. Dean. He “has actively sought to improve his appeal among black voters,” and one of the endorsing councilmen, Adrian Fenty, says the ex-governor “is the only one [of the Democratic candidates] who has come out to talk to us.” [Blacks show interest in Dean, By Brian DeBose , Washington Times, October 26, 2003]

This doesn’t mean Mr. Dean will win the black vote in the primaries or that he’ll get the party’s nomination. It does seem to mean that he understands how to get them, and the way to do one is the way to do the other.

The problem for the Democrats, of course, is that in order to win the black vote to get the nomination, they have to ignore and often alienate the white voters who settle the actual election. I can’t tell you who the last Democratic nominee to win a majority of the white vote was, but it hasn’t happened since at least 1972. In every election but two (1992 and 1996, when the Republican and Ross Perot split the white vote), a white majority has voted Republican.

If the Republicans want to win again, that’s what they need to win again.

Mr. Dean may get the party’s nomination and he may win all the black (and Hispanic) votes there are, but without the key constituency of white voters, the door to the White House doesn’t open.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Democratic Party, Howard Dean 
🔊 Listen RSS

The dim idea of the week comes from Washington Times columnist Arnold Beichman, a 90-year-old neo-conservative wonderboy who has suffered a brainstorm–that the way for President Bush to win the election in 2004 is to demote Vice President Cheney to national security adviser and put current national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on the ticket.

The purpose, you see, is to at least “split” the black vote because Miss Rice, being black, is certain to fetch in some votes from other blacks.

Leave aside the implicit bigotry of Mr. Beichman’s strategy, which assumes that blacks are both sufficiently dumb and sufficiently racially obsessive to vote Republican if and only if a black is on the ticket. Leave aside also the implicit assumption, insulting to both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, that they can’t possibly win black votes by themselves, and consider the brazen kick in the pants to even a pretense of principle.

“With Ms. Rice on the ticket,” Mr. Beichman gloats, “there is every chance the African-American vote would be split, especially when a Bush victory in 2004 would surely mean a Rice presidential nomination in 2008.” Mr. Beichman ignores what sorts of policies Miss Rice might support, admittedly a minor consideration when all you care about is winning the election, but nevertheless a matter that might sooner or later come up, especially since the grand design involves Miss Rice ascending to the presidency a few years later. [GOP ticket option? By Arnold Beichman, July 9, 2003]

The Republican obsession with winning the black vote is mainly a contribution of the neo-conservatives that has swallowed the GOP mind ever since these frauds invited themselves to run the party back in the 1980s. It didn’t work then, it didn’t work in 2002 when Mr. Bush won only 8 percent of the black vote, and it shows no sign of working any time in the future. The victory strategy for the Republicans, with all due respect to Mr. Beichman, lies in winning the white vote—period.

If anyone understands this, it’s the NAACP itself, which this week convened in Miami Beach to roast Republicans and threaten those Democrats who don’t kiss its toe with sufficient reverence. The keynote was struck by the apparently deathless Julian Bond, who denounced the Republicans and the White House for representing the “dark underside of American culture,” appealing to those “who reject democracy and equality,” and whose “idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side.” “We are and always have been nonpartisan,” Mr. Bond added, reportedly keeping a straight face the whole time.[Full text of speech PDF]

But the vituperation about Republicans was only the warm-up. Some Democratic presidential contenders failed to show up at the convention because of other commitments. Tough. If you don’t abase yourself and scrape and bow low enough, you don’t get black votes. “When candidates choose to ignore the NAACP,” President Kweisi Mfume spouted, “they have no legitimacy when they go into our communities later asking for our votes.”

That was tantamount to a political death sentence for the missing Democrats – Reps. Richard Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich and Sen. Joseph Lieberman—who cannot expect to win the party nomination without solid backing from the black voters who now essentially dominate it. The 85 percent of the black vote Al Gore won in the 2000 Democratic primaries got him the party’s nomination, as did the 70 percent Bill Clinton took in the 1992 primaries.

But Mr. Mfume’s naked threat, like Mr. Bond’s earlier blustering, ought to tell all Americans something significant. First, it tells us that the NAACP has appointed itself the chief arbiter of how black voters are supposed to vote. Since almost all black voters do in fact seem to defer to the NAACP and its pronouncements, it is probably correct in that claim.

Secondly, obnoxious windbags like Mr. Bond and Mr. Mfume also show how the NAACP and its leaders intend to use their power—in much the same way as African despots like Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe use theirs, to demand the most abject groveling and humiliation from those unfortunate enough to come under their sway. Those who fail to exhibit such public displays of obsequiousness can forget the black vote.

And thirdly, the grim truth is that it is precisely because of the black racial solidarity on which the NAACP insists that the NAACP has any power at all. Whatever their flaws and misconceptions as leaders, gentlemen like Mr. Bond and Mr. Mfume know perfectly well that it is only through racial solidarity that a solid black vote for whatever Democrats have sufficiently groveled to them can be delivered. That’s why there’s not going to be any significant black vote for Mr. Bush and—among several other good reasons—it’s why he should ignore Mr. Beichman’s ill-considered advice.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Condi Rice, Republicans 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”