Thursday, June 22, 2017

President Trump: We Will BUILD THE WALL!

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Just yesterday, I’d remarked to my chief of research that Trump had not spoken in months of building the wall, and Mitt Romney’s niece, the RNC chairman, had left it out of a GOP to-do list about two weeks ago.

It occurred to me that Trump was becoming like Bush II: triangulating to the left, while having the same attitude of “Who are you going to vote for instead of me.”

Of course, John McCain and Mitt Romney learned the answer to that seemingly rhetorical question: Nobody!

However, as happened with King George II, the DPUSA’s racism and treason have been pushing millions of voters to support Trump, just as happened during the election.

The question remains: Was Trump just throwing his base a bone with the following tweet, or was it meant honestly?

Just Your Typical, Contemporary College Prof: Connecticut Professor Calls Whites “Inhuman A$$holes,” Says “Let Them F**king Die”

By Reader-Researcher RC

Connecticut Professor Calls Whites "Inhuman A$$holes,” Says "Let Them F**king Die"

A professor at Connecticut's Trinity College seemingly endorsed the idea that first responders to last week’s congressional shooting should have let the victims "f-----g die” because they are white.

Allahu Akbar! 50-Year-Old Muslim Amor Ftouhi, Whose Face was “Totally Blank” Stabbed a Flint, Michigan Police Officer in the Throat Wednesday Morning; "Expert": This is the New Normal

By Reader-Researcher RC

“A 49-year-old Canadian [lie] man whose face witnesses say was “totally blank” when he stabbed the police officer Wednesday morning yelled “Allahu Akbar,” which means “God [lie] is great” in Arabic, authorities said.

N.S.: “Allahu Akbar!” means “Allah is great!,” not “God is great!” And Ftouhi is no Canadian. He’s not even a Canadian citizen. According to the below-linked article, he’s a mere “Canadian resident,” i.e., someone who was present on Canadian soil, until he decided to leave to go cop-hunting in America.

Nowhere does the article tell readers Ftouhi's real nationality.

According to Richard Chasdi, a Walsh College professor and “expert,” “This is something we have to grow accustomed to.”

I guess he didn't vote for Trump!

“Aloha Snackbar!” Middle Eastern Marksmanship Training

At the Detroit News.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Mets Losing 1-1 in the Fourth Inning to the Team Formerly Known as the Brooklyn Dodgers in LA

By Nicholas Stix

I know what you’re thinking—“Isn’t 1-1 a tie?”

It is, if any team but the Mets is involved.

They’re presumably no longer in the fourth, but I haven’t had the never to check. Last night, I shut off the infernal machine after alleged sinkerballer Robert Gsellman gave up I think his third dinger that game in the second inning. He gave up 8 runs in 4 1/3 innings, seven of them earned, and the Mets ultimately lost, 12-0.

The other day, their newest Tommy John PTSD patient (last two years on the shelf), and soon-to-be ex-big league hurler, Zack Wheeler, gave up seven runs in two innings, and is now back on his shelf.

The Mets have the record over the past ten or so years for TJ surgeries, but they are going to extend it. “Tommy Johns on the house!”

Not from the SPLC! Hate Map of Nearly 200 Violent Attacks on Trump Supporters

Posted on May 31, 2017

Anti-Trump Hate Map

By Westley Parker
May 30, 2017
American Renaissance

We’ve documented nearly 200 attacks on Trump supporters.

The Anti-Trump Hate Map is an ongoing project of American Renaissance that displays criminal incidents in which Trump supporters were targeted for political reasons. Each marker on the map shows the location of an anti-Trump hate crime. Clicking on a marker opens a brief overview of the case. Red markers signify violent crimes; blue markers, property crimes; purple markers, “other” crimes.

You can find additional information about incidents by visiting this page and selecting the “Excel File” tab. By using the blue “Filter” drop-down menu, you can search and sort incidents by such things as location, type of offense, offender and victim race and sex, or in any combination.

We have included the contact information for the police department with jurisdiction over each incident, so if you have any information about a case, we urge you to contact the authorities.

Please share this map with as many people as possible. If you know of a case we missed, or if you have any comments on the map, please contact Westley Parker at

Click here for more information on these attacks.

Welcome to My Readers from 37 Countries!







The Czech Republic







Hong Kong






















United Arab Emirates

In addition to its American home, the Wyatt Earp Journalism Bureau/Nicholas Stix, Uncensored has mirror blogs in 36 foreign countries. Please hit the PayPal “Donate” button at the top of the page, and make a generous donation.

I thank you, and your posterity will, too.


Nicholas Stix

Vigils Planned Nationwide to Honor Reston Teen Who Police Say was Fatally Beaten with a Baseball Bat by a Driver as She Walked with Friends to a Virginia Mosque This Weekend

By Prince George’s County Ex-Pat


Russia Does It Again! Calling Robert Mueller!

By Grand Rapids Anonymous
Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:05:00 A.M. EDT

Funniest headline in a while.

“Russia does it again.”

Dems lose in Georgia, Maddow flips out.

At Zero Hedge.

Don’t Shoot the Bears!

By Nicholas Stix

At Countenance, natch!

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Tommy Lasorda on the Modern, Big League Baseball Clubhouse

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

This was the quote of the day during tonight’s Mets funeral, which is still underway at Chavez Ravine.

"I walk into the clubhouse and it's like walking into the Mayo Clinic. We have four doctors, three therapists and five trainers. Back when I broke in, we had one trainer who carried a bottle of rubbing alcohol and by the seventh inning he had drunk it all." Source: Sports Illustrated (May 29, 1989)

Breaking News: Crime Pays… Again! Racist, Criminal, Black Parents of Failed, Would-be Cop-Killer Mike Brown Clean up Today with Millions, at White Taxpayer Expense, While Rogue Judge Illegally Makes Taxpayer Settlement Secret!


The parents of racist, failed, would-be cop-killer "Michael" brown and their lawyers, as they announce extortionary lawsuit of the white taxpayers of Ferguson, MO, Brown's victim, Officer Darren Wilson, and Wilson's former police chief, Thomas Jackson

By Nicholas Stix

At the Post-Dispatch.

Photo: Patriotic Banner Seen Today on Highway Overpass in Atlanta

By “W”

“Scholarly Research” Asserting Racist Employment Discrimination Against Blacks is Exposed as Fraudulent!

[Postscript, Tuesday, June 20, 2007 2017, at 2:29 a.m.: “Economists” Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan are racist hypocrites: They know that morally and academically unfit blacks are given massive advantages (e.g., up to 300 SAT points over whites), and admitted to universities and graded based on the color of their skin, but then expect employers to act as though they didn’t also know this, and suddenly become color-blind, but only when that is advantageous to the same blacks.

The fraudulent “research” I discuss below got Sendhil Mullainathan a tenured, endowed chair at Harvard the next year.]

Are You an Evil Racist If You Balk at Hiring Someone Named “S—tavious”?
By Nicholas Stix
September 20, 2011, 8:15 a.m.
[Corrected on Tuesday, June 20, 2017, at 2:18 a.m.]

Back in 2003, the University of Chicago`s Marianne Bertrand and Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sendhil Mullainathan published a classic example of pseudo-scholarship: A study showing that, all other things being equal, job applicants with “African-American” sounding names are likely to suffer job discrimination compared to applicants with white-sounding names. (“Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination,” MIT Department of Economics Working Paper No. 03-22, May 27, 2003)

The researchers sent out application letters for imaginary job candidates in which everything was equal—grades, major, school—except their names. They found that “White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews” than black-sounding names.

The “study” led to a blizzard of MSM “racism” accusations against corporate America, the same world which routinely hires unqualified blacks over qualified whites. Generating such accusations was, of course, the point of the “study.”

In 2009, for example, CNN writer Jessica Dickler opened a duplicitous story on this subject by focusing on whites with problem names (her first two examples were a white man named Glenn Miller, who has the same name as a WWII era bandleader, and a white woman named Colleen Rzucidlo, whose name cannot be pronounced without special training). Their pictures were shown, in order to gull white readers, before Dickler turned in the tenth paragraph to her real subject: Discrimination against blacks with odd-sounding names.

And even then, Dickler continued her deception, by focusing on a Kenyan woman named Nakores Sameita.

(The only other person Dickler cited was a Hispanic man named Duram Gallegos who couldn’t speak Spanish. We’re supposed to see Gallegos as a victim, because prospective employers expect him to be a Spanish speaker, rather than as the affirmative action beneficiary that he is.)

And Dickler produced the Bertrand-Mullainathan study with a triumphant flourish:

For example, résumés with white-sounding names have a 50% greater chance of receiving a callback when compared to those with African American names, according to a study performed for the National Bureau of Economic Research by the University of Chicago`s Marianne Bertrand and Massachusetts Institute of Technology`s Sendhil Mullainathan.

“Can your name keep you from getting hired? These job seekers think their unusual names are getting in the way of their job,” by Jessica Dickler, CNNMoney, August 27, 2009.]
“Nakores Sameita” is not an “African-American name.” Shiniqua Washington or Lakisha Smith are African-American names.

Why do I boldly assert that the Bertrand-Mullainathan study was “pseudo-scholarship”? Because
  1. Its assumption that all other things were equal; and
  2. Its assumption that there could be no good reason to discriminate against someone named, say, “Shiniqua,” or “S—tavious” (the latter is a real but unprintable name), or Lakisha or Jamal.

Where blacks and whites are concerned, all other things are neverequal. If a white and a black job candidate both have identical GPAs, even for identical courses at the same school, the white candidate will invariably be academically superior, because unqualified blacks enjoy massive privilege (here and here) in getting admitted to “selective” and “highly selective” universities, and massive college grade inflation, once accepted.

(In 1998, I pseudonymously published [as “Robert Berman”] Making Up the Grade: Notes from the Antiversity, which was then the state-of-the-art study on college grade inflation, in the neocon journal, Academic Questions. I published a series on the Internet in 2001: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

When I taught college, I also engaged in grade inflation for black students, though not to the degree that my colleagues did. I’d give black students who had earned a failing grade, Ds and Cs. But I had colleagues who gave As to black students for term papers as bad or worse than Michele Obama’s work at Princeton.

For over 40 years, everyone in academia, including Chicago's Bertrand and MIT's Mullainathan, as well as everyone involved in hiring college grads, has known this.

Anyone who has dealt with black employees in academia, the schools, or the non-academic workforce also knows that the average black employee is less punctual, less diligent, and more troublesome than the average white employee. There is even an old phrase, that 20 years ago was still used in private by liberal, as well as conservative whites: “CPT”; “colored people’s time”, which refers to black educators’ notorious tardiness.

The real issue is what a “black-sounding” name says about what an employer can expect from a worker: Trouble.

It’s bad enough dealing with young blacks, whatever their names are. When sociologist William Julius Wilson’s researchers interviewed Chicago businessmen in the early 1990s for his book, >When Work Disappears, the white bosses all gave dishonest, PC answers to the interviewers’ questions. But the black businessmen, who did not have to worry about extortionary civil rights lawsuits, felt no such constraints. They told the interviewers flat-out that they avoided hiring young black men because most of them were unemployable: They came to work late, refused to do an honest day’s work, and caused trouble in the workplace.

Beginning with the welfare revolution during the mid-1960s, leftist organizers and welfare officials (for example, New York Mayor John Lindsay’s social services commissionerMitchell “Come and Get It” Ginsberg) got hostile, working-class, black women with out-of-wedlock children to quit their jobs and go on the dole. Those women then served as role models for millions of young black girls who had never worked. The black illegitimacy rate went from 21.7 percent in 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his report on the black family, to 72.3 percent today.

When The Moynihan Report was issued by the Johnson Administration, black leadersdenounced Moynihan as a “racist.”He never spoke honestly about race and social policy again… in public.

Those hostile black girls and women led an underclass baby boom, during which ever-higher proportions of them gave their babies “black” or “African” names. (The scare quotes are because the names were often simply made up—many of the fathers of said children couldn’t even spell their own kids’ names—and hadn’t previously been considered “black” or “African.” And the names that were African tended to be Moslem, which made no sense, since African Moslems traditionally held blacks in contempt and, as a group, had been the most abusive of all slave traders and owners.)

The mothers of these children were expressing hostility towards whites, America, and Christianity. They inculcated this in their violent, criminal children, whom sensible whites avoided at all costs. The names became indelibly associated with the black criminal class.

That occasionally one runs into someone with one of these names who is bright, well-adjusted, law-abiding, punctual and a hard worker does not change the ugly norm.

In 1989, when I was a social worker, while making a home visit to one of my foster mothers, Martha B., I looked at the framed photograph of her young son, who was in school. When she told me, “That’s my son, James,” she saw the surprise on my face, read my mind, and answered, “None of that Shiniqua s—t.”

Which brings me to “S—tavious.”

S–tavious J. Cook, 15, stands under indictment in Illinois for burglary, first-degree murder committed during a separate crime, and a slew of other charges.

Was a time, when criminologists such as James Q. Wilson and John J. Di Iulio used the term “super-predator” to refer to folks like “S—tavious.” Blacks and their white leftist allies tarred such usage as “racist,” Wilson retired, Di Iulio seems to have fallen silent, a loyalty oath to black criminals was imposed on younger criminology professors, and today what passes for “scholarship” in the field tells us that the “S—taviouses” of the world are nothing but the victims of a racist criminal justice system.

[Although James Q. Wilson was the greatest scholar of crime of the past 40-odd years, he never referred to himself as a “criminologist,” and was officially a professor of “political science,” “public policy,” and “public policy and management.”]

Now, my white leftist and black supremacist readers are going to complain that “S—tavious” is an extreme and thus uncharacteristic example. Then how about Lemaricus, Letalvis, Lovelle,

Hydra, Jahmell,

Latrine or Pimp?

The prisons are full of people with these sorts of names, and there are millions of violent people with such names walking around who ought to be in prison, but aren’t.

Avoiding socializing with, or hiring people with names like “Shiniqua” or “S—tavious” is a sign not of racism, but of wisdom.

Monday, June 19, 2017

Racist Hate Organization, the NAACP, Facilitates Mass Shooting in Myrtle Beach; 6 Wounded

By Nicholas Stix

At Countenance blog.

You Ever been on the X-Train? That ain’t the Mother-Bleepin’ Soul Train! GRA, Jeff Hadley, and Glenn Miller on Kalamazoo (Videos)

By Grand Rapids Anonymous
Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:58:00 A.M. EDT

Saturday night, for the second time in four months, the Kalamazoo police broke up the Saturday night X-train. Twenty to 40 cars driving down Kazoo streets, with the blacks hopped up on Ecstasy. Assaults, robberies, and loud music from the cars blasting as they parade (or train) down the streets. They like doing this after midnight until 4 a.m. Two murders have been associated with this X-train stuff. The X-train, amazingly, has gone on for many years—but only now are the police cracking down. It's bad all over.

KPS Chief Jeff Hadley Speaks about X-Trains in Kalamazoo

Back When Kalamazoo Belonged to Civilization, and Ecstasy Came from Music: “I Got a Gal in Kalamazoo,” by Mack Gordon and Harry Warren, performed by the Glenn Miller Orchestra, Marion Hutton, The Modernaires, Nicholas Brothers, Tex Beneke, and with Jackie Gleason and Cesar Romero, in Orchestra Wives (1942)

Here’s the back story.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Exciting Video of Racist Cheetos Bandits in San Juan, CA! 300 lb. Black Female, Her 175 lb. Black Boyfriend, and Her 300 lb. Sister Commit Strong-Arm Robbery of Convenience Store, and Assault Workers and Witnesses; Black “Reporter” Broadcasts Non-Black Victim/Witnesses’ Faces and Names


"Reporter" Karma Dickerson on Twitter

By Jerry PDX
Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 12:28:00 P.M. EDT

This video just went "viral", it's kind of a mini flash shoplifting mob and involves, of course, violent, entitled negroes.

Note the usual media device of having a negro reporter, Karma Dickerson, at the scene. I always wonder how that works. Whenever there is negro violence there must be a secret order: We need a negro reporter for this one! Get Laquifa or Latrinius on the scene right now!

In this incident, there are two hideous squat, fat negresses (app. 300-lbs. each) shoplifting Cheetos, while a tall, fit negro male (app. 6’3” and 175 lbs.) defends them. He shoves the store clerks (misdemeanor assaults, accessory) attempting to stop the troglodytes from stealing.

In a hilarious moment, the Cheetos go flying, so the shoplifter merely goes back and grabs another bag. After all, she's entitled to that fresh bag because the clerk ruined the first one she stole. A white woman films the scene from her car and one of the walking bags of cellulite spots her, yells: “Hey, don't do that!,” and runs up to the open window and attempts to strike her. The white woman has a surprise, though, she's got a Taser (I gotta get one of those things for myself), and gives her a shock. Yes, at times, there is sweet justice in this universe.

N.S.: Yes, Jerry, this is a veritable catalogue of stereotypes. Note, too that the “reporter” identified the witnesses/crime victims, while not id’ing the perps. This in order to aid and abet the perps in escaping any punishment, via their hunting down, intimidating, and harming, all the way to murdering the vic/witnesses.

In my own reporting, I have gone so far as to “anonymize” people who spoke to me on relatively minor matters, because they were low-level employees who were at the bottom of the totem pole, and were in danger of being fired and whitelisted by sadists up the line.

Caught on Camera Shoplifting Fight [sic] over Cheetos CBS News 8 San Diego, CA News Station KFMB

Breaking News: “Terrorist” Attack Outside of England’s Most Radical Mosque, in Finsbury Park, London During Ramadam, Leaves Several Wounded and One Dead, so Far; Muslims Assume Casualties are All Moslem, Attacker Non-Moslem, and thus that Attack was “100%” Terrorism; CNN and Moslem Allies are in “Frontlash” Mode

By Nicholas Stix

We’ve been watching this story for about 30 minutes. At first, the CNN host, Ana Cabrera, was interviewing a British national at length, named Cynthia Vanzella, whom the chryon falsely identified as a “witness” (“WITNESSED LONDON INCIDENT”).

It soon became evident that Vanzella had witnessed nothing. She had heard a commotion down the street. From her apartment window, she could not even identify the sex of the presumed attacker, but admitted that she saw a video shot after the incident, and was able to identify a man being shoved by the crowd that had formed, towards the police, who took him into custody.

Cabrera: “Again, that was witness Cynthia Vanzella, who was near the attack in London, and who saw people who were in a panic.”

I also did not hear Vanzella say that people were in a “panic”; that was Ana Cabrera’s editorializing.

Ana Cabrera also interviewed other fake witnesses, like a (young?) female, “Rayan,” who said she’d been inside the mosque. Cabrera had to remind the woman that one of her friends was supposedly one of the wounded.

When Cabrera asked “Rayan” if she thought the attack was “terrorism,” the latter replied, “100%.”

Cabrera repeatedly spoke with terrorist propagandist, Aslahan Iftikhar, who was certain this was an act of terrorism, and who lied, with the dog-eared assertion that if the attacker had been Moslem, police would have immediately called the attack, “terrorism,” which just happened to be the opposite of the truth.

If anything, that police have not identified the suspect, and (Cabrera) “have not called this a terrorist act,” suggest if anything that the attacker is a Moslem. When a terrorist act is committed by a white man, the authorities divulge that fact very quickly.

Aslahan Iftikhar continued, “It is an act of terrorism when anyone tries to kill a large group of people,” regardless of the ethnicity or religion of the attacker.

Rayan: “He tried to kill a lot of people, so obviously it was a terrorist act.”

Cabrera: “So, you believe Muslims were targeted?”

Rayan: “100%.”

“Muslim Council of Britain says vics were leaving mosque.”

CNN National Security Analyst Peter Berger,” was so used to denying the obvious about terrorist attacks that he started out with weasel words—“If indeed it was terrorism”—before switching to, “And there’s very doubt in my mind that it was terrorism.”

In between, Berger mentioned that Finsbury Park mosque “has long attracted Islamists,” but sought to use that fact in support of terrorists (aka Moslems).

Berger: “Terrorism can come from many different directions:” left, right, “neo-Nazis, anti-Immigrant activists.”

Berger offered no examples of terrorism from “neo-Nazis, anti-Immigrant activists,” and did not even mention Islam as a source of terrorism.

Aslahan Iftikhar: “If the driver of the van were Muslim, there can be little doubt that act would have been called terrorism.”

Iftikhar cited I believe two attacks on Moslems, to make the specious argument that there has been widespread terrorism against them.

Then we heard the voice of “Juliette Kayyem, Former Assistant Secretary, Homeland Security Department” (who used to promote herself as “Security Mom”):

“Police are being very quiet about this targeted attack against the Muslim community.”

“Police must harden” targets such as mosques.

Kayyem then tries to make “Christians in America” sympathize with Moslems in Britain, by citing a mass murder that had whatsoever to do with religion: “The church attack in South Carolina, targeting parishioners.”

That was the Dylan Roof attack, which had nothing at all to do with religion, and everything to do with race.

Kayyem got even nuttier:

Either England or London is the “center for the kind of diversity many nations wish they could have.”

While I was watching, CNN activist Ana Cabrera only interviewed Moslems and pro-Moslem activists and “witnesses.” Neither she nor anyone she spoke with mentioned that the method of this attack is from the jihad playbook, nor that Moslems commit terrorist attacks on other Moslems all the time, nor that they also commit false flag actions all the time. Finally, no one mentioned that the police’s reticence at ID’ing the suspect suggests that he was not white.

Multicultural Father’s Day Wrap-Up

By Nicholas Stix

At Countenance, natch, whose Blogmeister reminds us that in East St. Louis, Father’s Day is the most confusing day of the year.

Father’s Day Meditations and Quotations

By Nicholas Stix

[Postscript: When I asked my 17-year-old chief of research what the most important rule in fatherhood is, he offered, "Don't drop the baby."

Another positive rule occurred to me that I offered to my older sister a few months ago, who also only has one kid: You gotta have backup children.]

Fatherhood is one of those things where it seems everyone is an expert, especially, as my mom likes to say, people who never had kids.

It breaks philosophy because for every rule one might formulate, there are exceptions that, whether one or 1,000, make the rule seem foolish or invalid.

One can still come up with unobjectionable maxims—love your children—but they are vacuous.

How to be a good father can’t be taught directly, though there are countless flesh-and-blood lessons on how not to be a father:

• Don’t have children with crazy, wicked, or evil women
• Don’t leave your children physically unprotected (that rule includes, Don’t desert your children)
• Don’t let your children go hungry or thirsty
• Use balance in disciplining your children
• Don’t have children if you have no means of supporting them; and
• If you are not father material, make sure not to have children.

If there are any positive rules about fatherhood, they are:

• Have children with females who are maternally oriented; paradoxically, trust your gut; and above all, be lucky, for as old ballplayers like Keith Hernandez like to say, “It’s better to be lucky than good.”

Quotes on Fatherhood

The first is via Brainy Quote. The next six, are courtesy of Quotery.

Fatherhood is great because you can ruin someone from scratch.
Jon Stewart

My father used to play with my brother and me in the yard. Mother would come out and say, “You’re tearing up the grass.” “We’re not raising grass,” Dad would reply. “We’re raising boys.”
Harmon Killebrew

Guns don’t kill people, dads with daughters do.

One father is more than a hundred schoolmasters.
George Herbert

I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father’s protection.
Sigmund Freud

When a father gives to his son, both laugh; when a son gives to his father, both cry.
Yiddish Proverb

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.
Mark Twain

Father and Son

Many years ago... many, many years ago, I brought up a boy, and I said to him, “Son, if you ever become a writer, try to write a good part for your old man sometime.” Well, by cracky, that's what he did!

Walter Huston’s speech, upon winning the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in 1949, for The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, which was adapted and directed by his son, John.

America’s Father, and America’s Artist: A Happy Father’s Day to My Readers (Pictorial Essay)



By Nicholas Stix

Happy Father’s Day to all of the fathers reading this, and all of the children and wives who have them!


2 O'Clock Feeding


Father and Son in Church


I'll have to find out what year this is from. The father resembles Robert Young, who starred in the stupendously popular TV comedy, Father Knows Best. The question then is, did Father Knows Best influence Rockwell, or vice-versa?







The Report Card

Father Helping Son with Homework

Breaking Home Ties
1 comment:

great pictures ...Rockwell is one of my favorite modern artists..
Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 2:05:00 AM EDT


Anonymous said...
Nice images from a great era.I think it's illegal to show whites in such a favorable light nowadays.
---GR Anonymous
Monday, June 20, 2016 at 12:10:00 AM EDT

Anonymous said...
NO good. ONLY whitey men with their whitey offspring. Where is the diversity? A whitey man finds a whitey woman, they marry and mate and produce whitey children. What a quaint concept.
Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 1:16:00 PM EDT

Sometimes, No News is Bad News

By Nicholas Stix

The Mets lost yet again to the Nats today (Saturday), and that ain’t news!

Study Shows that CNN is Completely Obsessed with Attacking Donald Trump

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Study: CNN is Completely Obsessed with Donald Trump — and Not in a Good Way

By Rich Noyes
May 16, 2017 12:47 P.M. EDT


CNN claims it’s right down the middle, somewhere between the left-wing MSNBC and the more conservative-friendly Fox News Channel. But an MRC study of an entire day of CNN’s coverage shows the network spent almost all of its time covering the Trump presidency, with a heavily skewed roster of anti-Trump guests and on-air commentators.

To get a handle on CNN’s news priorities during the Trump era, a team of MRC analysts reviewed all of the cable network’s programming on Friday, May 12, starting with the 4am ET Early Start and continuing through the 11pm ET CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, a total of 20 hours of material.

After excluding commercials, teases and promos, our analysts found 13 hours, 27 minutes of actual news coverage, an average of just over 40 minutes per hour. Of that, a whopping 92 percent (12 hours, 19 minutes) was devoted to the Trump presidency, with a mere 68 minutes — a little more than three minutes per hour — devoted to all of the other news of the day.

With the exception of about 21 minutes of live coverage of a White House briefing about the President’s upcoming trip to the Middle East and a smattering of coverage of Melissa McCarthy’s parody of White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer in an upcoming SNL appearance, CNN used that time to endlessly analyze the President’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, then a three-day-old story.


Much of that airtime consisted of interviews and panel discussions giving their assessment of Trump. MRC tallied 123 appearances by guests or panelists over the course of the day. Many of CNN’s analysts showed up in multiple newscasts, each of which would count as a separate appearance. (There were 77 unique appearances by people identified as CNN analysts or commentators, or 62% of all guests).

The vast majority of all of CNN’s guests that day (96, or 78% of the total) were Trump critics, compared to a handful of pro-Trump guests (just seven, or 6% of the total). Another 13 guests were neutral, and seven offered mixed assessments of the administration.


Looking just at CNN’s own on-air talent, the results were even more tilted, with 69 appearances by anti-Trump analysts, vs. just two for pro-Trump analysts — CNN political commentator Paris Dennard, who appeared during the latter half of the 3:00pm ET hour, and CNN political commentator Jason Miller, a former Trump campaign aide, who appeared in the 8pm ET hour of Anderson Cooper 360.

CNN counter-terrorism analyst Phil Mudd, for example, harshly condemned the President during appearances in the 6am, 8am, 11am, 5pm, 8pm, and 9pm ET hours. “Give the President of the United States a pacifier and a rattle and put him in the crib,” Mudd declared during his 11am ET appearance.


Nine hours later, Mudd was asked about those comments by 8pm anchor Anderson Cooper. “The President is losing credibility by the day for childish comments that undercut his ability to have traction as President,” Mudd repeated.

During the 6am hour of New Day, CNN political analyst David Gregory claimed Trump’s firing of Comey “undermine[d] our democratic institutions.” During the 9am hour of CNN Newsroom, weekend host Brian Stelter popped up to claim that “the story of the first 100 days was dishonesty. So far, the biggest story of the second 100 days has been dishonest.”

Soon after the start of the 1pm ET Wolf, CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger said she detected in the Comey story “the kind of bullying tactics that he [Trump] used when he was a businessman. When people would disagree with him, he would bully them, and bully them, and bully them.”

Later, in the 3pm ET hour of Newsroom, CNN political commentator Ana Navarro, a Jeb Bush supporter during the primaries, said Republicans needed to rally against the President: “I’m very troubled by the escalation of Donald Trump’s behavior, of President Trump’s tweets....So many Americans feel that the government is in crisis.”


During the 8pm hour of AC360, CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin complained that some “were normalizing behavior that would have been seen as completely outrageous by any other President.” Then in the 10pm hour of CNN Tonight, weekend host Fareed Zakaria said Trump’s suggestion that he might have taped a conversation with Comey was “bullshit,” sniffing that “this is the farcical version of Watergate, where the guy says, ‘I’ve got a tape,’ and actually he’s got nothing in his hands.”

The imbalance in guests was amplified by the frequent editorializing of CNN’s own hosts and anchors. During the 7am hour of New Day, host Chris Cuomo referred to clips of White House officials struggling to explain the decision to fire Comey as “the mendacity montage, because it’s just filled with lies.”

Opening his noon-hour Inside Politics, CNN host John King hyped that the “initial White House account of how and why Comey was fired lies in shambles, reduced to a heap of falsehoods.”

This review looked at just a single day, but the pattern is overwhelming: CNN is providing nearly wall-to-wall coverage of the Trump presidency, and is anything but down-the-middle in their approach.

Thanks to MRC’s Geoffrey Dickens and Mike Ciandella for assisting in the research for this article.

Saturday, June 17, 2017

World’s Most Brilliant Darwinist: There’s No Such Thing as Genocide: It’s Just Doin’ What Comes Naturally!


Annie Get Your Gun: “Doin’ What Comes Natur’lly,” Sung by Betty Hutton


Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

American Renaissance magazine
Vol 10, No. 2
February 1999

Is There a Superior Race?

Crisis in the Front National

The French Press and the Crisis

Anniversary of a Calamity

The White Man’s Disease

O Tempora, O Mores!

Letters from Readers

Is There a Superior Race?

A philosophical answer to the inevitable question.

Whether some races are superior to others is a question all racialists must consider, if only because their critics are sure to force them to. Just say that whites are, on average, more intelligent than blacks, and you will be told “Oh, so you think whites are superior to blacks.” If you say that Jews are, on average, more intelligent than gentiles you will be lectured that that sort of thinking led to the Holocaust.

Behind all this passionate confusion lie real issues. Academics tend to duck them, from a desire for scientific neutrality or simply to avoid trouble. They will say that race differences in IQ and temperament have nothing to do with questions of value, that the greater intelligence of whites, for example, is just a fact of nature like blood pressure. But very few people view intelligence this way, and I am sure the typical psychologist prefers that his children have IQs of 120 rather than 80. In fact, both views of racial differences are valid. The scientist’s “Sgt. Friday,” just-the-facts-ma’am approach is basically right, I believe, but at the same time, we must acknowledge that group differences touch people’s deepest hopes and fears.


To sort out these issues we must revisit an old riddle common in college philosophy courses: the place of value in the universe. The question is whether justice is “natural” or “conventional” — that is, whether right and wrong, good and bad, beautiful and ugly are objective features of the world, or fictions with no basis in the nature of things. Incidentally, only Europeans have ever reached the level of intellectual abstraction necessary to pose such questions, and the first to do so were the Greeks. They wanted to know whether judgments of good and bad are discovered or invented, whether they are based on reason or on mere projections of human emotion onto the real world. The skeptical view implies that nothing — including one or another race — is inherently better or worse than anything else.



The most eminent ancients — Socrates, Plato and Aristotle — did see value as an objective feature of reality accessible to reason, but they have always had opponents. Socrates’ contemporary, Xenophanes, joked that if horses could draw, they would draw their gods as horses. Plato thought that most men failed to understand the existence of objective good. According to him, the Greek-in-the-street thought that all sensible men were profoundly selfish but had reluctantly agreed to limit their pursuit of self-interest to avoid a catastrophic war of all against all. These agreed-upon limits set on selfishness — which are necessary evils — are the laws of justice. They are like traffic rules: It is useful for everyone to agree to stop on red and go on green, but no one imagines that there is something inherent about red that makes stopping when you see it obligatory. (It is a tribute to Greek genius that the hoipolloi had an opinion on so deep a question.)

Although I have great respect for the belief that God determines what is good and what is evil, I ’m afraid I must count myself among the skeptics. As I see it, nothing in the world is good or bad, or right or wrong, or better or worse. People, like other organisms, have preferences, some of which are more common in some groups than others, but none is objectively better or worse than any other. They just are.

It is not right or good that a lion catch the gazelle he is after, although a catch will certainly please him, and, as Xenophanes might have added, if lions could talk they would doubtless say that gazelle-catching was “proper” and “what all decent lions deserve.” Gazelles, for their part, dislike being caught and would, if given voice, accuse lions of violating their rights. In fact, the universe roots for neither. There is no neutral standpoint from which to rank the lion’s evolved appetite for gazelles against the gazelle’s evolved aversion to being lunch. It is not possible to say which is right or wrong.

So in my view it makes no sense to say that one race is better or worse, superior or inferior, to another. It makes as little sense as saying that lions are “better” than gazelles.

Before I go into my reasons for this, let me add a few words about that singular value called morality. Man alone has preferences about preferences, his own and those of others. For instance, most of us not only want to be honest and punctual, we want others to be honest and punctual, too. In fact, most of us feel distinctly uneasy about doing things we don’t want others to do. This higher-order desire, that our actions conform to general rules that we can also prescribe for others, is the essence of morality. A person is said to be conscientious or principled when he subjects his behavior to the golden rule, the how-would-I-like-it-if-everyone-did-that test.

Concern for morality, like other traits, is not equally distributed. In Why Race Matters and elsewhere I cite evidence that, on average, blacks are less concerned than whites about the golden rule. This is clearly suggested by the very high rates of black criminality not only in the United States but around the world. At a more mundane level it is also reflected, for example, in the unwillingness of many blacks to take turns and a tendency of blacks to “talk back” to movies (which displays a lack of sympathy with audience members who want to watch in silence).

Having taught philosophy for many years to a “diverse” student body, I have been able to compare the preferences and actions of different groups by using a classic philosophical conundrum. When I introduce ethics I always ask my students what you should do if a supermarket cashier gives you too much change, and there is no chance of discovery if you pocket it. While I have not kept precise statistics, disproportionately more black students say that “you’d be a fool” to return the money. Many back up their position by saying that the mistake is the cashier’s problem. When I ask what they would do if they were the cashier many reply, irrelevantly, that they wouldn’t let it happen to them.

Why conformity to universal rules is important to whites may be linked to another Caucasian specialty, the quest for scientific knowledge. The hallmark of scientific explanation is that it follows general rules. Whenever you say that A is why B happened, you implicitly refer to a law of nature. When you say the window broke because the baseball hit it, you have in mind that whenever glass of that sort is struck with a sufficiently great force, it shatters. We find events comprehensible when they fall into general patterns, and we find behavior acceptable only when it obeys rules. It is no coincidence that the race that invented science is also the one pre-eminently concerned with right and wrong.

Having said this, I reiterate that being moral — being concerned with the golden rule — isn’t better in any absolute sense than being amoral. It is a preference, neither right nor wrong, that some people feel more intensely than others, and that still others lack altogether.


The basic reason for skepticism about values is that they explain nothing. There are, as I see it, only two grounds for believing in something: It can be observed, or it is needed to explain something else that can be observed. I believe in elephants because I have seen them at zoos. I believe in electromagnetic waves because, if they didn ’t exist, television could not be explained. Values are not observable — you cannot literally see the goodness of helping a blind man cross the street. Nor is there any phenomenon that requires values to explain it. Nothing in nature happens because it is right; lions chase gazelles and gazelles run away because of natural selection, not because it is “right.” Human beings act as they do, not because of right and wrong, but because of their convictions about right and wrong, and I believe these convictions are ultimately explained by natural selection.

So we seem to be back at the Sgt. Friday position, with its corollary that high intelligence and moral concern are not inherently better than dim-witted amorality. There is no progress over evolutionary time, just change — tendencies, for instance, for organisms to display more intelligence, but no direction towards something inherently better.

This position has its attractions, chiefly as an all-purpose reply to inevitable nagging about “racism”: You can doggedly insist on the facts of race and disavow any moral interpretation. But not only will this never satisfy egalitarians, it misrepresents what people ordinarily have in mind when they make comparisons. People do not usually intend some sort of cosmic, absolute judgment when they make comparisons or talk about superiority. Not even the most fanatical users of Apple computers claim that Macs are just better than PCs, period, in the eyes of God. What they have in mind is that Macs are better than PCs according to certain accepted standards like speed and ease of use. Beef is not graded according to some mysterious quality of inherent goodness, but by tenderness and marbling. Of course, accepted standards may change, but so long as the standards in force are clear, there should be no misunderstanding.

In fact, people have four definite standards more or less clearly in mind when they compare human groups, and relative to those standards it is possible to draw conclusions about different races.

1) The first of these standards is influence. The most salient test for ranking individuals is influence: How different would the world be if so-and-so had never been born? (Michael Hart uses this test in his book The 100, which is his list of the most important people in history.) Columbus is more important than Joe Blow because the world would have been very different without Columbus, whereas Joe Blow’s absence would scarcely have been noticed. This test applies to groups as well as individuals. The Greeks were more important than the Iroquois because they made more difference to the world as a whole.


Western technology


It is a matter of verifiable fact that the influence of whites dominates mankind. Had blacks never existed, Europe and Asia would be pretty much as they are today. Had Asians never existed, the world would be somewhat different, but still recognizable. But a world in which there had never been Europeans is unimaginable. It is not just that everyone else has been Westernized in the superficial respects that are easy to criticize, like clothing and music. Western science and technology shape mankind’s building, trade, transportation, communication and education. Cars are almost everywhere, and where there aren’t cars there are bicycles — both Western inventions. People pay bills by check, an innovation of late medieval Europe. They erect large structures according to mechanical principles discovered in the West. Terrorists attack with guns of Western design and explosives mixed according to Western chemistry. Every high school student in the world learns Cartesian co-ordinates, another product of Caucasian ingenuity.

2) The other side of the coin of influence is emulation. Every other culture wants — covets — the control over nature that Western man has achieved by scientific methods of thought. It is important to emphasize this standard, for egalitarians always describe Caucasian influence as “imperialism,” as if whites forced it on the rest of the world. Not so; other countries would give a great deal for Western standards of living, infant mortality rates, longevity, productivity and individual freedom. While from a cosmic point of view no culture may be better than another, when all sides agree in prizing the products of one culture, there is from a practical point of view not much to argue about.

This is not to say that other cultures always realize or admit that they emulate the West. They often treat the fruits of Caucasian science as natural resources they are entitled to. Negotiations about sea-bed mining are forever breaking down when backward countries demand that the Western world give them their “fair share” of the world’s mineral wealth. They ignore the fact that it takes Western ingenuity and effort to extract it, and that effort and ingenuity deserve to be rewarded. But it is clear that if a magic wand could give the Third World Western skills, Third-World critics of “imperialism” would wave it without hesitation.

Western values are emulated not just collectively, but individually. Everyone admires the traits in which whites excel, chiefly intelligence. Do not be fooled by the esteem in which athletic and sexual prowess are held by some groups. Intelligence may not be valued as highly elsewhere as it is at an American university but there is no culture in which the local equivalent of “bright” is not a compliment nor “stupid” an insult. The picture is fuzzier for traits like law-abidingness, but on the whole Caucasians and Mongoloids excel Negroids in individual traits that members of all three groups prize. In many of these same traits Mongoloids slightly excel Caucasians, while in others — perhaps originality — Caucasians excel Mongoloids.

To repeat, it is a verifiable fact that all cultures agree on the value of certain traits. This is why racialists are always accused of claiming racial superiority when they note the high intelligence of whites. The average person values intelligence, and assumes that other people, including psychometricians and racialists, do too. So when he hears whites described as more intelligent than blacks, he naturally concludes that the speaker is calling whites superior. This, after all, is the inference he would draw from the same data. Deep down, even egalitarians view intelligence as an important standard of personal value, so, since they would conclude that whites are superior if they admitted to themselves that whites are more intelligent, they foist this view on racialists. Hearing someone say a steak is tender and juicy, you would as a matter of course assume he is praising it. You would be surprised and a little doubtful if he insisted he was only describing the steak’s properties.

3) Closely related to the emulation standard is that of efficiency. Given certain goals or ends common to all groups, one group is considered “superior” when its means to those ends are most efficient. “Better” often means “is a better means.” Crop rotation, for example, is better than sacrificing to the Sun God, because it produces a bigger harvest. By this means-ends test, Caucasians have created a verifiably better civilization because it more readily secures certain universal goals.

Every group has wanted indoor lighting, for instance. Most have achieved it with dangerous, expensive fire, while whites achieved it with cheap, easily controlled electricity. Every culture has wanted the ability to travel from one place to another. All have attained walking speed — about 3 miles per hour. A few have mastered the horse, allowing them to move at about 10 miles per hour. Caucasian mastery of jet propulsion allows people to travel in comfort at 600 miles per hour.

Of course, the desirability of speed and indoor lighting are not inscribed in stone, and one can imagine a society consciously eschewing them. The Pennsylvania Dutch still ride carriages rather than drive cars. But since the desire for technological advance is in fact so widely shared, and Caucasians are better at achieving it than anyone else, Caucasians are “superior” in the sense of having developed the best means to certain universal ends.

Technological preeminence is not the only source of Caucasoid means-ends superiority. Let me describe some recent experiments that shed light on how Western moral attitudes create wealth and other generally accepted goods. Western morality is more efficient.

Suppose someone gives me $10, but with the following proviso: I am to offer you any part of that $10, from one cent to $5 to $9.99. You then decide whether or not to take my offer. If you take it, you get what I have offered and I keep the rest. If you reject my offer, the $10 is taken back and we both get nothing. We both know these conditions. What do I offer you? What offer should you accept from me? (There is a real-world parallel: Having discovered there is gold on my land, but being physically weak, I offer you a share of the profits to mine it for me. If you turn me down, the gold stays in the ground and neither of us is any better off. What deal should we strike?)

From a strictly logical point of view, one would expect you to take any offer, down to a penny for you and $9.99 for me. After all, even a lopsided deal like that leaves you a penny richer. However, when this “take it or leave it” game has been tried on Germans, Americans, Yugoslavs, Japanese and Israelis, offers that deviate significantly from $5 for each person are almost always rejected — in effect punished — and no player ever accepts a split as unbalanced as $2.50 for him, $7.50 for the fellow making the offer. What is more, very few players from these countries ever offer a deal significantly more advantageous to himself than $5/$5, perhaps because each player knows that no such offer will be accepted.

The reason for this seems to be a sense of equity, probably innate, that moves players to punish behavior they see as unfair, even at some cost to themselves. This moral indignation, though it may appear irrational and counterproductive, is one of those rules by which sensible men bind themselves for the sake of their own and everyone else’s long-run profit. For imagine a society of egotists with no compunction about making lopsided offers in the interest of maximizing short-term gain. No one egotistical enough to feel entitled to a $9.99/1¢ split is likely to settle for the one cent when someone makes that lopsided offer to him, so in such a society few beneficial bargains will be made. In such a society I will offer you one percent of the profits for mining my gold, you will give me a piece of your mind, and we will both remain poorer than we need to be. In a society where everyone has a sense of equity and 50/50 offers are apt to be made, these offers are also apt to be accepted, and everyone will become better and better off. Emphasis on equity leads to mutually enriching bargains.

My sense is that Mongoloid moral systems put less emphasis than Caucasoid on conscience but endorse similar rules of fairness. I would love to see take-it-or-leave-it experiments with subjects of different races, although I cannot imagine such experiments being allowed in the present climate. I would predict that racial differences would be found in the lopsidedness of offers made and in offers accepted, with whites and Asians tending toward a 50/50 equilibrium, with blacks more inclined to make — but disinclined to accept — offers deviating from this midpoint. Please recall the “you’d be a fool” view of keeping incorrect change. This attitude would surely encourage short-sighted, unbalanced offers; would it also lead to the acceptance of such offers (since a penny is better than nothing) or militate against them? I suspect the latter, but I would like some data.

4) A fourth criterion of group excellence is power: When the ordinary person calls one group superior to another, he may mean that members of the first group can be counted on to defeat equal numbers of the second in battle. However unlovely, this is a standard people often have in mind, and there is no doubt that Caucasians predominate. The weapons they have invented would allow easy conquest of the planet, and they would meet resistance only from societies that have managed to imitate the weapons of the West. Nor is there much doubt that, say, a thousand Caucasoid males could organize themselves into a more effective fighting force capable of defeating a thousand Negroids. It is not clear that whites would have equal success against Asians, but again it must be remembered that ever since the Middle Ages, Asian armies have done reasonably well against white armies only by using white inventions. If in our imaginary 1,000-on-1,000 battle each group is restricted to weapons developed by its own society, whites would certainly win every time.

This standard is not as brutish as it sounds, since, for better or worse, military power is the upshot of traits that are admired in their own right: courage, intelligence (to devise better weapons and better treatment for the wounded) discipline, audacity, and concern for the group.

Superiority by this standard also has some interesting demographic implications. The first is that whites may well govern — that is, occupy virtually all positions of power — no matter what ideology is dominant. Blacks and non-European Hispanics may become more numerous in the United States, but even in a democracy they will have to have someone to vote for, and whites will generally manage to be the ones that get into a position to be elected. (We see this with the sexes: there are more female than male voters, but at the national level virtually all leaders are men.) This may explain why whites rule in Brazil, even though the black population is proportionally much larger than in the United States. It is not that blacks think whites are more fit to rule, it’s just that the naturally dominant group always does dominate.

Thus, I fully expect that when 2050 rolls around, and assuming (as the demographers assure us) whites become a minority, whites will still rule because they will be better organized. However, at some point they will be unthroned through sheer weight of numbers — perhaps by the 22nd century.

Thus, according to four common criteria — influence, emulation, efficiency and power — whites come out on top, but as I have pointed out, a determined skeptic can reject all four. We can fully expect egalitarians to reject them, at least in public: “What’s so great about influence or intellect or the capacity for moral thinking?” I doubt that anyone can mean this question seriously, but it can’t be answered except by appealing to other standards egalitarians can also disingenuously challenge. All anyone can do is point out that we do care about these things, and ask anyone who doesn’t to suggest traits we should care about more.

As I emphasize in my book, the values we have as individuals and as a culture are the ones we can’t help but use. While upbringing counts to some extent, our values are the heritage of eons of selection. We are born with them. That is the way we are. One can be objective about one’s own values for a few hours in the study, but detachment becomes impossible as soon as the world presses in. Values are like emotions. I know intellectually that the grief I might feel for the death of a son is a biological adaptation — nature’s way of making sure I take better care of my other offspring — but realizing that emotions are a trick of neural wiring would not reduce my suffering one bit.

The much touted “wisdom of the East” that teaches the extirpation of emotions is foolish. It can easily counsel an alienation from one’s own deepest commitments, and this trivializes life. The Western approach of engagement with the world, with its attendant risks of suffering, is more honest.

Each group therefore finds its own standards best, and judges the rest of the world by them. How could it be otherwise? A group of people that disapproved of its own nature would suffer a spiritual dissonance not conducive to survival, and psychologists tell us that pride in one’s ethnic group is a sign of mental health (although this sort of pride is supposed to be reserved for non-whites). By Caucasian standards Caucasians are best.

Critics of white “ethnocentrism,” like Capt. Reynaud in Casablanca, pretend to be “shocked I tell you, shocked” that whites give the highest grades to white writers, artists, composers, statesmen and inventors. What do they expect? If blacks preferred non-black culture, these same critics would say that whites have taught blacks to hate themselves. In any case, even if ethnocentrism is bad it is inevitable. We have the values we have, and we have no choice but to apply them.

So what should you say if someone asks you whether you believe in racial superiority? Ask him what he means by “superior,” what standards he has in mind. If he can’t or won’t answer, remind him that the question was his. If he doesn’t know what “superior” means, he is as much as admitting that he doesn’t know what he is talking about — and if he doesn’t know what he is talking about, why should you continue the conversation?

If he says accusingly “You know darn well what I mean,” pin him down: Tell him you know what you mean, but not what he means. If you finally elicit a concrete standard from him apply it, but remind him that any aspersions cast are his. For instance, if he says creation of material wealth is a measure of superiority, point out that, yes, white societies are richer than others and therefore better by his criterion, and that it is he, not you, who is assuming the value of wealth. This tactic will shame the most shameless egalitarian. In his heart he believes that, by his own criteria, whites (and Asians) are better than blacks. Since he will never admit this, with luck you can at least get him to go away.

Prof. Levin is in the Department of Philosophy of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. This article is adapted from his remarks at the 1998 American Renaissance conference. A review of his book, Why Race Matters (available from Praeger Publishers), was the cover story of the October, 1997 issue of AR.

Mark Steyn on the London Tower of Rabble Fire



Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

I thank An Old Friend for the heads-up.

The Great Fire of a New London
By Mark Steyn
June 16, 2017
Steyn on Europe

No black detail is too absurd for today's world. And so it happens that the first named victim of the towering inferno in North Kensington is Mohammed Alhajali, a Syrian refugee who arrived as a teenager with his brothers in London four years ago and somehow wound up being housed in a flat in Grenfell Tower. Launching a fund to raise money for his funeral, Kareen el Beyrouty, director of the Syria Solidarity Campaign, declared that "Mohammed Alhajali undertook a dangerous journey to flee war in Syria, only to meet death here in the UK, in his own home. His dream was to be able to go back home one day and rebuild Syria."

Which is apparently a lot safer. His friend and fellow Syrian refugee Abdulaziz Almashi tells the BBC that "Syria is a war zone. For six years I've seen videos of shelling of buildings. I've never seen a building in Syria burn like this." Back in the war zone, Mohammed's mother is planning to undertake her own dangerous journey to London to visit her surviving boys and bid farewell to the son who found freedom and was consumed in the flames: "At least I can see his grave, I can kiss where he's buried."

As anyone who's traveled the Third World or even parts of post-Soviet Eastern Europe knows, it is easier to put up a tall building than to maintain it. Authoritarian regimes like the prestige of skyscrapers, even stubby ones, but you notice around dusk that there are no lights on the upper floors because the elevators no longer work; the landings in the emergency stairwell are used as "temporary" storage space that has inevitably become permanent. Not all of these problems are yet as common in a First World city such as London, but some are: at Grenfell Tower, for example, the only emergency exit was obstructed inter alia by piles of cardboard, a busted space heater and an old mattress. Other problems not quite seemly in a supposedly wealthy metropolis had also accumulated - so there were no sprinklers, and non-working fire alarms, and "cladding" from a recent remodel helped fan the flames and spread the fire and quickly became, for those seeking an issue in a tragedy, the word of the week. Nevertheless, clad or unclad, Grenfell Tower embodies what has happened to London, Paris and other European cities in their transformation from national capitals to "global cities", as Sadiq Khan likes to call his fiefdom.

Contemporary London is like the old New Yorker ad of a Broadway marquee boasting a critical rave - "Fun for Young and Old!" - and underneath a dissatisfied middle-aged man exiting the theatre. Europe's "global cities" are for the very rich and very poor, and the middle class are exiting the city. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, wherein Grenfell Tower is located, is also home to thousands of ambitious young French people fleeing the economic sclerosis of their own country, to the point where London is now "France's sixth-biggest city". But, as Le Monde recently pointed out, in London the average monthly rent (£2,600) is higher than the average monthly salary (£2,300). As with Paris, it is increasingly a city for the super-rich, and the poor who serve them. Or come to serve them, but wind up on welfare as aunts and cousins make their way to join them.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is a microcosm of the general landscape in a way that no other part of London can quite match. The average salary in the borough is £123,000, the highest in the land. But the median is £32,700 - and, as the BBC reports, the gap between those two indicators is the widest of any borough in the country. So you have Kazakh oligarchs and Saudi princes - and then Grenfell Tower. The immediate vicinity is supposedly among the "most deprived" ten per cent of English neighborhoods, but within a few yards dwell telly presenters and other minor celebrities all out in force in the early hours of Wednesday morning uploading the conflagration in their midst to their Twitter feeds. If you've been following our daily serialization of H G Wells' classic The Time Machine, it all had a very Eloi-and-Morlocks quality to it - a bifurcated humanity in close proximity but with entirely separate housing arrangements: in one world, the economy hums along on selling undistinguished row houses back and forth for ever more preposterous seven-figure sums; in the other, a lower order is warehoused not (as in Wells' world) underground but in the sky, in packed and teeming turrets - where there is nothing to fear but (as in Wells) fire.

Oh, to be sure, wealthy Londoners now live in the sky, too. In the transformed scrub behind Kings Cross Station, where 20 years ago the poxiest whores on the planet plied a cheerless trade, a two-bedroom flat now costs £2.1 million, and downstairs in the pedestrianized plazas free chamber-music recitals accompany your macchiato in a faintly contrived cafe life whose ersatz quality is nevertheless diligently maintained. Not too far from Grenfell Tower, a block of similar height has gone up in Merchant Square: the penthouse sold for £7.5 million; there are no mattresses blocking the stairwell. For moneyed Londoners, the word "flat" still has pejorative associations, prefaced too often with the qualifier "council" - as in an early hit co-written under a pseudonym by our old friend Leslie Bricusse:

My Old Man's A Dustman

He wears a dustman's 'at

He wears gorblimey trousers

An' he lives in a council flat.

Grenfell Tower was a block of "council flats" - or "public housing", as they say in America. So for the luxury sky palaces the term "apartment" seems to be preferred - as in that evocative lyric by the BBC's Eric Maschwitz in "These Foolish Things": "A tinkling piano in the next apartment..." Not a lot of those in Grenfell Tower.

And thus the bifurcated London of early Wednesday morning, where Londoners with Anglo-Celtic-European names watched as those with Arab and African and Asian names were consumed by the flames. In Kings Cross, a £2.1 million two-bedroom flat will be occupied by a two-salary couple with one designer kid or a home office. In Grenfell Tower, the arithmetic gets a bit more haphazard. The building contained 120 flats of either one or two bedrooms, and supposedly more of the former. Yet there were reports that over 600 people were present. It seems unlikely anyone will ever know for certain - at least compared with, say, who died in what street on which night during the Blitz. But the desperate fliers pinned to street railings tell their own story:

No one has heard from 16-year-old Nurhuda El-Wahabi, 21-year-old Yasmin El-Wahabi and their family. They live on the 21st floor. Please spread this round and keep a look out for their family.


"The Choucair family is missing in the Grenfell Tower fire. They lived on the 22nd floor."

The family was named as mother, Nadia Choucair, and daughters Mierna, 13, Fatima, 11, and Zeinab, three.

When the world comes to Mayor Khan's "global cities", this is the only way it can afford to live there. Last year, across town on the outer reaches of the District Line in East London, I took a stroll along streets of terraced houses marveling at the garbage piled up in the small front yards, far beyond what one would expect a "three-bedroom" house ever to be able to generate and certainly beyond the capacity of traditional municipal trash collection - those dustmen in gorblimey trousers. My expert local guide could tell from the mountains of detritus which addresses were ad hoc lodging houses for transient Romanian laborers and which were the compounds of vast extended families of fecund Bangladeshis. But in neither case do terms like "one-bedroom flat" and "three-bedroom house" have the same meaning they do for those marketing the delights of 3 Merchant Square.

"Merchant Square" is one of those names the realtors like - conjuring the solid, substantial ground on which the great mercantile "global cities" arise. "Grenfell Tower", on the other hand, is almost too English. The most famous Grenfell of all was Joyce, whose comic monologues and songs ("Stately as a Galleon") delighted British audiences until her death, in the self-same Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in 1979. I suspect that this Grenfell Tower was probably named after one of Joyce's cousins-by-marriage, the politico-banking-poetry-military Grenfells, as in the bankers Morgan Grenfell and the late Lord Desborough, whose obituary The Times accidentally published a quarter-century before his actual death. Elsewhere in the city, the tower blocks reflect the livelier preoccupations of local activists - "Winnie Mandela House" - but in Kensington and Chelsea even the eyesores evoke an older London.

And so, two days after the appalling conflagration, the great aged Queen comes to visit the survivors - like a scene from Joseph Roth's magnificent novel of the Hapsburg twilight, Radetzky March, in which the ancient Franz Josef tours a far-flung corner of the Crown Lands where the only Austrians are the soldiery. Here, though, the far-flung corner is a stone's throw from Buckingham Palace, and the only Englishmen are among the emergency services. In Roth's tale, no one can quite divine what's going on in the Emperor's head, just as no one quite knows what's going on in the Queen's: They are older than everyone else around, and they remember things that no one else does. Perhaps Her Majesty thinks back to those nightly Luftwaffe bombs, when nevertheless London bureaucrats could reliably tell you who had lived and who had died, or perhaps she goes back further, to the slums of Dickens' day and the Victorian reformers who labored to eliminate them, and wonders how it is that they seem to have arisen anew, reaching to the sky and teeming with peoples from every corner of the earth.

In the "global cities", someone has to foam the latte, and maintain the Tube tunnels, and clean the hospitals - and there are no Londoners or Parisians left. And so, in a real-estate market where (as Le Monde joked) the cupboard under the stairs Harry Potter's uncle locked him in is now a seven-figure "studio apartment", the great remorseless migrant tide crams ever more densely and perilously into the space that is left. And official London turns a blind eye - and moneyed London, media London, banking London is barely even aware of the favelas and shanties arising in their midst. That mattress blocking the emergency exit? Next time round there'll be children sleeping on it.

~If you're a member of The Mark Steyn Club from London, Paris or anywhere else, feel free to disagree with Mark in our comments section below. As for our serialization of The Time Machine mentioned above, join us for a brand new episode later today.