Tag Archives: anti-white

Blog

Dissecting Machete

17 Comments

Trailers

Machete Trailer in Grindhouse, 2007. “This is MaCHETay, with a special Cinco de Mayo message…to Arizona!”, May 2010. Machete – Official Trailer [HD]. Viva Machete, promotional page.

Origins

Interview with Danny Trejo and director Robert Rodriguez for Machete:

Trejo: Well, this is a dream come true. Robert and I talked about it 14 years ago while we were doing Desperado and he just said, you know what, you’re perfect for this character. Here’s this script, here’s the storyline, and I thought wow man, it’s a dream movie.

Rodriguez echoes this story, and also reveals his filmmaking secret: create situations where nothing but accidents happen.

When the Revolution Comes

‘Machete’ Stars Pick Their Badass Allies, MTV Movie News:

Given the rebellious and revolutionary nature of Machete the character, and his trajectory in the film, we asked the stars who they would choose as an ally in a revolution.

“I’d have to say Danny [Trejo],” Rodriguez said. “You know why? Because he’s got loyalty in his eyes. He looks like the kind of guy that will take survival seriously, protection seriously, love seriously.”

Cheech Marin agreed: “Danny Trejo, man, he’s the baddest. He’s great in this movie.”

There you have it. Choice revolution ally: Danny Trejo.

Response from Hate Experts

site:adl.org machete rodriguez – “Mazel tov, we have a grudge against the blonde, blue-eyed devils too.”

site:splc.org machete rodriguez – “No comment.”

site:nclr.org machete rodriguez – “MaCHETay? Never heard of it.”

T&A – Lindsay Lohan

Lindsay Lohan Naked, in Threesomes in “Machete”, CBS News:

Star’s First Movie in Three Years Has Lohan Dressed as a Nun and Toting a Gun

Actress Lindsay Lohan is taking a baby step back into the Hollywood mainstream this weekend with her first movie in three years. She has a small part in the new film “Machete,” which opens today.

But can “Machete” cut-through all the bad press Lohan has gotten this year?

[Deputy online editor of The Hollywood Reporter Lindsay] Powers said, “In this movie, she has threesomes with her mother, she’s naked for a big chunk of time. She has a scene where her father picks her up from a drug den. So, it’s really hard to separate her real life and her acting right there.”

Interesting, isn’t it, what Lohan thinks she has to do to redeem herself in the eyes of Hollywood’s machers.

How Lindsay Lohan Got Her ‘Machete’ Part: Start With Her Blonde Hair, PopEater.com:

Lindsay Lohan can thank her long, blonde hair for helping her nab a memorable role in ‘Machete.’

Director Robert Rodriguez tells PopEater that he was approached by a producer friend, who urged him to cast Lohan in the movie he was making, which is based on the fake ‘Machete’ trailer that appeared in his 2007 co-venture with Quentin Tarantino, ‘Grindhouse.’

“I had this shot of Danny in the waterfall with the wife and daughter,” says Rodriquez. “You could see the wife’s face, but you can’t see the daughter’s. And I thought, that could be Lindsay. Just curl the hair. But that’s the classic shot of the trailer that everyone knows.”

From there, Rodriguez “reverse engineered” and came up with a storyline for Lohan around the character, who became a drug-using wild child that drives her father crazy with her antics.

“I made a fake poster of her with some guns [from] a picture of her off the Internet and stuck her in a nun’s habit, and I showed [Lindsay] the poster,” says Rodriguez. “And she said, ‘Alright, I’m in.'”

Now go scroll back up and watch that Grindhouse trailer.

T&A – The Latina Bitches

Jessica Alba, Michelle Rodriguez Reveal Secrets Of ‘Machete’ Nude Scenes, MTV Movie News:

“I want to meet these guys who work in special effects and they are basically in charge of adding nipples,” Rodriguez added.

“No, no — there were no nipples, though!” Alba responded regarding her apparently post-production-enhanced shower.

“There weren’t?” Rodriguez asked, looking genuinely surprised. “I tried not to look because I thought that was a private moment that I shouldn’t be watching.”

“No, there was no nipple!” Alba insisted. “No, no, no, no nipple.”

Jessica Alba deftly defies stereotypes, tries out new roles, USATODAY.com:

“Working with a filmmaker that you believe in and that can push you, for me, was what I wanted to focus most on. And, it’s like, if I’m not going to spend time with my daughter, it has to be worth it.”

Apparently, Machete was well worth the time: It marks not only another chance to collaborate with Rodriguez but is also the half-Mexican Alba’s first Latina role.

She describes her immigration and customs enforcement officer character as “an intelligent, fierce, independent woman,” which made the role that much more appealing.

“For me, I never wanted to reinforce any stereotypes about Latin women, and that was why I’ve shied away from Latin characters I’ve been offered. Most of them reinforced the stigmas. The women whom I grew up with are intelligent, strong women, and unless I read a woman being portrayed that way in a film, I didn’t want to play it.

“There’s enough people that will reinforce those stereotypes, and I didn’t need to participate in that. This woman is just as fierce as the men, and so I’m proud to bring that to life and put that imagery in people’s heads.”

She deftly shied away from latina roles…until this dream come true of la raza solidarity came along.

Unfavorable Reviews

Dull, Convoluted, Racist and Anti-American, John Nolte, Big Hollywood:

Still, “Machete” offers no middle ground, no reasonable, non-racist position against wide open borders for those fleeing from what one character describes as the “personal hell” that is Mexico.

Director Rodriguez attempts to disguise his toxic and racist message as something more accessible, the simple fight against DeNiro’s corrupt pol, his slimy aide (Jeff Fahey), and Steven Seagal’s Mexican drug kingpin. But this disguise doesn’t work. SHE’ is not a figure representing the fight for justice against injustice but rather of a coming and necessary revolution against America. Furthermore, when the Alba character stands on the hood of a car to kick off the film’s incredibly un-exciting and poorly choreographed race war climax, the war she calls for is not to stop violent racists but against an America (or Texas) that, in her delusional mind, is keeping people off land that is rightfully theirs (remember, the border crossed us).

And yet, never once does the movie bother to explain exactly what it is that makes America so special and attractive to those willing to risk their lives to get here. Can’t have that. Nor does anyone suggest that maybe the best place to wage revolution would be, I don’t know, that “personal hell” called Mexico. Can’t have that, either. Not when your protagonists are driven only by seething radical resentments, a misplaced sense of entitlement, and that warm, smug feeling of superiority that comes with assuming the role of the victim. But not victims of their own country, mind you, victims of America.

Hey, no one said hate had to make sense.

Who the illegals fight against on screen is one thing. What their words mean is altogether something else. That’s the shell game Rodriguez plays and his racially divisive messaging goes way beyond the normal cinematic political posturing and button-pushing. And you will never see a more stereotypically racist portrayal of Southerners, who, in an obvious reference to the border Minute Men, are not only played for cheap laughs but portrayed as sub-human animals who hunt and murder illegals – kill a helpless pregnant woman and say “Welcome to America.”

For the record, I believe in the American melting pot. My wife was born in Mexico, English is her second language, and she didn’t become an American citizen until she was in her twenties. For that reason, and others, my family is more racially diverse than the bus passengers in “Speed.” So I guess that what I’m really trying to say is, fuck you Robert Rodriguez.

What Nolte’s really trying to say is, I hate you Robert Rodriguez, for violating my otherwise blissful, deracinated worldview.

The Reconquista Is Here, James P. Pinkerton, FOXNews.com:

Meanwhile, Jessica Alba, playing an Hispanic Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, must wrestle with the tension between the requirements of her job and her loyalty to her ethnicity. “What’s the law and what’s right?” she asks. Guess which side she comes down on by the end of the movie.

The ending of the film, in fact, is a sort of mini-race war, a sort of “Mad Max”-like re-enactment of the Alamo, with the Mexicans, of course, winning once again–although this time, there are no noble defenders to be found.

Machete, Trevor Lynch, Counter-Currents Publishing:

It was gross, it was hilarious, and it communicated an important message: Mexico is a filthy, impoverished, backward, corrupt country inhabited by ugly, treacherous, cruel people. Mexicans are invading the United States, bringing Mexico with them. Mexicans corrupt every American who comes into contact with them, and their power to corrupt is so total that they even corrupt the patriots and politicians who oppose them.

In spite of their cruelty to one another, Mexicans pull together with a fierce solidarity when facing Americans, who are merely selfish individuals out to make or save a buck. People like that can always be bought off or intimidated. This solidarity gives Mexicans a vast support network in the United States—a network that includes the Catholic Church—which aids them in taking jobs from Americans, undercutting American wages, and leeching off American social services.

This movie is really all about making brutal and sadistic violence funny.

Yes, Machete delivers a warning to Arizona and the rest of America, but not the one its director intended. Machete portrays Mexicans as profoundly alien and threatening. It shows that their racial solidarity gives them an advantage over Americans, whose selfish individualism brought them here and keeps them here even though they are destroying our society. It shows our leaders as corrupt, sociopathic race traitors.

Lynch’s review of that recent judeo-race-war-porn film, Inglourious Basterds, was even better.

Favorable Reviews

Capsule reviews of ‘The American,’ ‘Machete’ and ‘Going the Distance’, AP:

Robert Rodriguez extends the fake “Machete” trailer from his and Quentin Tarantino’s “Grindhouse” double-feature into a full-length revenge romp, maintaining a fair amount of the wicked humour and every bit of the savage bloodshed the make-believe ad promised. Danny Trejo stars as a former Mexican federal cop on a rampage of vengeance against drug dealers, brutal politicians and other bad guys. Viewers get precisely what they’re paying for: beheadings, skewerings and kill shots to the head by the dozen. They also get a crazy range of supporting players — Robert De Niro, Jessica Alba, Steven Seagal, Don Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Lindsay Lohan — all having a ball committing atrocities. Like most of Rodriguez’s movies, this one’s never as fun or funny as he thinks it is.

Sharp, Bloody Fun, Richard Corliss, TIME:

To be precise, it’s the action comedy the summer of 2010 has been promising for nearly four months but waited till Labor Day weekend to deliver. After the various disappointments and underperformances of Iron Man 2, Robin Hood, MacGruber, Prince of Persia, Killers, The A-Team, Knight & Day, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Salt, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and The Expendables, audiences can be grateful for this lithe and knowing pastiche. It’s also, quite possibly, the first movie to be the remake of a trailer; Rodriguez created a promo for the then-fictional Machete as part of his Grindhouse collaboration with Quentin Tarantino. Maybe you remember a scene from that clip, in which Cheech Marin plays a priest called to arm himself against an angry mob? And when a man on the receiving end of Marin’s gun pleads for mercy, the padre replies, “God has mercy. I don’t,” and blasts away? Well, this Machete is that one plus about 90 more minutes of shooting, double-dealing and exploding heads — nonstop mayhem with a corpse count in the hundreds and a merry wink in every eye that hasn’t been sliced open.

(See the top 10 heroes and villains with machetes)

A salsa of every macho movie trope plied over the past half-century in films from Hollywood to Hong Kong, Machete hits U.S. theaters Friday but got its world premiere as the opening day’s midnight showing at the Venice Film Festival, where Hong Kong director John Woo will also be given a lifetime achievement award. That’s fitting, since, as Rodriguez has said, “When I watched John Woo’s movies, they made me want to be Asian. Woo and Chow Yun-fat’s Hard Boiled and The Killer really inspired me to make films that would create that feeling in the Latin arena.” Machete, which Rodriguez codirected with Ethan Marquis, is a giddy action film with a timely message: that Mexicans living in Texas, legally or not, can be heroes too. We need them to battle the purring gringo establishment that uses Latino immigrants both as a volatile race card and as cheap labor to prop up the Southwest economy.

(See TIME’s 25 most important films on race.)

The haves here are represented by three white guys in the private and public sector. Senator John McLaughlin (Robert De Niro, doing a Texas take on a Democrat’s worst nightmare of John McCain) is running for reelection on the Troglodyte platform: that “Every time an illegal crosses the border, it’s an act of terrorism against our state.” His political operative, Booth (Jeff Fahey, as a Karl Rove type with more up-front menace), hires Machete to assassinate McLaughlin, but of course it’s a ruse to make the Senator a hero and Machete the face of Latino terror. These two hard cases are in cahoots with a Mexican drug lord, Torrez (Steven Seagal), who in the first scene tries luring Machete with a beautiful woman, before shooting and him and killing her. Then there’s the vigilante lawman Stillman (Don Johnson), who sees a visibly pregnant woman at the border, observes, “If it’s born here, it gets to be a citizen, just like you and me,” and — Boom! —shoots the woman dead. One less illegal; one less terror baby.

Lindsay Lohan is here too, as a plutocrat’s pampered daughter who has a naked threesome with her mother and Machete. (If any idea, no matter how weird, pops into Rodriguez’s head, he says What the hell and films it.) Designed and destined to win no awards, Machete is expert, cartoon-violent, light-hearted fun. Just the thing to send Junior back to school in a good mood.

‘Machete’ Is A Great Gorefest! Plus Lindsay Lohan Gets Naked – AWESOME!, Russ Weakland, Hollywood Life:

When Robert Rodriguez makes a film, you should always expect the unexpected. So if you expected to have a peaceful, relaxing time at the movie theatre this Labor Day weekend, think again. Machete is blissful, bloody, fun carnage – but it sure as heck isn’t relaxing!

Danny Trejo plays an ex-Federale (a member of the Mexican police) who tries to clear his name after he’s made the fall guy on a crooked political assassination. Oh yeah, and he is PISSED. He wants revenge and will do whatever it takes to get it – including pretty inventive ways of killing those who have wronged him! Jessica Alba, Michelle Rodriguez, Lindsay Lohan, Cheech Marin and Robert DeNiro are all along for the ride on this blood and boobs filled bonanza that had me cheering in the theatre!

“Machete doesn’t text.” Ruth Starkman, who teaches film, literature, and philosophy at the University of San Francisco, and writes very somberly and soberly about post-war Germany and Martin Buber, loved this race-war film:

Surely Machete is an action hero for our times. The proud Mexican, dressed mostly as a worker, sometimes a leather biker, knife-throwing fighter, champion of oppressed immigrants.

Oppressed immigrants like guess who.

Blades of gory in ‘Machete’, NYPOST.com:

Phil Collins put the case succinctly: It’s no fun being an illegal alien. Except if you’re “Machete,” an ex-Mexican federal agent disguised as a Texas landscaper with a bloody mission to mow down Minuteman types with his mighty array of gardening tools.

Chased out of the country and across the border into Texas, Machete is hired by a shady businessman (Jeff Fahey) to assassinate a rabid state senator (Robert De Niro) who has been amping up the volume by denouncing illegals as “parasites,” complete with campaign commercials featuring creepy-crawly bugs. The businessman feels the senator has to be eliminated because he threatens to clamp down on the supply of cheap labor.

In his spare time, the senator turns vigilante with a sadistic Minuteman-like patrolman (Don Johnson) who enjoys driving along the border shooting any Mexicans they find sneaking into the country.

‘Machete’ a bloody good time, Katy Wagner, MOVE Magazine:

Despite favorable critical and audience praise, “Grindhouse” was by no means what Hollywood considers a success. Yet somehow, Rodriguez commandeered the financial backing to expand on a fake trailer attached to “Grindhouse” about a Mexican federale out for vengeance into another full-length throwback called “Machete.”

Show Me the Money, or Lack Thereof

Machete (2010), Box Office Mojo. This movie will by no means be what Hollywood considers a financial success, but of course there are other reasons movies get made.

Weekend Report: ‘The American’ Out-Draws The Mexican, Box Office Mojo:

Though it was barely first on Friday [3 Sept], Machete lost steam faster than The American and wound up in second with $14.1 million at 2,670 locations. It had a stronger start than Gamer from the same weekend last year, and its $11.4 million Friday-to-Sunday weekend wasn’t far behind its source, the box office bust Grindhouse. However, it did less than half the business of director Robert Rodriguez last straight-forward action picture, Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Distributor 20th Century Fox’s research showed that 55 percent of Machete’s audience was male, 55 percent was 25 years and older, and 60 percent was Latino.

Blog

No Dreampolitik For Whites

40 Comments

From a hit-piece printed in the September 2010 Playboy, Imagination Nation – Tea Party Resurrects the Past to Deny the Present, by Stephen Duncombe:

Either party activists really are the ignorant hicks liberals believe them to be, or they truly believe the federal government is a foreign body (with a foreign-born president no less!) and their elected officials don’t really represent them. All signs point to the latter.

Tea Party people are white-skinned, white-haired, white bread, white. You can wander the vast mediascape and not witness another sea of whiteness like a Tea Party rally. Over the past 50 years–partly out of political concern but mostly to reach as broad an audience as possible–the culture industry has largely rejected such bland homogeneity.

Conjuring up the past is another way of denying the present. “Take our country back!” is a cry you’ll hear at a Tea Party rally. Back. Back to a time when white people were firmly in power and those of other ethnicities knew their place. But also back to an imaginary America that was almost entirely white. Back to Leave it to Beaver, My Three Sons, and The Waltons. Tea Party rallies–the costumes, the outrage, the provocative rhetoric–are so theatrical because they are theater: a way for a dying strain of white people to represent themselves in a mediated world that no longer recognizes them.

Politics, like entertainment and advertising, is about dreams.

Effective leaders and movements tap into our fantasies of the future, not those of the past.

Duncombe doesn’t sympathize with White people, but he’s not so alienated or consumed with hate that he can’t see the grass roots motivations of the Tea Party.

Duncombe makes a living opining on the history and politics of media and culture. He’s a cultural marxist:

Courses taught include: Struggle for the Word: History of Mass Media I, The Image: History of Mass Media II, Digital Revolution: History of Mass Media III, From Citizen to Consumer, Cultural Resistance, Politics of Media: Power, Persuasion, Perception, Politics of Style, The Social Construction of Reality, Walter Lippmann and the Manufacture of Dissent, Antonio Gramsci and the Power of Culture, Democratic Persuasion, Special Topics in Media.

His own milieu is a sea of Whiteness.

Duncombe is perhaps best known for his book Dream: Re-imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy. Use Your Illusion, a Villiage Voice review from February of 2007, by Emily Weinstein, is subtitled “Stephen Duncombe explains why the left should indulge Americans’ fantasies”:

He was born into activism: Charles Dickens caricatured one of Duncombe’s ancestors, a member of Parliament, as “the radical dandy,” and others in his family fled Canada after participating in a failed 19 th-century rebellion against Queen Victoria. His father was a minister and civil rights activist—their phone lines were tapped when Duncombe was a child—and Duncombe refers, with affection, to his teenage “punk rock days” in early-’80s New Haven. (“That scene was exuberant,” he says. “It was passionate. Politics should be like that.”) He went on to co-found the Lower East Side Collective, a community activist group, and helped organize events with others, including Billionaires for Bush. Their demonstrations were carnivals, attracting revelers who’d dance in the streets. Then came 9-11, followed by war. “Politics became something deadly serious,” he said. Liberals lost whatever sense of humor they had.

Dream could have simply been an elegy to that pre–9-11 era—a nostalgia piece for the recent past. Instead, it reads like a manifesto inspired by a pop culture fever dream. Seizing upon references high and low, Duncombe makes the case that spectacle can be an ethical and sophisticated means of appealing to, even seducing, the American public. Rather than bemoan the fact that people are obsessed with Paris Hilton and condemn video games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, both of which Duncombe discusses with a mix of awe and critical glee, liberals need to determine why that obsession exists—pop culture as road map into the American mind. “We can’t afford to ignore it,” Duncombe said. “If we do, we’re writing off the passion of a hell of a lot of people.”

The idea, which Duncombe dubs “dreampolitik,” is that progressives, armed with strategies derived from sources as vast as advertisements, celebrity-gossip magazines, and the casinos on the Las Vegas strip, would then be able to enact a politics that enthralls a broader sweep of Americans. The left needs to start appealing to people’s hunger for hope and attraction to fantasy life. What’s more, Duncombe said, they have to let go of the belief—”naive at best, arrogant at worst”—that intellectual arguments should be enough to win people over, and that spectacle, as the Bush administration employs it, is something to which they shouldn’t have to resort, a tawdry means to an end. “It’s a pathos of the left,” he said. “We’re worried about selling out, but no one’s buying.” Besides, the point isn’t that liberals move towards conservatism; it’s that they become savvier and, ironically, more realistic about what it takes to win.

“The Democrats are going to lose unless they figure out a way of imagining the world,” Duncombe concluded. “They need to figure out what utopia they want to sell.”

Duncombe’s assertion that “spectacle can be an ethical and sophisticated means of appealing to, even seducing, the American public”, is made in a partisan spirit. Still, there’s nothing here about spectacles drawing on the past being bad. And nothing about it being bad if it inspires stupid, evil White people. These are ad hoc modifications he’s been forced to adopt just now, seeing that hopey-changey “progressives” have let him down while the Tea Party actually did what he advised. How humiliating this would be, if only “progressives” could be humliated.

Blog

The Unspeakable Blackness of Section 8 and Crime

21 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, crime follows poverty wherever it goes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog

Omar Thornton’s “Anti-Racist” Killing Spree

17 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog

Obama’s “Post-Racial” Anti-White Regime

12 Comments

The former black community organizer of ambiguous origin, touted by a sycophantic, anti-White media as the “post-racial” president, is anti-White. Is anybody other than deracinated Whites surprised?

In Obama team’s panic over losing whites, Pat Buchanan writes:

Panic. The White House fears it is losing white America because of a false perception that it harbors a bias against white America.

Outrageous, rail those journalists who celebrated the NAACP’s accusation that the tea party is harboring racists and is too cowardly to confront them.

Yet, as things perceived as real are real in their consequences, if the White House does not eradicate this perception, its lease may not be renewed. Whence comes that perception? Several incidents.

First was the startling accusation by Attorney General Eric Holder, days after Barack Obama was inaugurated in a gusher of good feeling, that we are all “a nation of cowards” when it comes to facing issues of race.

A real icebreaker for a national conversation.

Second was the instantaneous verdict of the president, when asked about the arrest of Harvard’s Henry Louis Gates by Cambridge cop Sgt. James Crowley. With no knowledge of what happened, Obama blurted out that the cops had “acted stupidly.”

It took a White House beer summit to detoxify that one.

A third was the revelation that Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the “wise Latina” herself, had gone to extremes to see that the case of Frank Ricci and the New Haven, Conn., firefighters never got to the Supreme Court. Ricci and co-defendants had been denied promotions they had won in competitive exams solely because they were white and no black firemen had done as well.

The fourth was the Justice Department’s dropping of charges against members of the New Black Panther Party, whose intimidation of voters in Philadelphia had been captured on tape.

When a department official resigned in protest and went to the Civil Rights Commission to accuse officials at Justice of ordering staff attorneys not to pursue such cases, that explosive charge, too, was ignored by Justice.

Came then the NAACP smear that the tea party was harboring racists, which Joe Biden explicitly rejected on national television on Sunday, before the Monday firestorm over Sherrod.

The anti-White bias of Obama, his handlers, his media cheerleaders, and his administration is crystal clear. Buchanan neglected to cite a few other major incidents in support of this perception.

Obama’s disdainful remarks about working-class voters in former industrial towns devastated by job losses, i.e. Whites: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” An unabashed Obama then explained this is something “everybody knows is true”, i.e everyone in his social and political circles disdains Whites.

Obama’s long-term friendship and association with anti-White Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Media accusations that as a group White voters in the democratic primary and Obama’s subsequent election were “racist”, despite having the least skewed voting patterns of any major racial/ethnic group.

The Obama adminstration’s DHS report directing fear and loathing at disaffected White citizens.

Obama’s drive to reform healthcare despite widespread, predominantly White protests. The reform represents a massive transfer of wealth from disproportionally White payers of taxes and insurance premiums to disproportionally non-White free-riders.

Obama’s personal appeal to “make sure that the young people, African Americans, Latinos and women, who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again.”

Obama and his administration’s hostile reaction to Arizona’s stand against illegal immigration and his clear preference to promote the interests of non-White aliens.

All of these incidents were given fairly prominent exposure – at least in the conservative media Whites gravitate toward.

Another incident, which conservatives have been unwilling to openly criticize, is Obama’s more recent nominee for SCOTUS, Elena Kagan, who has been strongly criticized by “people of color” for hiring too many “white” men. The Obama White House response was to crow about Kagan’s efforts to “increase faculty diversity”. Their document provides some idea who these “diverse” “whites” were:

Kagan’s hires were not just conservatives; most were liberal professors, including leading liberal academics like Jody Freeman (environmental law), Sanford Levinson (constitutional law), Mark Tushnet (constitutional law and civil rights), Noah Feldman (church-state), Michael Klarman (civil rights), and Cass Sunstein.

Even conservatives who recognize that the regime is anti-White will not question it’s equally obvious favor for jews.