Topic category:  Other/General

Black Fairy Tale, White Nightmare?

Bill Clinton on Monday accused Barack Obama of fudging his early position on the Iraq war, and then said, “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.” The comment provoked criticism from black leaders and Obama supporters.

[Quoted passage added by AOL to Black Leaders Question Clinton Remarks, New York Times, Jan 12, 2008.]

New York Times reporters Carl Hulse and Patrick Healy led their January 12 story,

The Clinton campaign moved Friday to try to quell a potentially damaging reaction to recent comments by Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton that have drawn criticism from African-Americans just as the presidential primary campaign reached Southern states with significant numbers of black voters.

In a call on Friday to Al Sharpton’s nationally syndicated talk radio show, Mr. Clinton said that his “fairy tale” comment on Monday about Senator Barack Obama’s position on the Iraq war was being misconstrued, and that he was talking only about the war, not about Mr. Obama’s overarching message or his drive to be the first black president.

“There’s nothing fairy tale about his campaign,” Mr. Clinton said. “It’s real, strong, and he might win.”

But of course the impeached former president was fudging, since the truth is unspeakable, to wit, that Barack Obama’s entire campaign is an affirmative action fairy tale.

The Clintons have also caught heat from blacks over Hillary’s statement that, as the AP phrases it, Martin Luther King’s “dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” That’s true, of course, but blasphemous, due to its suggestion that all racial good things have not flowed directly from the will of St. Martin.

AP’s Beth Fouhy, et al.:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Sunday that Barack Obama's campaign had injected racial tension into the presidential contest, saying he had distorted for political gain her comments about Martin Luther King's role in the civil rights movement.

In the run-up to today’s South Carolina Democratic primary, in which 50 percent of voters are expected to be black, both Clintons spent much of the last two weeks in intensive damage control, with Bill calling in to black radio talk shows, and Hillary appearing on Meet the Press, hosted by Tim Russert, longtime chief of staff to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Hillary Clinton’s immediate senatorial predecessor.

Beth Fouhy, et al.:

“This is an unfortunate story line the Obama campaign has pushed very successfully,” the former first lady said in a spirited appearance on NBC's “Meet the Press.” “I don't think this campaign is about gender, and I sure hope it's not about race.”

But of course the campaign is about “gender” (sex) and race. What else could it possibly be about?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both leftwing Democrats. They both rabidly support affirmative action (AA) and multiculturalism (MC), which form the entire foundation of Obama’s political career. (And what of Hillary, you ask? Hillary Clinton’s political career is based entirely on having married a privileged white male.) Affirmative action was originally the 1960s’ federal policy of racially discriminating against qualified whites and white-owned firms that were competing for certain scarce goods (jobs, admissions to selective universities, and contracts let by public agencies), and instead giving said scarce goods to unqualified blacks and unqualified black-owned firms.

The Consequences of Bad Intentions

AA was later illegally and unconstitutionally extended to the private sphere, and even to the political realm: Just as the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act was reinterpreted by Justice Department officials and the federal courts to mean not simply guaranteeing equal opportunity (non-discrimination against blacks) but, turning the Act’s explicit wording upside down, to entail engaging in egregious racial discrimination against whites, the 1965 Voting Rights Act was reinterpreted by the same parties such that rather than guaranteeing blacks the franchise, it guaranteed them rigged elections.

As Arch Puddington persuasively argued in Commentary, circa 1990, multiculturalism, or what I call hate studies (black studies, women’s studies, gay studies, Hispanic studies, etc.) exists to rationalize affirmative action.

I’ll see Puddington, and raise him. MC was developed by Marxists to destroy liberal democracy, the market economy, and the rule of law, and replace them with a totalitarian dictatorship. Institutionalized sexual and racial hatred are for Marxists means towards that end. The Marxists worked hand in hand with black racists, who also seek to impose a totalitarian dictatorship, though for different reasons, while the latter bleed whites dry.

Multiculturalism is not a philosophy or a science, but rather an attitude for guiding revolutionary political struggle. All words and acts must be geared towards aiding privileged identities, and harming disenfranchised identities. (This is not to be confused with identity politics. Identity politics would simply benefit members of certain groups, but in MC, members of those same groups are enemies, if they do not embrace the revolutionary struggle. Thus, a privileged, white, heterosexual male—e.g., Bill Clinton—who embraces the struggle is an ally, while a black—e.g., Clarence Thomas—who opposes it, is an enemy.)

Since inequality is the one sure thing about human (sexual, racial, etc.) groups, and hate studies all insist, the facts be damned, that all human groups are equal, and that only discrimination can explain inequality, multicultural “scholarship” consists of the constant production of lies, hoaxes (nooses, anyone?), and hate, and is imposed through school and college classroom indoctrination, diversity and sensitivity training, and news and entertainment propaganda.

Indeed, while claiming to support equality, tolerance, and compassion, multiculturalists spend all of their energies promoting hatred, intolerance, and inequality. But they play word games, defining things such that promoting hatred and discrimination against “privileged white, heterosexual males” doesn’t count as hatred and discrimination. In practice, actual privileged white, heterosexual males almost all support AA/MC, while the white men whom the multicultural alliance targets are typically working or lower-middle class, though as America becomes less white, the persecution must perforce move up the political food chain.

Just as well-to-do whites who supported AA/MC never thought they would suffer because of it, so too the privileged politicians who supported this reign of hatred never thought they would suffer under its whip. It was supposed to help Democrats demagogue against those “racist” Republicans.

For instance, during the 1993 New York City mayoral campaign pitting black socialist incumbent David Dinkins in a rematch against white liberal Republican challenger Rudolph Giuliani, one leading Democrat condemned white New York City voters, saying many white voters are “still too unwilling to vote for people who are different than we are.”

That leading Democrat was one Bill Clinton, in the first year of his presidency.

Like almost all talk about race in America, especially by socialists/multiculturalists, President Clinton’s statement must be translated out of its racial code. Since over 90 percent of black voters had voted for Dinkins in 1989, while over 30 percent of white voters had crossed racial lines by voting for him rather than Giuliani, in fact it was black voters who were “still too unwilling to vote for people who are different than we are,” and who thus needed to overcome their racism. But in multicultural rhetoric, selfish, racist speech and actions by blacks are virtuous, while any self-interested behavior on the part of whites is “racist.”

Early in President Clinton’s second term in office, he set up a phony, rigged “national dialogue on race.” Like all “dialogues” on race that white leftists and black racists call for, it was to be a monologue. After initially choosing only Democratic shills for his panel, which was chaired by black historian and race hoaxer John Hope Franklin, for one episode Clinton added a token critic of affirmative action, neo-conservative scholar, Abigail Thernstrom, for the purpose of harassing and humiliating her on live, national TV, as a proxy for all white critics of affirmative action.

(Clinton, who as president successfully fought every attempt to limit AA, also thereby got a measure of personal revenge against Thernstrom. who had just co-authored, with husband Stephan, the seminal study, America in Black & White. According to the Thernstroms, Clinton had broken the law, by having his aides, Christopher Edley and George Stephanopolous, violate Supreme Court decisions limiting affirmative action.)

Affirmative action is unconstitutional, in violating the 14th Amendment. It is illegal, in that it violates the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act. And it is a moral outrage. But for most blacks, as for their white patrons, support for affirmative action is a political and moral litmus test. Any white who fails that test is for them a “racist” and irredeemably evil. (I am aware that opinion polls have shown a majority of blacks nationally opposing affirmative action. Other opinion polls, cited by the Thernstroms, show almost all whites saying that they have no problem with a black family moving in next door. The one poll result is as incredible as the other.)

Supporting AA is a package deal. It includes, among other things, never criticizing blacks, excepting those few blacks who oppose affirmative action, and that any and all criticism of non-conservative blacks by whites, or their even hinting at the existence of shortcomings or pathologies of blacks for which they do not fault “white racism,” is racist.

Thus, according to the package deal, which both Clintons long ago signed off on, the only thing for white voters to do who don’t want to be guilty of racism, is to vote for Obama in the coming primaries.

And as the Great Florida Disenfranchisement Hoax of 2000 showed, if whites do not vote as blacks demand, blacks will invent a race hoax, and with their white allies, seek to steal the election.

Hillary’s “Qualifications”

Hillary Clinton has argued that voters should choose her because she is more “experienced” than Obama, but according to multicultural rhetoric, such claims (like the claim to be “more qualified”) are merely racist code phrases. Besides, she doesn’t have more experience! Obama ran in his first election in 1996, when he was elected to the Illinois State Senate. Clinton’s first election was her 2000 U.S. Senate victory, in New York. When she says she is more “experienced,” she is either lying outright, or counting her time as Arkansas’ and America’s First Lady. But that’s nonsense. “First Lady” is not an elected or appointed or any kind of post. Hillary Clinton was simply the wife of a privileged white male.

And what was her experience as First Lady? It was the experience of Travelgate, in which she engineered the malicious prosecution of White House Travel Office director Billy Dale, which ruined him financially, just so she could turn the office into a cash cow for her friend from Arkansas, socialist TV producer Harry Thomason. And Filegate, wherein Hillary Clinton collected and kept FBI files on hundreds of Republican officials and staffers whom she considered political enemies. It was the experience of conspiring to obstruct justice, when she had her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, go into the office of presidential counsel (and her old Arkansas law partner) Vince Foster, who had just committed suicide, to illegally remove files. The experience of seeking illegally, through secret meetings with her health policy guru, Ira Magaziner, to impose on America a nightmarish, socialist health scheme. And it was the experience of leveraging her status as the wife of the world’s most privileged, white, predatory, heterosexual male, into a seat in the United States Senate.

No, the “experience” issue does not favor Hillary Clinton.

Blacks vs. White Feminists

Hillary Clinton has spent her adulthood supporting anti-white racism. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

And yet, there is a separate racial issue involving blacks’ attitude towards well-to-do, assertive white feminists. While the political marriage of white, middle and upper-class feminists (most of whom are heterosexual) and middle and upper-class blacks has paid dividends for both groups, when push comes to shove, it is always the white feminists who have to take one for the team.

White feminists have for over a generation supported blacks’ every racist demand, and yet, when they show their appreciation of “color” by falling in love with a black man, instead of welcoming them into the family, black women stare daggers at them, and wish them dead. In 1999, I caught the standup routine in a Manhattan club of a white comedienne, who recalled when she had had a black boyfriend.

“I love black women. You're all so confident. You know what you think and what you want ... and Lordy, Lordy, do you hate me!”

The typical white feminist lacks such insight.

I first saw such hostility in 1978, at SUNY Stony Brook. While my beautiful, feminist, Jewish history professor was lecturing or aggressively engaging the class in discussions, a group of three black girls who sat near me would mutter hostilely about her amongst themselves.

In April 1989, a majority-black (the other members were Hispanics) gang beat a young investment banker, who came to be known as “the Central Park Jogger,” from head to toe, while sexually fondling her. (One attacker, Matias Reyes, raped her either then or after the rest of the gang had left.) Rather than show compassion for the victim, who had lost 75 percent of her blood, had spent weeks in a coma, and never fully recovered, black New Yorkers embraced her confessed attackers as victim/heroes, and demonized the white victim. Even New York’s white elites eventually came around, in 2002 granting the attackers an AA bonus, “exonerating” them. (The attacker had since of course claimed that their confessions had been coerced. Never mind that police had scrupulously respected all of the suspects’ rights, and that all but one suspect had made a videotaped confession in his parent’s or guardian’s presence.)

As Vincent Bugliosi wrote in Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away With Murder, prior to O.J. Simpson’s 1995 murder trial, in mock juries black women were uniformly hostile towards prosecutor Marcia Clark, a youngish, attractive, aggressive white feminist. But you couldn’t tell Clark that. Like most white feminists, she was convinced that she knew black women, and enjoyed an easy rapport with them.

And when black women across the country exuberantly celebrated Simpson’s acquittal by a racist, black-dominated jury, they were also celebrating the murder of his white estranged wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson. (Poor Ron Goldman. O.J. murdered him, too, but outside of Goldman’s family, no one seemed to care.)

In 2000, when a black-dominated group of young men ran amok in Central Park following the Puerto Rican Day Parade, sexually molesting (and in at least one case, manually raping) largely white women, the media misrepresented the episode, as if the attackers had mostly been Hispanic, and the victims mostly black and Hispanic. Since the majority of the NYPD – which had been explicitly ordered to avoid confrontations with minority males – then consisted of white men, white feminists dutifully attacked it instead of the black assailants. But no blacks expressed sympathy for the white victims.

And of course, in March 2006, when prostitute/stripper Crystal Gail Mangum made transparently ridiculous, mutually contradictory and ever-changing charges against innocent, white Duke lacrosse players, white feminists across the country leapt to her defense, and heaped scorn on the three white men who were the real victims.

The socialist MSM and the feminists even made a point of suppressing the fact that women in Duke’s Durham, NC home had little to fear from white men, but that black men targeted white coeds for rape.

According to a March, 2006 news story from just short of two weeks after Mangum made the fraudulent charges against the white men, at which point Durham was the site of a campaign persecuting all of Duke’s white men lacrosse players,

“The [white men] students need to realize they live in a community, and people are going to talk back if they do something, or potentially [?] do something, that is disrespectful to women,” said Faulkner Fox, a visiting instructor in the English department and one of the organizers of the candlelight vigil.

Organizers at the candlelight vigil and the “wake-up call” at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. [where some of the white lacrosse players lived, Mangum situated her hoax, and white feminists banged pots early in the morning, in order to ruin the players’ sleep], said the demonstrations were acts of support for the black exotic dancer…”

Imagine a white feminist saying anything like that about the black men who actually were raping white Duke coeds. And imagine black women organizing protests on behalf of white women victimized by black men. It seems like the more white feminists support black men, the more black men—with black women’s enthusiastic support—target them.

Hillary Clinton thinks that she is blacks’ friend, but they are not her friends.

Hillary can’t win. If she loses the nomination to Obama, she loses everything she has hoped and planned for, virtually her entire adult life. And yet, if she beats him, her victory may prove to be pyrrhic. Blacks are already insisting that Clinton only beat Obama in New Hampshire due to racism (i.e., that “racist” whites lied to pollsters). Next to come: That Hillary conspired to rig the voting machines (this rumor is already making the rounds among white leftists) to change Obama votes to Clinton votes. Blacks were never going to vote for her in the primaries anyway (they lied to reporters about being “undecided,” and to pollsters about supporting her), and will use the “racism” of the primary campaign to rationalize sitting out the general election, which could well lose it for her.

Poor Hillary. In the words of Alan Jay Lerner, “How simply frightful! How humiliating! How … delightful!”

Nicholas Stix
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored

Biography - Nicholas Stix

Award-winning, New York-based freelancer Nicholas Stix founded A Different Drummer magazine (1989-93). Stix has written for Die Suedwest Presse, New York Daily News, New York Post, Newsday, Middle American News, Toogood Reports, Insight, Chronicles, the American Enterprise, Campus Reports, VDARE, the Weekly Standard, Front Page Magazine, Ideas on Liberty, National Review Online and the Illinois Leader. His column also appears at Men's News Daily, MichNews, Intellectual Conservative, Enter Stage Right and OpinioNet. Stix has studied at colleges and universities on two continents, and earned a couple of sheepskins, but he asks that the reader not hold that against him. His day jobs have included washing pots, building Daimler-Benzes on the assembly-line, tackling shoplifters and teaching college, but his favorite job was changing his son's diapers.