…“Hey Pretty Girl, Do You Want to Drink This?”

At 7:15 p.m. last Monday evening, 28-year-old Bethany Storro was just getting something out of her car, near a Starbuck’s, where she was going to have some coffee. Last fall, she’d gotten a divorce, and had recently returned to Vancouver from Idaho, to start a new life… not to end one.

A raceless “young woman” came along and said, “Hey, pretty girl. How are you? Would you like a drink of this?”

Storro sensed that something wasn’t right, and said, “No, thanks,” but the stranger threw a Styrofoam cup full of “an extremely strong acid”—sulfuric or hydrochloric, according to her doctor—in her face. Storro closed her eyes tightly, as the acid burned her face, and made holes in her blouse.

During a Thursday press conference, Storro said, “Once it hit me, I could hear it actually bubbling and sizzling in my skin. It was the most painful thing ever.”

“My heart stopped. It ripped through my clothing the instant it touched my shirt; I could feel it burning through my second layer of skin.”

Had Storro not donned sunglasses 20 minutes earlier for the first time, she would likely have lost her sight. She suffered severe burns and excruciating pain, and was just released on Sunday from North Portland’s Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, where last Wednesday she had the first of what will surely be many operations, as doctors try to save her face.

The MSNBC story that my reader-researchers W and David in TN sent me, was cut off after the sentence fragment, “‘I am so disgusted with society right now!’ Storro’s brother, Abraham Neuwelt of Seattle, said on his,” with no description of Bethany Storro’s attacker. Thus wrote David, “Another Raceless Attacker.”

A dangerous, racist monster is on the loose, but God forbid the House of Olbermann should contribute to her being stopped, or offend The Society for the Protection of Raceless Acid Throwers. Only if one hits a tab saying, “Show more text,” does one learn, in the last of 17 paragraphs,

Police said the assailant was described as a black woman between 25 and 35, who wore a green shirt and khaki shorts, The Columbian reported. She had medium-length black hair that was pulled back.

Storro added that “the woman was about 5 feet 8 inches with black hair pulled into a tight pony tail. She was African American, wearing a green top and khaki shorts. Also, Storro recalled Thursday that her attacker had three piercings on the top part of one ear and wore no makeup.” In the local newspaper, The Columbian, John Branton reported,

A Vancouver woman suffered severe burns Monday night when someone threw a caustic liquid in her face in an attack so unusual that a veteran police detective said he hadn’t heard of such a thing in 30 years working in Vancouver. “I’m a nice girl and I don’t know why this happened,” Bethany Storro, 28, said Tuesday in her hospital room in the Oregon Burn Center at Legacy Emanuel Medical Center in Portland.

Unfortunately, in recent years, hundreds of thousands of nice white girls have endured horrible ordeals that they should never have had to experience, and which in a saner, more just America, their forbears did not have to endure. And more and more 30-year-men, like Detective Cpl. Wally Stefan of the Vancouver Police Department, are seeing things like this for the first time… and then for the second … and the third…

The deeply religious Storro is going to need every bit of her Christian faith. (Storro has variously been described as working at a local church as worship leader and administrative assistant, and at a Safeway. It’s not clear if she had just quit one job for another, was working simultaneously at both places, or working at Safeway for a salary, while volunteering at the church.)

At least, John Branton did not seek to hide the perpetrator’s description.

Bethany Storro’s mother, Nancy Neuwelt, said, “I mean, who wakes up in the morning and says, ‘I’m going to go burn somebody’s face’?”

Unfortunately, more and more racist black women are doing just that. If it isn’t burning a white’s face, it’s slashing it, or committing some other sort of atrocity. And unless a black woman uses a gun in the commission of a crime, or sells drugs (for the moment—black leaders are working on that one), she can be pretty sure that she will likely serve little or no time for her crimes.

Integral to black racism is not just hating whites, or merely robbing them, or even simply murdering them, but torturing and disfiguring them. And those blacks who do not carry out such heinous acts, increasingly support them.

I encountered this evil first-hand in June, 1993, when a racist, 18-year-black girl on a Manhattan subway platform called me “n—-r,” as a prelude to attempting to shred my face with a scissors. I blocked her shot, and got a superficial defensive wound. (Thank goodness, for modern, snub-nosed scissors!) In spite of the photograph that police had taken of my bloody hand, and a corroborating police report by a witness unknown to me, racist DA Robert Morgenthau’s office treated me as if I were the criminal. (My attacker claimed that I had called her a “n—-r,” but the ADAs had to know better. Already then, racist blacks routinely used line, after committing crimes against whites.)

As one of my readers argued, Bethany Storro’s attacker is surely being protected by her fellow blacks. When a black racist goes out of his way to harm a white, he invariably brags about it to other blacks. Rarely, however, do other blacks turn him in. That would be “snitchin.’” Thus, as I wrote last year, when black, 28-year-old Keith David Brown murdered white, 60-year-old James Paroline in a racially motivated attack in Seattle on July 9, 2008, Brown was at large in town for a week, in which he was never even close to being captured by police. Ultimately, he turned himself on his own terms, with the help of an activist black preacher. (That murder was provoked by black females who were harassing Paroline, who called Brown on a cell phone, to come do something to him, and who initially lied to police, claiming that they didn’t know the killer. None of the black females was prosecuted.)

White, self-styled conservatives also lie about, and suppress the truth about black racial attacks.

In the case of the acid attack, a “conservative” blogger named JoAnne Thomas, writing at RightJuris.com served up a steaming hot bowl of euphemism soup. Some of her nonsense, with my responses, which Thomas completely censored, follow:

Bethany Storro, 28, became a victim of random, perhaps gang related violence…

Gimme a break. It wasn’t random, it was racial. And in black-on-white attacks, “gang related” and “gang initiation” have become euphemisms for racially motivated attacks. Sure it was a gang initiation: The initiate had to maim a white.

“Once again, we’re treated to man’s inhumanity to man.”

Try, blacks’ inhumanity to whites. Such euphemisms are about 50 years late. I serve up fresh journalism, without the euphemisms. Too many whites of both sexes are being raped, maimed, and murdered, to offer less than the truth. And the attacks are increasingly being carried out by black females. Time is running out.

* * *On Friday, the Vancouver Police Department released a suspect sketch, but it’s worthless. Not only is it racially ambiguous, but the eyes are the identical bizarre, computer-generated eyes as in a sketch released by the Charlotte, North Carolina police in a June 4 gang-rape-robbery case I wrote about in my recent article, “The Rise of Raceless Police Suspect Sketches.” The Charlotte sketch has not led to any reported arrests, and I don’t expect this one to help, either.

The only positive development in the case is that Storro’s Safeway colleagues have set up a Bethany Joy Storro Fund at the Riverview Community Bank, and a second such account has been opened at Umpqua Bank, to help defray Storro’s medical expenses, which promise to be massive. (Storro’s gym, Vancouver’s Anytime Fitness, is also raising money to help pay for her treatment.)

The telephone number for Riverview Community Bank’s main branch in Vancouver, Washington is (360) 693-7086.

Umpqua Bank’s number is 1-866-486-7782.

That we’ve got the Left and the Right both doing the Devil’s handiwork does not make the prospects for arresting violent black racism very promising.

Thanks to my reader-researchers W and David in TN.

© Nicholas Stix

Mr. Stix blogs at Nicholas Stix, Uncensored

 

WesternFront America

POLITICALLY LIBERAL BLACKS

By: Selwyn Duke

When Barack Obama said that the Henry Louis Gates affair was a teaching moment, he spoke truly. But the key is ensuring that the right things are taught and the right people learn. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen.

There is no need to rehash the events of July 16 chapter and verse. We all know about how the Harvard professor flew into a rage of racial accusations and haughty posturing after Sergeant James Crowley appeared at his Cambridge home to investigate a report of a possible break-in. We’ve heard that Gates called Crowley a “racist” and said he was being targeted because “I’m a black man in America.” We know how Barack Obama stirred the pot, saying at a press conference that he didn’t know all the facts but then averring that the police “acted stupidly.” And we also know that it’s a foot-in-mouth moment Obama wishes he could do a Groundhog Day on, and that he fancies a beer a substitute for an apology.

Moreover, the obvious points have already been made. We know that the police were simply following procedure in requesting Gates’ identification and asking that he step outside his home. It has also been mentioned that, far from the police racially profiling the man, he and Obama applied that technique in assuming that the white police officer was bigoted and/or acting stupidly. And, in keeping with last point, some of the boldest commentators even have hinted that bigotry may lie in the hearts of Gates and Obama. Yet no one has thus far dared expose the pretense.

I didn’t need the Gates affair, eye-opening for some, to understand the nature of a Gates or of Obama. Immediately upon learning of Gates’ existence, I knew he was another one of the president’s many, many bigoted men. And even before Obama dared stray beyond the guiderails of the teleprompter and commented on the matter, I knew that another one of the president’s bigoted men stared back at him every day in the mirror.

In reality, I knew this even before learning of yet another one of the president’s bigoted “men,” Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor and even, actually, prior to being bombarded with the bile of his most notorious bigoted man, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I knew it for a very simple reason.

For all intents and purposes, politically liberal blacks are by definition bigoted.

This is true virtually to a man.

Of course, we all know what is coming. Many will say that I’m prejudiced for painting all the members of such a large group with the same brush. But let’s note that “prejudice” in the negative sense denotes an unfavorable opinion about a person, group or thing that has no basis in reality. For instance, the Wise Latina had her foot-in-mouth moment when she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” However, if this had a basis in reality, it would not be a prejudice. So let’s examine whether or not my assertion has that basis.

I’ll begin by emphasizing two things, the first of which will make it seem as if I’m being politically correct and the second of which will disabuse the reader of that notion. First, it goes without saying that there are blacks who aren’t bigoted — they also aren’t liberal. There are my two favorite economists, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell; the man I want as president, Alan Keyes; talk show host Larry Elder; minister and head of B.O.N.D Jesse Lee Peterson; and many, many others. Between this ideological set and politically liberal blacks is another basic group, one epitomized by Colin Powell. While its members are weak sisters philosophically, it wouldn’t be fair to describe all of them as bigoted.

Now for the second thing: even putting the Keyes and Powell groups together, percentagewise they are part of a very small minority.

Now let’s move on. In the movie Boyz N’ the Hood, the father character, played by Laurence Fishburne, gives a motivational speech about how the presence of alcohol and gun stores in South Central L.A. is the result of a white conspiracy. Note that he is cast in the film as the wise patriarch, a voice of reason.

Of course, this is Hollywood, but it’s also a case of art imitating life. We long ago learned about the large numbers of black people who believe the AIDS virus is the result of a white conspiracy to wipe out blacks. And this paranoia also explains countless everyday interactions. For instance, some years ago there was the story of that public official who used the word “niggardly” at a meeting, and I documented the woes of Illinoisan David Gonzalez, who, replying to a query, told a black co-worker that a symbol he was wearing was a clan badge (Scottish clan, a symbol of ethnicity). In both cases, the men were targeted by bigoted leftist blacks who were sure they were prejudiced.

Then there is bigoted Obama man Attorney General Eric Holder, who mentioned that he also was “profiled” by the police in this nation of cowards. Now, I don’t doubt that he believes he was unjustly targeted, but, then, I know something else: I’ve been “profiled” as well. I could tell you about a couple of incidents in which I was pulled over simply because I was in the wrong place, in the wrong kind of vehicle and, in one case, the wrong age. This, not to mention that I was the wrong sex — remember, the police view men much more suspiciously than women because, like some other groups, they commit an inordinate amount of the crime (note that the complaints of profiling we hear always involve black men). Then there is that esteemed academic Professor Gates, who was sure that Sgt. Crowley was a “‘racist’ police officer.” And there are many other such examples.

Now, why would anyone read bigoted motives into innocent things? It’s not always a Machiavellian playing of the race card, I can assure you. There is another reason.

We’ve all had experiences with those who are prejudiced against an individual. It might have been a mother-in-law who just couldn’t stand her son’s wife, or a person who, after years of marital conflict, was fatally biased against his spouse. And when you thus hate someone, it’s so often the case that you view him through colored glasses. His trespasses are then never innocent mistakes, are they? And are his errant comments ever just slips of the tongue? No, they’re the result of evil motives, a desire to target you for attack. The thinking is, “You know, that’s just the kind of thing that scum of the Earth would do!” In reality, we’d do well to bear in mind that you should “Never attribute to malice what is better explained by stupidity,” but the prejudiced person will never distinguish between the innocent and insidious. For hatred is like darkness: the more there is, the less you can see.

It is no different with politically liberal blacks. Gates, AIDS conspiracy theorists, the niggardly-and-clan police and many others are just sure that those who “offended” them are bigoted because, well, that’s just what white people do.

Also note that the demonization of whites is part of leftist dogma (I refute this here). This was apparent even four decades ago when feminist Susan Sontag infamously proclaimed, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” And the idea gains ever more currency. In fact, I have encountered numerous whites who have expressed such sentiments, including a man online recently who wrote that he was “ashamed” to be white.

Yet, if such anti-white loathing is present among leftist whites out of a sense of being “oppressors,” how much more prevalent is it among leftist blacks, who view themselves as the oppressed? The answer is that it’s common enough — and accepted enough — so that another one of the president’s bigoted men, Reverend Joseph Lowery, was given the podium and allowed to pray for a day “when white will embrace what is right” during Obama’s inauguration. Oh, and Obama didn’t say he was sorry for that, either. It just seems that he only apologizes to those he considers alien when they reside overseas.

Then we have that old political observation about how blacks are actually quite conservative culturally. This evidenced itself just last November when 70 percent of blacks voted for California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union between a man and woman, versus only 49 percent of whites. Now, while the phenomenon of black cultural conservatism is certainly exaggerated a bit, we have to ask, why would such a group vote Democrat 95 percent of the time? The answer is race. There is a strong feeling in the black community that the Republicans are the white party, which is no doubt why Screaming Howard Dean played upon this stereotype in 2008. And to rise above this — as Alan Keyes and the other fine gentlemen I’ve mentioned have done — is to transcend leftist politics itself.

As for politically liberal blacks, the reality is that they are consumed by race. They live and die with it, eat it and breathe it. As an example, consider a certain affirmation black women sometimes utter to young black boys: “You’re going to grow up to be a strong, young black man!” Now, this isn’t designed simply to reassure the lads that they’re not going to go the way of Michael Jackson. There is another reason.

Everyone tends to define himself in some manner, viewing some particular status as central to his being. This should be “child of God” but usually is something else; it could be the quite wholesome identity of “father” or “mother,” or it could be “policeman,” “doctor” or “athlete.” Then again, it could also have to do with one’s group.

In the case of politically liberal blacks, they identify so closely with their race that there simply is little, if any, separation between them and it. As an example of how this manifests itself, consider Congressman Sheila Jackson-Lee’s 2005 statement during a House discussion, “I came here as a slave; I now want the right to vote!” Now, just for the record, this woman isn’t 175 years old. But was it just a manner of speaking? Well, when I gave a talk about so-called racial profiling at a Toronto symposium some years back, I took questions afterwards and one I fielded was from a black student. He began by passionately saying, “There was a time when you and I couldn’t drink out of the same water fountain…”

He was about 16 years old.

Rest assured, it’s not that these folks had a Shirley MacLaine vision of a past life. It is that identification. In their universe, “I” am the group; the group is me. Anything that has happened to the group has happened to me, and any characterization of the group is a characterization of me. The latter is, by the way, one reason why people (of any group) exhibiting this phenomenon cannot abide any criticism of their group. Their self-image is so intertwined with the image of the collective that anything diminishing the latter diminishes the former. This helps explain why such people will jump through hoops to rationalize away unflattering facts about their groups. It sheds light on why individuals such as Obama can say that blacks get stopped by law enforcement disproportionately while ignoring the reason for it: they commit crimes disproportionately. The black person who has amalgamated group and self cannot acknowledge this fact because, in his mind, it would be tantamount to saying that he was criminally inclined. It would make him feel like less as a person.

Now, there is a funny thing about hang-ups. Many of us have them, but we usually don’t recognize them as hang-ups. We don’t realize that our hang-ups are just that: things that seem all-important and ever-relevant because they’re blown out of proportion in our minds and hearts. Rather, we think they seem all-important because they are so. And here is the crux of the matter: because we believe this, we assume other people have recognized their importance as well and thus must also make them a priority. In other words, blacks who place race at the center of their being will assume that whites would, recognizing the importance of this factor, follow suit.

This perspective explains a lot. It explains why a black man who hears a white guy utter a word that sounds vaguely like a racial epithet or who is asked to step out of his home by a white cop reads bigoted motives into the situations. It explains why many blacks, despite being advantaged by an affirmative-action society, believe they’ve experienced great “racism.” Is it real or is it Memorex? When you interpret all the normal bumps and stumbles of human interaction as expressions of bigotry, you certainly have experienced great “racism.” That is, at least in your own mind.

Couple the above perspective with the fact that many blacks are told from toddlerhood on that the white man has kept them down (just think of the kids in Jeremiah Wright’s church), and it explains something else. We’ve all heard the leftist shtick about how only whites can be “racist,” which is based on the convenient interpretation that being so requires power, something only whites possess (untrue itself). Of course, since “racism” was originated by leftists to facilitate their arguments, they can define it any way they want. This is why I avoid the term and instead try to use “bigotry” — I reject their lexicon. Yet, this language manipulation is driven by something real, something substantive, and it harks back to what I said earlier about prejudice.

You see, when you view the object of your hatred as truly evil (“white devils,” anyone?), then, in your eyes, your feelings aren’t actually prejudice, are they? They cannot be because you will view them as having a basis in reality. In other words, you can’t be “racist” because, by gum, you have a right to hate evil. And this is of course a common failing of man; other people may be wrong to hate, but, well, we’re different. We have a reason to despise our bogeymen.

Of course, because I wrote this essay, many people will hurl that r-word at me. But who really is prejudiced? Who really has drawn conclusions that have no basis in reality? If I’m wrong in what I’ve said, then, sure, perhaps it is me. If I’m wrong, then you may have reason to suspect I’m hung-up. But if I’m right, then I have just explained for you the Gateses, Lowerys and Wrights of the world — and the Obamas. If I’m right, it means we have put someone who is hung-up — and perhaps hateful — in the White House.

“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

 

WesternFront America

I came across a July 17 blog shilling for race hoaxer Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr., “So, Is A Prominent Havard [sic] University [sic] Being Charged With Owning-A-Home-In-A-Good-Neighborhood-While-Black.” It was written by Sandy Gholston, proprietor of The Gholston Post, which he calls “A Blog For The People.”

I bring up the blog essay because it is a generic defense of Gates.

Henry Louis Gates Jr. one of the most respected scholars in the United States of America, may have become the latest victim of racial profiling. Essentially, it appears that Gates was harassed by police officers because he forced his way into his own home a woman reported seeing “two black males with backpacks on the porch” with one “wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.” Ah, the infamous two black males accusation. Apparently, two black males look a little bit more suspect in an upscale neighborhood, huh?…

It’s a disturbing tale because it does make (or should make) a person wonder would white guys trying to get into a house have been perceived the same way….

Yeah, why would a guy be upset about being harassed by police for trying to get into his own house and having a dime dropped on him by someone worried about the two black guys? The police come and harass a man getting into his own house and then arrest him on his own property for disorderly conduct. How much of an insult/slap in the face is that? I think most people would have “exhibited loud and tumultuous behavior” (how broad a description is that?) if they found themselves in a similar situation.

The quotes from Gholston are wrapped around a story by the AP’s Melissa Trujillo, “Black scholar’s arrest raises profiling questions,” which quotes unchallenged assertions by a couple of Gates’ fellow tenured, Harvard race hustlers that “the arrest is part of a pattern of racial profiling in Cambridge.”

Police didn’t “harass” Gates, Gates racially harassed and abused the white policeman.

By the admission of Gates’ own lawyer, Gates and the cabby were trying to break into the home. Thus, the 911 call and the police response were entirely justified.

Gates does not own the home, Harvard does, so Gholston’s premise is false, and his title misleading.

White guys would have been treated the same way, but it is highly unlikely that they would have reacted as Gates did.

I recall breaking into my apartment in the middle of the night once, circa 1987, when I had forgotten or lost my keys, and my roommate was out for the night. As I climbed the fire escape to my kitchen window, I was scared to death that someone would call the police, and I’d get shot. So, there is no justification whatsoever for Gates’ racist abuse of, and refusal to cooperate with Sgt. Crowley. Had a white man reacted to a black police sergeant in the same racist, abusive, tumultuous way that Gates did, the Cambridge PD and Middlesex Prosecutor’s Office would not have dropped the charges.

Gholston’s racism is showing.

Note that Gholston accepts the report that Gates and his driver were attempting to force entry into the residence. As far as he is concerned, one may not call the police if one sees black men breaking into a residence. Thus, like Gates, he supports black criminals.

Gholston’s racist attack on witness Lucia Whalen for calling the police is part of a widespread campaign of vilification against her, designed to intimidate whites out of notifying the police about apparent crimes in progress committed by black boys and men.

From 1962, when James Baldwin began laying the pseudo-intellectual groundwork for the black racial profiling myth, through 1999, when the engineers of the racial profiling hoax enjoyed their breakthrough and beyond, black racists and their white supporters had always been careful to insist that police were variously arresting, assaulting, or murdering innocent blacks who had merely been minding their own business. Because Gates’ supporters acknowledge, as does his own lawyer, that Gates was attempting to break into the home that Harvard provides him, yet still assert that he was a “victim” of “racial profiling,” the Gates race hoax thus represents a new level of confidence and thus of racist evil on the part of black supremacists.

How many additional innocents must be murdered by black felons, in crimes that could easily have been prevented, had the authorities and ordinary people alike not surrendered to the felons’ black supremacist supporters?

Over four weeks after posting his support of Gates’ race hoax, Gholston still hasn’t corrected the mistakes in his title, let alone those of logic and morality in his essay. Gholston has a handsome-looking blog. Unfortunately, as the United Negro College Fund says, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

© Nicholas Stix

 

WesternFront America