Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger L. Simon

Racism Right and Left: One Man’s Opinion

December 21st, 2014 - 9:41 pm

Because I am in New York for a short visit and, as the world well knows, the city of my birth is in a period of racial turmoil, I am going to say something I have been thinking about for a long time.  And because I am one of the relative few to have spent long periods of his life on both the left and the right and because I was a civil rights worker in the sixties. I think – though it is purely personal and based only on  observation – I have earned the right to an opinion.  So here goes.

The left is vastly more racist than right.  It’s not even close.  Since I was publicly identified with the right, roughly from when I started blogging in 2003 (although it was actually several years earlier in private), I have personally witnessed not a single  incident of racism from anyone who could be considered a right winger and heard only one racial slur – and that was from a Frenchman.   In the seven years I was CEO of PJMedia, I came to know or meet literally dozens of people who identified with the Tea Party.  I did not hear one word of  anything close to racism from any of them even once.  Not one, ever.  This despite their being accused of racism constantly.

The left, on the other hand, is filled with racism of all sorts, much, but not all, of it projected.  I used to hear racist comments all the time during the seventies and eighties when almost all my friends were leftist or liberals.  During that time black racism was petty much continuously on the rise, aided and abetted by whites.

It had been going on for a while.  I first encountered  black racism from the person of none other than Julien Bond (later the president of the NAACP) who treated me, a civil rights worker involved in voter registration, in a racist, anti-white manner in the SNCC offices in Atlanta in 1966.  Stokeley Carmichael treated me that way also. That was at the beginning of the Black Power movement and I excused  it then as “a phase” that had to be gone through.  I was mistaken and naive.  It was racism pure and simple.  I, and others, never confronted or named it then.

Now we live in culture where there is considerably more black racism  than white racism.  Someone like Al Sharpton, clearly the equivalent of David Duke, is far more powerful than Duke ever was.  No one pays attention to the execrable Duke, as they shouldn’t.  But they shouldn’t pay attention to Sharpton either.

But he’s only a  part of the problem.  There’s also the Mayor of the City of New York  Bill de Blasio  the prototype of the leftwing fellow traveler racist who assumes someone is more moral or better because he or she is “of color.”  Of course this is condescending – and therefore racist – to the people he thinks are so pure.  No one is.  The whole theory of “white skin privilege” is racist and totalitarian to the core: actually it was invented by totalitarians.   And while I’m ranting here, all racial identity organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus are inherently racist and dangerous, just as the White Citizens Council was and would be.

You only end racism by ending  it, not by talking about it.  That only results in the reverse.  If you keep talking about it, what you get are two dead cops in Brooklyn, the kind of guys who had been spending their lives largely defending the weak and the poor, “of color” or otherwise.  The cops didn’t care.  They just did their jobs.  Black, white and brown, we owe them our gratitude.  They protect us and, as far as I can tell, almost all of them without racial bias.

But we live in a time when two black men, Barack Obama and Eric Holder, came into office clinging to racism more desperately than Obama said right-wingers cling to their guns and religion.  Both of these men arrived at a moment when racism was truly beginning to disappear and did everything in their power, consciously or unconsciously, to reverse the trend.  Now we are in a miserable situation when, as recently as 2008, things were looking pretty good.   We have come to a point when Bill O’Reilly is doing more substantively for black people than the president of the United States, who is himself a black man.  How crazy, and deeply sad, is that.

The Real Fallout from Sony Is Nuclear

December 19th, 2014 - 9:09 pm

D.W. Sharpton, in his director’s chair.

It’s official.  The Jews no longer run Hollywood.  The anti-Semites do in the person of  the Reverend Al Sharpton — he of the Tawana Brawley case and the Williamsburg riots — who is now controlling things at Sony Pictures, production head Amy Pascal having sought his absolution for her tasteless but trivial jokes about Obama. Someone ought to tell the Sony overlords in Tokyo that the Rev Al may currently be the most hated man in America, not exactly good for business.

In fact, he’s a veritable racist manufacturing machine, turning the nicest white people, who previously were very friendly, even loving, toward blacks as their fellow Americans, into racists every time they see him fulminating on television.  That’s the reality of Sharpton.  I was a civil rights worker in the South and every time I see the Rev Al he makes me want to puke.  I can only imagine how those without my history react. That he has been allowed to be such a frequent visitor to the White House is testament to the president’s own moral vacuousness and unconscious/conscious desire to exploit race whenever he has the opportunity.  Shame on him. And forget Sony’s Pascal.  She lives in such a bubble she probably thinks Sharpton’s a black Gandhi rather than a black David Duke, which he unquestionably is, except Al has more power now these day than Duke ever did.  Whoever gave her the advice to seek counsel from Al has his or her own problems as well.

The whole Sony story has a certain twisted dark comedy flavor with CEO Michael Lynton bickering with Obama over the release of what is said to be an unwatchable movie. It sure looks that way from the trailers.  If the NORKS had any brains, they should just have let the film be released and it would have sunk like a stone.  But perhaps they had other intentions — or someone did — beyond making fun of inane Hollywood studio executives or even silencing a movie.

The cyber attack on the studio has a serious side and it’s not really about North Korea.  It’s about who helped North Korea, the assumption being that the NORKS don’t quite have the technical expertise to pull this off by themselves.  Russia, China and Iran are the three candidates whose names have been thrown into the hopper as possible co-perps — maybe more than one of them.

Pages: 1 2 | 94 Comments»

We Need a Wartime Consigliere

December 16th, 2014 - 11:13 pm

You’re just not a wartime consigliere, Barry. Though don’t tell her I said so, neither is Hillary.

Only a day after we watched pundits and commentators bend over backwards and do cartwheels to inform us the events in Sydney were not about Islam but about one deranged individual, the mass murder of school children in Peshawar occurred, an act reminiscent of Pol Pot at his worst with a soupçon of Dr. Mengele. Our considerate and sophisticated State Department rushed in to reassure us that this was the work of the Pakistani Taliban, not the Afghani Taliban with whom the Department is trying to make some sort of deal as the U.S. troops exit that country. Never mind that these Taliban said this was only a “trailer” and that there was more to come, or as our buddy Richard Fernandez put it so succinctly, “Who cares about mere beheadings anymore? That’s so yesterday.”

No, the Department has moved on to its more important work, badgering Israel. In that they are joined by the Europeans, who are falling all over themselves to recognize a Palestinian state in the Security Council. The U.S. normally vetoes this nonsense, but not our John Kerry. He is playing it coy, saying he hasn’t seen the details yet. Or maybe he wants to wait to see if the North Koreans blow up our movie theaters first.  Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is in an orgy of recrimination for so-called torture techniques they all signed on to in the first place. It’s a nightmare. U.S. foreign policy in the Obama-Clinton-Kerry years has turned into a bad revival of The Rocky Horror Show. We might as well get it over with and hand our country to the Taliban and ISIS. After all, they’re not Islamic.  Our president told us.  So they’ll be tolerant of other religions, even atheists.  Yes, they have some problems with women, but our feminists will set them to rights, after they get rid of Hirsi Ali.

Oh, wait a minute.  The Taliban and ISIS are Sunnis.  That wouldn’t be fair — especially with all the time we’ve spent negotiating with the nice Iranians who are Shiites, as we know.  We have to give them something. I know they get a bomb, but that’s not territory. That’s just potential territory, after the fallout clears.  Maybe we should also give them Chicago. They have the kind of draconian laws that might cut down on the Windy City’s murder rate. And they actually do torture there — the real kind. Forget waterboarding. That’s for kindergarteners in Iran. Google Evin Prison. And while we’re at it, we can send Dianne Feinstein over there.   She can do a report.

Yes, we’ve got a great foreign policy in this country.  Just ask Putin and Medvedev.  They’ll be glad you did because they’re kind of gloomy these days over the price of oil.  But never mind, they’ll find a way back.  Maybe they’ll take a few Baltic states — all those good seaports.

Sounds bad, huh? Tough times ahead for good old Western Civ.  Well, I wouldn’t worry about it. They’re not teaching that stuff in our schools anymore, so nobody knows what it is.

Pages: 1 2 | 64 Comments»

Did Edward Snowden Hack Sony Pictures?

December 14th, 2014 - 9:58 pm


It’s admittedly unseemly to be writing about sleazy Hollywood while glancing, as I am, at the live YouTube stream from Sydney, reporting on the Martin Place hostage situation.  But permit me to enjoy a little schadenfreude while I still can.

Many of us who have spent even part of our lives working in the film industry, particularly those who have committed the unpardonable sin of not adhering religiously to the orthodox liberal line, cannot but grin at the release of the hacked emails from the bosses of Sony Pictures. We were right all along about these self-described liberals and progressives and now we have proof — they are pond scum.  They are about as liberal and progressive as Attila — not that those words mean anything anyway.

They’re also racist, but forget about that.  It’s hardly surprising.  What is surprising is that they are clueless.  They don’t know what the average ten-year-old nerd knows — never write anything online, especially in email or text message form, that you expect is any way to be confidential. Digital writing is indelible.  If you want to say something private, you’re better off with India ink than email.  And if you really want to be secure, do what al Qaeda does — keep it face to face.

At this point a fair percentage of the English-speaking world and probably beyond is familiar with the hacked material from Sony. And now the unkindest cut has been revealed — the hackers have stolen the script for the next James Bond. (Well, maybe that’s not so unkind.  Maybe they can explain the plot to us.  The last few Bond films have been pretty inscrutable.) Not to mention …


ABC 24 Sydney is reporting three of the hostages have escaped.  I just watched the footage of them running out.  Puts all this Hollywood nonsense in perspective.  This is the real world of Islamic terror we have all been experiencing for well more than a decade and seemingly will never be without. But the movie industry has yet to really grapple with the long and serious war we are in in any depth.  Even Zero Dark Thirty didn’t tell us much.  And as I wrote in City Journal this week, Clint Eastwood’s foray into Iraq this year, American Sniper, didn’t do much for me either.  No, getting inside our modern heart of darkness has been too much for the liberal mind.

Pages: 1 2 | 61 Comments»

What Dianne Did

December 11th, 2014 - 8:15 pm

The dust is far from settled regarding the condemnatory Senate report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of so-called torture with terror detainees. CIA Director John Brennan is disputing the report’s claim that those enhanced terror techniques were worthless and netted no information, while Intelligence Committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein insists that her report is correct. Former DCIA Michael Hayden and, not surprisingly, Dick Cheney had weighed in on Brennan’s side the day before.

My first thought was that this was all much ado about nothing.  We have been hearing the same arguments about waterboarding and the like for the last six — or is it ten — years with the same people lined up pro and con. None of it is very new, although Feinstein and the media are pretending it is.  Moreover, the release of the report was clearly timed to distract from the embarrassing appearance of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber before Congress.  It also was rushed out before the new Republican Congress can deep six it after they are sworn in next year.  (They had a point.  No Republicans or, more importantly, CIA operatives who actually participated in the actions in question were interviewed for the report.)

All this is SOP in heavily politicized Washington, as was Feinstein thinking about her and her Democratic cohorts’ “legacies,” although a fair number of them (Pelosi, etc.) were fully aware of the CIA’s techniques from the get go and never uttered a peep against it at the time. Again, the standard hypocrisy.  Also at play here was a bit of vengeance on Feinstein’s part.  Her committee’s computers were apparently hacked by the CIA, nervous about what was being said about them, possibly with some justification.

And, while we’re pointing out the obvious hypocrisy, nothing could be more obviously hypocritical than the Obama administration that putatively abhors torture employing drones that simply murder enemy combatants and often a host of innocent people who happen to be nearby into the bargain.  Wouldn’t you rather be waterboarded?  Nobody dies being waterboarded.  In fact, it’s designed so you won’t.

But still I put this all down to the usual liberal roundelay with Dianne Feinstein competing against many of her ilk for “Moral Narcissist in Chief,” until I heard an outraged Dennis Miller on the radio Wednesday.  He was treating this report as if it was the end of our country as we know it — and he had a point.  His reason:  who would join the CIA now knowing your own government doesn’t have your back?  And we need the CIA more than ever in the covert struggle against the likes of ISIS, Iran, al Qaeda, North Korea, China and Russia.

Pages: 1 2 | 136 Comments»


When I first read that Hillary Clinton said we should have “empathy” for our enemies, my first thought was — is she senile?  Who is she talking about?  Empathy for Hitler?  Pol Pot?  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?  Surely if we only empathized with the ISIS leader a bit more, they wouldn’t be slicing off as many heads or placing as many women in sexual slavery, not to mention shooting large groups after having had them dig their own mass graves, Nazi-style. All that business about global jihad and caliphates and “see you in New York” would go away with a little sympathy.  (Cue Mick Jagger.)

Yes, I know sympathy is often defined as “feeling for” someone and empathy “feeling into,” but let’s not get bogged down in minor distinctions.  It’s hard for anyone with basic morality to have empathy or sympathy for ruthless transnational mass murderers motivated by extreme religious fanaticism.  On Fox News Sunday, even Hillary’s normally complaisant supporter Jane Harman seemed repelled.  George Will rose to her defense (sort of) by explaining Hillary’s peculiar word choice by saying Clinton employed “gaseous new-age rhetoric” about respect and empathy.  True enough, and witty, but I suspect it’s more than that. Why would her mind even go in that direction?

Hillary, as most know now, is not a master of the English language in general  She misspeaks herself frequently or simply reacts, as in the “what difference does it make?” outburst about Benghazi. In this way she is following in the footsteps of Bush 43 and Obama, neither of whom could be mistaken for Demosthenes, although Obama had some Greek pretensions in his scenic design preferences.

Bush stumbled with words because of  weak linguistic facility he often joked about.  For Obama it was something considerably worse, almost always to do with deception.  He frequently lies and almost never speaks with candor, so ultimately the normal reaction is to tune him out, as most have at this point.

Pages: 1 2 | 87 Comments»


November 30th, 2014 - 11:02 pm


2016 is the Republicans’ to lose. That doesn’t mean they won’t. They seem to be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with remarkable ease, especially in presidential years. But they start this time with a big advantage. Liberalism, to paraphrase the late Preston Sturges (he was referring to chivalry), is “not only dead, it’s decomposed.”

Liberalism n’existe pas — and almost everybody knows it. It is completely out of ideas. Obama was the last gasp of a dying ideology. All they have left is some pathetic and teetering identity politics. That is why the Democratic Party was so flummoxed over the last few days over the words of their stalwart Chuck Schumer, when he criticized the risibly titled Affordable Care Act. The New York senator said his party (and Obama clearly), rather than trying to reform healthcare, should have concentrated on improving the state of the middle class. But crucially, Schumer didn’t say how. That’s because in his ideology, there is no more how. It’s all been tried and shown to be useless or, worse, destructive of the people it pretends to be helping. At this point, we no longer need Gertrude Stein to tell us there’s no there there. It’s over. As Edward Luce wrote in yesterday’s Financial Times:

As it stands, whatever coalition is expected to carry Mrs Clinton over the finishing line is likely to result from a calculated process of addition. In politics, winning is ultimately about ideas. In the absence of new ones, Mrs Clinton’s bridge to the White House looks rickety.

The Democrats have been reduced to the party of the rich elite (George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Hollywood, Jonathan Gruber-types, edit al.) and the party of the poor exploited by those elites — a lethal combination that takes society exactly nowhere. In essence, they are the party of racism and sexism — that’s about it. Oh, and climate change. There’s a winner for you.

Pages: 1 2 | 121 Comments»


That the photograph of Walter Duranty — the New York Times Moscow correspondent who deliberately whitewashed Stalin’s 1930s forced starvation of millions of Ukrainians and won the Pulitzer for it — still is on the newspaper’s wall of fame with their other prize winners is apparently no aberration. The New York Times has no moral center. In fact, it’s despicable. On November 24, they published the home address of Officer Darren Wilson.

By now most of America knows who Wilson is — the Ferguson, Missouri, police officer exonerated for the murder of Michael Brown, the supposed 6′ 6″, three-hundred-pound “gentle giant” who was reportedly on his way to college, but it turns out was holding up convenience stores and trying to grab Wilson’s gun and bashing him in the face all while the officer was sitting in his police car. We also all know the reaction of some of the angrier members of the Ferguson community and those omnipresent “outside agitator” dime-store anarchists to the grand jury announcement — cars torched, minority businesses burned down, looting, gunfire, freeways blocked, etc., etc. A lot of out-of-control mayhem from L.A. to NY with racial hatred fanned at every turn. The NYT apparently doesn’t give a shit (excuse the French, but it’s merited). In the midst of all this, they print Wilson’s address. It was to them “all the news that’s fit to print.” Who cares what might happen to the cop and his family? He’s just a cop, after all, and a white one at that. Definitely not a member of the elite — not bon type, bon genre. (Maybe someone should do a country song — “Two thousand miles from Zabar’s.”)

So much for that newspaper. They’re cancer.

Not quite cancer but pretty bad is Jay Nixon, the governor of Missouri. Not only did he attempt to prejudge the case, calling for Wilson’s head like some minor league Robespierre months before there was any evidence, but then, on the night of the grand jury announcement, after having brought in the National Guard, he goes completely AWOL and doesn’t use the Guards at all, leaving the poor store owners of Ferguson to fend for themselves, not to mention the police. Everyone got to watch the results on TV.

Peter Kinder, the vice governor of Missouri, wants to know what happened. Why no Guards, when they were all set to go? Did the word come down from the White House or the Department of Justice to keep the Guards out? Nixon didn’t answer, just accused Kinder of playing politics. (At least he didn’t play the race card, but that would be hard, white man to white man…. although it’s possible.) So we don’t know… yet.

Pages: 1 2 | 134 Comments»

Iran: Obama’s Biggest Failure Fails Again

November 23rd, 2014 - 6:33 pm


Among the many lies and failures of Barack Obama, ultimately the most dangerous, the most lethal for humanity, is his meretricious and pathetic pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran. In negotiation, Obama and his minions have been treating the mullahs as if they were the leaders of Denmark, even to the point of sending fawning multiple mailings to Ayatollah Khamenei, as absurd an approach as it is asinine.

If Obama really wanted a deal, he would have gone about it in a very different manner, strengthening sanctions rather than weakening them, treating the mullahs as the autocratic religious fanatics that they are.  What Obama seems to want instead is the appearance that he seeks to deprive Iran of the bomb, not the actual result. (He may even want the reverse, unconsciously or even semi-consciously.  That would be more in line with his anti-imperialist views.)

Sunday evening, a day in advance of the conclusion of this round of talks, the AP is already reporting the “shocking” news that U.S. negotiators are floating yet another extension to the Iranians.  The Wall Street Journal similarly posted “No Iran Deal Seen by Monday” later in the evening.  This is such a predictable end to the hapless negotiations I imagine London bookmakers wouldn’t even have offered a hundred-to-one against it, maybe not a thousand to one.  Betting on the West would have been like betting on a horse with two broken legs and heart condition. It is clear the Iranian leadership is getting precisely what they wanted yet again — more time to build a bomb and improve their nuclear delivery capabilities, including ICBMs, which have no other use other than for nuclear attack. (Note for those who still think this is all about Israel.  The Iranians do not need ICBMs to reach Israel.  They would be for other purposes.) Meanwhile,  the Iranians continue their work on the plutonium-producing Arak facility and on stockpiling low-enriched uranium in oxide form.  Undoubtedly, they are up to a whole lot more than that we don’t know about.  They allow the IAEA to see exactly what they permit and nothing more.  Everything is under their control — or at least the ayatollah’s control.

One of the more interesting passages of the WSJ report is as follows:

U.S., European and Iranian officials said they have made progress over the past year in negotiations that have crisscrossed the world from Oman to New York. But Obama administration officials increasingly are questioning whether Iran’s most powerful political player, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has empowered Mr. Zarif and other negotiators to make the necessary concessions for a deal. Mr. Zarif has repeatedly said he’s empowered to negotiate but that Mr. Khamenei is the ultimate decision maker.

Just now they are questioning this?  It would have seemed elementary from the outset to anyone paying the slightest attention to how  the Islamic Republic of Iran works and  always has since 1979 without interruption.  Only a narcissist like Obama could think otherwise, think that his force of personality could overcome Khomeinist Shiite ideology.

Pages: 1 2 | 37 Comments»

Oh, Jerusalem

November 18th, 2014 - 9:56 pm


What to say about the latest round of Islamo-carnage in Jerusalem that hasn’t been said thousands of times before? Golda Meir made it all clear in her famous 1957 speech at the National Press Club in DC: “Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.”

In other words, basically never. The hate culture of the Palestinians — and almost all Arabs — is so deeply imbued it’s hard to imagine it ever changing. After this recent incident, they danced in the street with hatchets and gave each other candy.

Lots of people have tried to make peace with them. The supposed war-monger Ariel Sharon uprooted his own people and gave the Palestinians Gaza. We all know what happened. Then prime minister Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians the peace deal of the century. They walked away.

The reason is obvious. The Palestinians don’t want a two-state solution and never have. And not just Hamas with their infamous charter urging the death of all Jews, even Jewish trees (whatever that means) — all of them. Well, not absolutely all. There must be one or two somewhere who really want to share the land with the Jews. I just don’t know who they are. Nobody does. Certainly not Abu Mazen, who started his career writing a Holocaust-denying thesis in Moscow, or Saeb Erekat, who by now must have a Swiss bank account to rival George Soros.

Besides the failure, since 1948, to even recognize the existence of a Jewish state on any territory, one of the more revealing aspects of the putative peace negotiations is that the Palestinians [sic] have always refused to have a single Jew living on their land once they have a state, while there are some million and a half Palestinians [sic] already living in Israel. Palestine must be judenrein — Hitler’s dream realized.

Of course, we get not a peep from the Europeans about this. Instead, according to Haaretz, we get new secret plans from the EU to boycott those horrible settlements that allegedly are the root of all this evil. Only the Europeans, Peter Beinart, the fuddy-duddies at J-Street and some Brandeis professors could believe something so absurd. Maybe the latter American group can be added to the old black comic joke, more apropos than ever: “The Europeans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz.”

Pages: 1 2 | 117 Comments»