Afro-mythologist race hustlers demand Hollywood turn Cleopatra black.

Afro-mythologist race hustlers demand Hollywood turn Cleopatra black.

Anthropologists classify the historical Egyptians as “North African Caucasoid.” Prior to the Muslim invasion of North Africa, and the start of the Muslim controlled Negro slave trade, very few members of the Negro race ever lived in North Africa.

The Egyptian ruler Cleopatra, was an ethnic Greek. Part of the Greek aristocracy that ruled Egypt at that time.

From UK Mail Online

She hasn’t even been officially confirmed as having the role, but Angelina Jolie is already receiving criticism over her possible portrayal of the legendary Queen of the Nile.

Jolie, who turned 35 last week, is caught up in a racially charged debate over whether the role should have been played by a black woman.

The Egyptian royal was most famously portrayed by Elizabeth Taylor in 1963.

The new film’s producer, Scott Rudin, previously told USA Today the role is being developed with Angelina in mind as she has ‘the perfect look’.

But this statement has angered members of the African American community.

An Essence Magazine online story asks, ‘Another White Actress to Play Cleopatra?’

‘Honestly, I don’t care how full Angelina Jolie’s lips are, how many African children she adopts, or how bronzed her skin will become for the film, I firmly believe this role should have gone to a black woman.’

Jolie adopted her daughter Zahara,5, from Ethiopia and gave birth to Shiloh,3, in Namibia. She also has 3 other children with partner, Brad Pitt. Maddox, 8, Pax, 6, and twins Knox and Vivienne, 2.

‘Were Vanessa Williams, Halle Berry and Thandie Newton unavailable for auditions that day?’ the writer continued.

‘Why does Hollywood think it’s even slightly plausible to cast white women in roles that would be more sensible to cast a black actress for? Especially when that role is an African queen.’

The film is being directed by Ocean’s 11’s Steven Soderberg, who originally planned to turn Cleopatra into a $30 million 3D epic starring Catherine-Zeta Jones and Hugh Jackman.

The casting of Joile has been backed by Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff, who wrote the book which the film is based on, Cleopatra: A Life.

‘I think [Jolie] be perfect for it and I can see a possible Oscar in her future,’ she said. ‘Physically, she’s got the perfect look.’

This map shows where members of the Negro race lived in Africa. It wasn’t until the 7th century that Arab slave traders began bringing hundreds of thousands of Negro slaves into Northern Africa and the Middle East.

Don’t like soccer? You’re a racist!

Don’t like soccer? You’re a racist!

That’s what Jewish sportwriter Dave Zirin tells us on NPR:

Among adults, the sport is also growing because people from Latin America, Africa, and the West Indies have brought their love of the beautiful game to an increasingly multicultural United States. As sports journalist Simon Kuper wrote very adroitly in his book Soccer Against the Enemy, “When we say Americans don’t play soccer we are thinking of the big white people who live in the suburbs. Tens of millions of Hispanic Americans [and other nationalities] do play, and watch and read about soccer.” In other words, Beck rejects soccer because his idealized “real America” – in all its monochromatic glory – rejects it as well. To be clear, I know a lot of folks who can’t stand soccer. It’s simply a matter of taste. But for Beck it’s a lot more than, “Gee. It’s kind of boring.” Instead it’s, “Look out whitey! Felipe Melo’s gonna get your mama!”

Eric Holder was right

Eric Holder was right
White Americans are a nation of cowards when it comes to talking about race. Just ask Congressman Steve King from Iowa.

Iowa Rep. Steve King said he is performing a public service by accusing President Obama of favoring blacks over whites.

“I’m standing up against something that is or could become racism,” King told on Wednesday.

The Iowa Republican said he didn’t misspeak when he told a nationally syndicated radio show on Monday that President Obama favors blacks over whites. King told the G. Gordon Liddy show that Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly demonstrate an unjust preference toward minorities.

King told that his comments alluded to a July 2009 incident in which a white police officer in Cambridge, Mass., arrested a black professor for disorderly conduct.

Before knowing all the facts, Obama said Sgt. James Crowley acted “stupidly” when he apprehended Harvard Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. outside his home. Obama later said he did not intend to malign the police offer — and invited the two men to a “beer summit” at the White House — but King claims his initial remarks showed a “built-in defense mechanism” that favors minorities.

King said Obama’s first public statement on the incident “brought up race in the beginning” and “concluded with race.”

The three-term congressman repeated his claim that Obama has “a default mechanism that breaks down on the side of the minority.”


King went on to cite more recent remarks from Obama in which the president criticized Arizona’s controversial immigration law by suggesting it could lead to racial profiling — a concern held by the administration and most Democrats as well as civil rights groups fighting to repeal the legislation.

King also criticized Holder for embracing what he called a similar racial “bias,” citing the Justice Department’s decision to drop a 2008 voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

It’s pretty hard to argue with his logic. He’s just being honest; this is hardly controversial stuff.

And how did white conservatives respond to King’s statement?

King’s remarks Monday didn’t sit well with members of his own party — including Colorado Republican Cory Gardner, whose congressional campaign canceled a $100-a-plate fundraiser that was to feature King as its guest speaker. And King’s upcoming appearance at a Tea Party rally in Loveland, Colo., was canceled after organizers got word of the comments.

Yeah, those Tea Parties are really going to shake things up in America!

What a joke.

The Glenn Beck Deception

The Glenn Beck Deception

Inside the PC Lunatic Fringe

Over the past year and half, I’ve always had at least one colleague who has liked Glenn Beck. First there was Jack Hunter and Dylan Hales (though the later had reservations). More recently Richard Hoste has taken up the charge.

Beck is certainly more unsettled in his opinions than Hannity, Limbaugh & Co, which means that he’s more willing to put on his show people with an “alternative” right-wing perspective, whether it be strict Constitutionalists or Austrian-inflected economists.

In my sporadic viewings of The Glenn Beck Program, I often get the impression that the host is, in a sense, going to school with each new show, likely in an attempt to make up for decades spent boozing. The Founding Fathers, Woodrow Wilson, Fascism, Objectivism and Ayn Randall subjects Beck approaches with a bright-eyed innocence and ignorance. I find programs on, say, American imperialism more interested than updates on the run-away bride, to be sure, but I’d prefer hearing this subject discussed by someone who hadn’t just discovered it existed shortly before going on air at 5 PM.

Beck’s “curiosity” aside, whenever he has been faced with a serious moment of decision, he has invariably come down on the side of the conservative-GOP establishment, and the Washington Power Elite more generally. Beck supported the Wall Street bailouts as not only “necessary” but “not nearly enough”; he was a terror warrior indistinguishable from Hannity throughout the Bush years; and after being invited to the Whitehouse, he discussed how Dubya felt the pain of dead soldiers. Beck found “libertarian” and “antiwar conservative” religion conveniently after the inauguration of a Democratic president.

This past week, Beck aired a show that was so preposterous in conception — and so emblematic of what’s wrong with American conservatism — that I couldn’t resist giving it a detailed analysis. The unlikely subject of the program was America’s Black Founding Fathers.

In this episode, part of his “Founding Fathers’ Fridays” series, Beck begins by informing his audience that much of what they learned in school is wrong and that for at least a century, American scholars have been suppressing (consciously, I presume) the grand history of African-American achievement. These sins of omission are grave. Forgotten black heroes include, Peter Salem, who was, according to Beck, the “hero of Bunker Hill,” and James Armistad, who, Beck reveals, “may have won the Revolutionary War” through his daring-do.

To back up these revisionary claims, Beck brings on David Barton, a man who made headlines recently in Texas’s “textbook wars” (more on that below). Barton is the president of the “WallBuilders” think-tank, which is dedicated to documenting the religiosity of the Founding Founders and the achievements of African Americans. Reading through Barton’s website, one gets the impression that he all but equates African-Americans’ participation in government with Christian righteousness.

Then comes Lucas Morel, a professor with a doctorate from the Claremont Graduate Program, the hotbed of Jaffa-ite and Straussian conservatism, who declares that “American history can be described as one long Civil Rights struggle,” which, I gather, includes not only the past 45 years of socially uplifting legislation but various world wars.

One could get bogged down deconstructing the assertions of the pair, so, I’ll focus on just one. Beck became particularly giddy over Barton’s tale of the “Black Paul Revere,” Wentworth Cheswell, a brave African-American New Hampshirite who was elected as his town’s constable in 1768 and in 1775 made an all-night ride from Boston to declare to his community “The British are coming!”

Did you know that Wentworth Chesswell was black?  No? You’re not alone, because neither did his constituents, who were under the mistaken assumption that they were governed by an Anglo-Saxon. There’s also no mention of an African in the Cheswells’ authorized family tree, though historians have located a 17th-century Negro, “Richard Chesswell,” who was likely Wentworth’s grandfather, making the later, at the very most, a quadroon. Put simply, the “Black Paul Revere” probably could have gained admission to the 18th-century version of a WASP country club. Even PBS, which one wouldn’t expect to discount Cheswell’s blackness, writes that the Chesswell genealogy stands as an example of “the ‘passing’ process”…

(Also lionized in the Black Founders pantheon was an 18th-century “African-American preacher” of a white congregation, Lemuel Haynes.” Does this man look African to you?)

One could go on… but, in the end, facts really don’t matter. For with “the Black Founders,” one is dealing with ideological babble, not history. Beck points to 19th-century Romantic oil paintings of the Revolution as if they were historical documents; Barton thumbs though a 19th-century volume on “colored patriots” citing its thickness as proof of African-American achievement. No, it’s best to ignore these details, take a step back, and examine the propagandistic message Beck is delivering to his conservative audience.

At the beginning of his “lesson,” Beck asks, rhetorically and quasi-conspiratorially, “Why would our schools leave all of this history out?” Beck’s audience is likely older, but most people who went to American public and private schools after 1970 hardly suffered from a dearth of black history. They were drowned in it, in fact — from slavery to Jim Crow to the mostly fraudulent history of black inventors to the collection of curious African-American anecdotes inflated beyond proportion. A friend of mine, who’s six years younger and who thus experienced a higher stage of ideological conditioning, told me that when his high-school history class studied the 20th-century, they spent weeks and weeks on the Holocaust, a few days on the world wars, and concluded with a special section on Lonnie Johnson, the black inventor of the Super Soaker.

Back to Beck’s fantasy land. At the end of the show, Beck reveals that the true reason that all this amazing black history has been suppressed is that liberals want blacks to remain a victim class and America to be depicted as racist and evil — a scheme that might be foiled if the American public ever learned about the noble exploits of African-Americans.

In asserting this, Beck and his guests are engaging in what might be called “PC Judo” — a move in which conservatives don’t simply affirm politically correct values and taboos but actually turn them against their left-wing critics. Thus, liberals are “racist” for criticizing Condolezza Rice or “fascist” for supporting a centralized government; if they opposed the invasion of Iraq, they should be counted as partisans of Francisco Franco and Mussolini; Arab terrorists are as bad as white supremacists. And so and so on.

The Southern version of PC Judo is particularly odd. Contemporary “neo-Confederates,” for instance, have been known to embrace their Southern heritage by digging up stories of “black Confederates” and condemning Lincoln for his racism. On the Beck show, David Barton, who fits the bill of a Southern Good Old Boy, proudly announces that Joseph Hayne Rainey was America’s first black Speaker of the House. He omits citing the fact that Rainey was elected in South Carolina during the heights of Reconstruction, the then-most advanced experiment in anti-white and anti-Southern social engineering, which is why liberals rarely tout him as “the first Obama.”

I once thought that I supported the attempts by conservative Texans to present a different story in their state’s mandated textbooks. After learning that Barton was a leader in this fight, I’m beginning to wonder whether the textboks might turn out more PC than they were before. Leftist can at least be counted on to correctly identify 18th and 19th-century America as racially stratified, one-time slave-owning republic. (At the close of show, Barton indicates that he has more stories to tell about American Revolutionary Latinos…)

So, what does one make of Glenn Beck? It’s hard not to have a soft spot for a guy who’s hated so passionately by the Huffington Post and David Frum alike, and perhaps some good might come from this man’s show. A uniformed FOX conservative might, for instance, watch Beck and become more skeptical of Woodrow Wilson and the Federal Reserve System… Then again, he might watch last Friday’s show and report to his friends and family that the Founding Fathers were black.

In terms of fostering a sense of Western unity and shared heritage, Glenn Beck is positively antithetical. In one of his most famous chalkboard chats, Beck reveals that all of Europe was “on the wrong track” because, unlike America, the continent didn’t embrace the Enlightenment and human rights and instead wasted away in tradition and superstition. Becoming like Europe is assumed to be very, very bad.

In terms of American populism, Beck is, again, deeply harmful. The Tea Party movement began as a spontaneous outburst from average Americans against taxation and government expansion. Once Beck got his hands on it, he labeled it “The 9/12 Project,” evoking the “war on terror” good old days when average Americans were more happily conjoined with the federal government.

I think Glenn Beck is entirely sincere in his efforts to teach Americans (and himself) about their country, and he isn’t some kind of stooge or agent of the Power Elite, as the above paragraph might imply. Nevertheless, if Glenn Beck didn’t exist, the Establishment might have had to invent him. A controlled, circumscribed, and confused opposition is much better than no opposition at all. For if there were none, something sincere and dangerous might fill the void…  Glenn Beck seems to have been put on this earth to ensure that the restless Middle American natives become excited about the most ridiculous and useless political issues possible.


Richard Spencer

Richard Spencer

A former Assistant Editor at The American Conservative and Executive Editor at Taki’s Magazine, Richard B. Spencer is the Founder and Executive Editor of

Desegregating the Holy Land

Desegregating the Holy Land

Desegregating the Holy Land Ultra-Orthodox Protest (photo: New York Times)

Jews have been wildly overrepresented in Left-liberal movements of the 20th century. One need not agree with Kevin MacDonald’s historical and evolutionary theory of Jewish behavior in the Diaspora to reach such a conclusion.

To take the Civil Rights movement as one example, organization like the NAACP and the Urban League would have languished without the financial and organizational support of prominent Northern Jews such as Jacob Billikopf, Jacob Schiff, and Rabbi Stephen Wise. Black sociologist Kenneth Clark’s (in)famous “doll experiments,” which were cited in the Brown vs. Board of Education decision (and recently reenacted by CNN), were commissioned by the American Jewish Committee. (An interesting discussion of all of this can be found in American Renaissance’s review of Cheryl Greenberg’s Troubling the Waters: Black-Jewish Relations in the American Century.)

Needless to say, such facts have remained a sore spot for White Nationalists and the hard Right — and a source of pride for Jewish liberals and neocons.

One critical question the former group poses to the latter goes something like this:

Why is it that Israeli Jews are allowed to define their homeland on ethnic and religious grounds — to the point of forbidding non-Jews to own land! — but then American and European Jews promote racial integration and multiculturalism?

It’s a legitimate question, with the assumed answer being that in both cases, it’s good for the Jews, who are well equipped to flourish in an America that lacks a strong Anglo-Saxon identity and in an Israel that possesses a strong Jewish one. (With respect to this asymmetry, some in the racialist Right have suggested that America stop trying to mimic Israel’s foreign policies and adopt its domestic ones.)

An important addendum to all this is that Jews often swallow the liberal poison themselves and suffer from the law of unintended consequences (to borrow one of the neocons’ favored phrases.) “Jewish plots” to, say, get the Goyim inured to birth control, abortions, and non-traditional lifestyles have devastated Jewish communities, too. Moreover, many liberal Jews who fear white anti-Semitism might soon learn that Jews fare much better in a WASP culture than in a Latino, black, or multicultural one.

Whatever the case, for the Ulta-Orthodox Israeli Jews, American liberalism has really hit home:

Associated Press

JERUSALEM – Tens of thousands of black-clad ultra-Orthodox Jews staged mass demonstrations on Thursday to protest a Supreme Court ruling forcing the integration of a religious girls’ school.

Protesters snarled traffic in Jerusalem and another large religious enclave, crowded onto balconies in city squares, and waved posters decrying the court’s decision and proclaiming the supremacy of religious law.

There were a few small scuffles, and a police officer emerged from one of them holding his eye, apparently slightly injured.

It was one of the largest protests in Jerusalem’s history, and a stark reminder of the ultra-Orthodox minority’s refusal to accept the authority of the state.

Also, the throngs of devout Jews showed to which extent the ultra-Orthodox live by their own rules, some of them archaic, while wielding disproportionate power in the modern state of Israel.

Parents of European, or Ashkenazi, descent at a girls’ school in the West Bank settlement of Emanuel don’t want their daughters to study with schoolgirls of Mideast and North African descent, known as Sephardim.

The Ashkenazi parents insist they aren’t racist, but want to keep the classrooms segregated, as they have been for years, arguing that the families of the Sephardi girls aren’t religious enough.

It strikes me as highly unlikely that the Sephardi girls indigenous to the region “aren’t religious enough”… a phrase that seems to be the Levantine equivalent of “state’s rights.” Ashkenazi schools and students are better, no doubt, but the real issue is that the Ashkenazi — that is, European Jews — simply want their children to be raised among their own kind. It’d be best for all if they just came out and said it.

// Richard Spencer

Richard Spencer

A former Assistant Editor at The American Conservative and Executive Editor at Taki’s Magazine, Richard B. Spencer is the Founder and Executive Editor of

Is Europe Awaking?

Is Europe Awaking?

I have two new podcasts up at AltRight Radio that are of interest to “Euro-centrists.” The first is an interview with Jan Lievens, a politician and former youth coordinator with the Flemish independence party, the Vlaams Belang. The second is with AltRight contributor Derek Turner, with whom I discuss political happenings across the continent as well as the difficulty of forming an alliance between Europe’s various traditionalist and anti-Eurabia parties, which have identical enemies and yet which can’t ever seem to ever get along.