We have known that the American Left and the Nazis are inseparable for a long time now. The Left was an inspiration to the Nazis in drafting their racist laws, taking Democrat Jim Crow laws as a model, and that the Left likewise loved and respected the Nazis, with the NYT being more than happy to publish multiple op-eds from Hitler himself.
But in recent time, it feels as though the Left is becoming more and more comfortable in showing what vile anti-Semites they are. Of course, with Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib being so openly anti-Semitic, and being fairly popular on the Left, it was only a matter of time until this egregious hatred became more open.
There are two, technically three, stories that I want to talk about here. They are largely unrelated apart from the fact that Leftists are showing how closely related to the Nazis they always have been.
First, a story from Tufts University.
Max Price, a junior at the college, is reportedly facing a student government impeachment trial due to his pro-Israel stances. Price “has served as the president of the Tufts Friends of Israel group and is an elected member of the student government judiciary committee,” reports The Daily Wire.
Price, in a letter obtained by Jewish Insider, claims to have been “targeted and marginalized, called a racist, a fascist, a Nazi, [and] an enemy of progress.” It’s worth mentioning also that Price is Jewish, so the charge that he is a “Nazi” is particularly egregious and a reason as to why the term loses so much meaning.
If someone was considered a Nazi, that used to be a major problem. Now, anyone the Left dislikes is considered a Nazi, so its meaning is being lost (considering the Left loves Nazis, it’s unsurprising that they want to make the term “Nazi” so irrelevant).
Meanwhile, also unsurprisingly, the Left themselves display how Nazi-like they are with crap like this. Price is being targeted by a pro-Palestine group within the school called Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) which recently passed a non-binding resolution in the student government seeking to divest the school from Israel.
According to The Daily Wire, the resolution “demanded that the university prohibit campus police from attending military-led trips to Israel and ‘apologize for sending the former Tufts police chief to a militarized training trip.’”
SJP and other Leftist groups call international exchange programs “The Deadly Exchange”, with Leftist Jewish Voice for Peace claiming that the programs “promote and extend discriminatory and repressive policing practices that already exist in both countries.”
Basically, they are partly blaming Israel for the “racist cops” in both Israel and the States. It’s a bullcrap narrative to support another bullcrap narrative.
Being a member of the judiciary committee, Price was tasked with “eliminating biased, misleading or otherwise untruthful language” in any proposed student referendum text, which includes the SJP’s resolution.
As a result of Price being Jewish and being on that committee, the SJP demanded that he recuse himself from reviewing the text of the resolution, claiming that he would be biased. Reportedly, SJP members also pressured the student government leaders to mandate his recusal.
The judiciary committee held an emergency meeting to determine if Price should recuse himself but ultimately concluded that he should not be recused. Of course, because the SJP was unhappy with that result, they sought other avenues, now seeking to have him impeached.
Even though the judiciary committee had found that Price’s identity as a Jewish person and his perspective were not biasing in the process of reviewing the referendum, the SJP is targeting him solely for that identity. They believe that, with Price being Jewish and being pro-Israel, he would block the anti-Israel resolution.
And so, they seek to impeach him because that has worked out so well for the Left in recent years. Make no mistake, they are targeting him because he is Jewish and they hate Jews, else they would not be “pro-Palestine”, a ridiculous position that seeks to strip Israel of its rightful possession of the Holy Lands.
A Change.org petition was started (which is interesting, seeing as Change.org is a Soros-funded Leftist organization) demanding that the university stop the impeachment trial, claiming that the impeachment violates Price’s rights found in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion and other traits.
Price also claims in his letter that he had sent more than 30 documented incidents of anti-Semitism happening on campus which he sent to the school’s administration with zero response from them. One such incident was reportedly of a swastika having been posted on the room door of a Jewish student.
Ultimately, Price also wrote: “[Anti-Semitism] does not emanate from a secret cabal of white supremacists, nor an alt-right student collective. Rather, it camouflages itself to assume the form of progressive activism.”
And he is very much correct on that last remark, as the second story will reflect.
This second story is regarding NBC due to two incidents of anti-Semitism being displayed on their network (which is why I said “technically three stories” in the beginning). Earlier in the week, NBC’s SNL’s Michael Che did a segment on Weekend Update discussing Israel’s administration of Chinese coronavirus vaccines, implying that they were only giving the vaccine to Jewish residents.
Then, on Wednesday, the network was once again under fire for an episode of their medical drama “Nurses”, which reportedly included a rather “offensive portrayal of an Orthodox Jew,” according to the Florida Sun-Sentinel.
“The objectionable storyline occurred on an episodes of ‘Nurses,’ a Canadian hour-long drama following a group of nurses in a Toronto hospital. In the episode, a young Hasidic patient is told he will need a bone graft to heal his broken leg, leading his devout father to recoil at the possibility of a ‘dead goyim leg from anyone. An Arab, a woman,’” according to the Florida outlet.
The Daily Wire reports “The episode is actually a string of bizarre depictions of Orthodox Jewish individuals. The son, who is suffering from a broken leg, skipped shul to play basketball – an activity he, the show says, is forbidden from. And after it is explained he will need a bone graft, one of the main characters (who is an admitted atheist) attempts to quote religious scripture to the pair – who will not speak to her because, being religious zealots, they do not speak to women – and then claims to be a messenger of God warning the pair to acquiesce to medical treatment.”
Basically, the show is using a strawman depiction of Orthodox Jews to “show” that they are racists, sexists, anti-science and generally bigoted and ignorant.
The nurse eventually cannot convince the pair to get surgery, with them choosing prayer over the operation, and as the boy is escorted out of the hospital, the nurse is heard narrating: “What do we do when we can’t save someone? Faced with a battle that can’t be won?” as if to say that the Orthodox Jews cannot be reasoned with.
Naturally, this drew a lot of criticism from people because of its blatant and obvious anti-Semitism.
One commentator who often blogs about Orthodox Jewish life explained to people why the episode was so insulting to Jews and why their assertions and assumptions were entirely baseless.
“The idea that such a surgery would be problematic in general or problematic because of where the bone came from not only is categorically false according to Jewish law, it is a vicious lie that endangers men who walk around with curled sidelocks and black hats.”
“For those of you unfamiliar with Jewish law, which puts precedent on healing and saving lives, there is no prohibition on the kind of bone graft in this clip. The writers made it up, dressed their actors in Jew-face, and put random extremist nonsense in their mouths,” added another commentator.
So that’s two, technically three, incidents of recent anti-Semitic behavior by Leftists. One from college Leftists who believe in nonsensical “Free Palestine” crap and the other from a TV network that twice in one week displayed anti-Semitic mentalities.
The Left is becoming more and more openly like the Nazi Party. Who among us is surprised by this revelation that the historically racist party is openly racist?
“The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool.”
If the idea that the Left is racist against white people regarding concepts like being punctual is familiar to you, that’s because it’s similar to something I have written about in the past.
Back in July of 2020, I wrote about a graphic that The National Museum of African-American History & Culture had created (and which they have since taken down because of all the mockery they were receiving) that attributed positive things like self-reliance, independence, rational thinking and hard work to white people and white culture exclusively, while asserting that such things were actually negative and harmful.
Among the positive attributes that they asserted was negative was punctuality, following “rigid time schedules” and “Time viewed as a commodity.”
Well, Leftists are back once again attributing punctuality and good time-keeping to white people and asserting that such things are negative.
Back in late November, during a meeting of Washington Governor Jay Inslee’s Equity Task Force, one administrator who was recently named the director of the state Office of Equity, asserted that “white people and Europeans” had “an unhealthy focus on punctuality”, according to The Daily Wire.
Another member of the task force echoed that sentiment, saying “the office of equity should model practices and decolonize boards by identifying, dismantling, culture-bound rules and decorum, time-requirement, education, and what we call ‘expertise.’”
I, for one, say let them go for it. Go ahead and get rid of punctuality for yourselves, making sure that you never meet on time and don’t know when to do things. Such disorder makes things easier, culturally, for enemies of the Left such as myself.
Go ahead and “decolonize” time-keeping methods and practices. Go ahead and dismantle culture-bound rules and decorum, and things like “expertise”. Once you do that, we can get rid of Anthony Fauci and his “expertise”, right? Because “expertise” is a white thing, right? Go ahead and dismantle education. Marxist communist professors who were bought by China would subsequently lose their jobs as a result.
Maybe these people consider rational and objective thinking to be a white thing because they themselves are incapable of such thinking.
Dr. Karen Johnson, serving as equity and inclusion administrator (what a worthless position) for the Washington State Department of Corrections said in that November meeting:
“Most white people and Europeans are about agenda and to-do lists and tasks and ‘Oh we have thirty minutes for this’ and ‘Oh, time to move on,’ where people of color, maybe it matters, maybe it doesn’t. In South Africa, if we were meeting right here, 2:35, if Craig Bill (Director of the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs) walked in right now in South Africa, what would happen if they would stop, welcome him, ‘How was your weekend? You have any plans for Thanksgiving?’ and would bring him up to speed on what he missed – if we were in South Africa. If Craig Bill walked in right now in Tumwater, Washington we’d say ‘Hello’ and maybe somebody would – well, our chairs are gracious, so you won’t – would let him know ‘well, here we are’, but it’s basically, ‘This is where we are; just get with it.’”
So it’s likely that this Dr. Karen Johnson (maybe we should get rid of expertise if she has a doctorate and speaks English this poorly) was the one who asserted initially that white people and Europeans are unhealthily obsessed with punctuality. There are two things I want to discuss here.
First, if they were in South Africa, no one would be asking about people’s Thanksgiving plans because South Africans don’t celebrate Thanksgiving. That’s an American holiday. So that’s pretty racist that she would assume South Africans celebrate the things that Americans do. How dare she?
Secondly, she accuses white people and Europeans of being obsessed with punctuality and then proceeds to give an example of something that has nothing to do with punctuality. Asking people “how was your weekend? You have any plans for Thanksgiving?” even if done right before a meeting is not a punctuality thing, but a politeness thing. She implies that people in South Africa would be polite enough to ask those questions, but in America, the coworkers would not be polite enough (at least if they are white and, given what she says, not liberals) to ask such things and would just say “hello” and “here we are” and “just get with it,” in trying to maintain their schedule.
Which is extremely ironic, considering that politeness is another attribute that they gave to WHITE PEOPLE.
In that article I wrote in July, I pointed out how there is a point in the “Communication” section that said: “Be polite”, attributing politeness to white people.
So not only does she use an example of something unrelated to time-keeping and punctuality when attacking white people’s alleged obsession over punctuality, but the example she uses is contradictory to the racist, neo-Marxist piece of crap graphic that the National Museum of African-American History & Culture had, at one time, shared.
She takes one of their points, that punctuality is a white thing, while ignoring the politeness part also being a white thing. It’s quite amusing and not really surprising, to be honest.
But, again, let them be disorganized and attempt to “decolonize” things like punctuality. So long as this only affects the Left, I have no issue with the idiotic crap they want to attempt.
I take a similar approach to the way people vote. I have no issues at all if the Left wants to destroy a state if the people of that state vote such atrocities into power. The problem, however, comes in the fact that there are plenty of people who did not or do not vote for such things and they are getting screwed over. If the Left’s destructive policies only affected the Left, I’d have no problem with that at all.
You get the government you deserve, particularly if it’s the one you vote for. If the Left wants to destroy the concept of punctuality and this only affected the Left, I would be 100% in favor of them doing so.
But the problem comes in the fact that they are not content in sitting in the misery they create by themselves; they have to involve other people as well. In their “decolonization” of things like punctuality, they seek to alter all of America and its views on punctuality, not just Leftists and Leftist organizations.
They drag other people in to the crap that they fester, which is a big problem. So, with idiotic ideas like “decolonizing” punctuality, whatever the hell that means, rational people like myself have to push back on those things because they are extremely harmful.
So they must be defeated at every turn in every way.
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”
The concept of “antiracism” is very blatantly and obviously racism masquerading as its opposite. Often times, it is openly against white people, as proponents of “antiracism” often declare that all white people are bad. That there are people out there who do not see this as asinine and blatant racism is baffling to me, even more so that some would try to justify it by citing the past woes of racism from white people.
But there is no doubt in any sane person’s mind that this is nothing but the perpetuation of that same racism that these people claim to denounce, only directed at the race which, in their mind, is responsible for racism in the first place (ignoring entirely that all races would consider themselves superior to the others because that is how tribalism and homogeneity tend to work).
Because this is a “woke” stance, colleges saw fit to try to implement this insanity, namely Purdue University, who tried to mandate students in a choir group to take and complete “antiracist” training courses before they could participate in choir activities.
Back in January, Purdue Musical Organizations announced that its students would be required to take six courses on “antiracism”, including classes called “White Privilege, White Supremacy, and White Fragility,” as well as “White Saviorism and How To Be A Better Ally.”
Before I move on about how the school backtracked on this, I would just like to point out the irony that these Leftists undoubtedly missed. It’s rather ironic that they claim that white supremacy is still a thing, or that it is engrained in every aspect of American life and society, and then go on to claim there is also white fragility around it.
So white people both are superior or have the power and authority to rig things to favor them AND they are fragile in their core. Which is it? Do they have the power to manipulate these things so fervently, or are they just trying to maintain a fragile, “Lost Cause” mentality? Because if it’s the former, and they do have as much power and influence as these “antiracist” lunatics claim they do, then how is it a fragile mentality of trying to futilely hold on to that?
And regarding the second course, it is extremely ironic that white people working within Purdue’s administration would be willing to go along with all of this. They, themselves, want to be considered “saviors” to minorities.
“I am one of the good ones!” is what they are basically trying to say with this. And it is particularly ironic and outright hilarious when they attempt to attack a minority person who disagrees with them surrounding this topic. If a black man tells them “this is stupid”, they will call him a “coon” or a “n****r” or an “Uncle Tom” (despite the fact that Uncle Tom is the hero of the story, not a race traitor).
“You don’t care enough about your own people” is the charge these (often white) SJWs throw at black people who would rather be judged by the content of their character than the color of their skin.
With this embrace of “antiracism”, white liberals are trying to be white saviors to minorities. Saving them from what, you might ask? From themselves, as minorities clearly do not know better and need to be led by hand to a better future (sarcasm, for those who missed that).
While I earlier noted that “antiracism” is openly anti-white, what it does practically speaking is anti-black and anti-minority in general. It’s moving society backwards in an attempt to bring back segregation, only this time, by trying to convince black people that it’s best for them to segregate themselves from white people.
But in any case, like I said earlier, Purdue backtracked on this following student outcry. But they didn’t outright stop the classes. They simply went from mandating students to take it to “strongly encouraging” students to take the now-optional courses.
“The series will be offered beginning in March. Recognizing the stresses presented by COVID, as well as the existing commitments that many students have outside of [Purdue Musical Organizations], the series is not required, but participation is strongly encouraged,” wrote PMO spokesman Tim Doty to the Washington Free Beacon in an email.
Now, I don’t know exactly what the students complained about with this. I don’t know if they were against the courses in general or just against the fact that they were mandatory, or as Doty suggests, that they might have some concern with COVID (though they shouldn’t, seeing as there is virtually no chance of them dying to the virus), but considering these are college-indoctrinated students, I’m more willing to believe it’s at least one of the latter two, as opposed to the former – the idea that they were against the courses in general.
But I do not know for sure, and there well could be at least some students who were against the idea of taking such ridiculous classes to begin with (not to mention that there is no real connection between “white privilege” or whatever else and music, so why would choir kids have to take these courses?).
At any rate, I hope that we can successfully fight back against the idea of “antiracism” as that would only serve to undo decades of progress regarding race relations in the country.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
It’s been quite some time since I have written an article like this, seemingly over a year. But we are back once again with yet another example of something that any sane person would think would have nothing to do with race whatsoever being deemed racist at some capacity or another.
In this case, we are talking about the caring of animals, and more specifically, white people caring about animals that end up in shelters.
Writing for Areo Magazine, Nathan Winograd tells of how “Critical Race Theory Is Coming for the Dogs: Katja Guenther’s ‘The Lives and Deaths of Shelter Animals’”. The article is rather lengthy, so there are parts of it that I will entirely omit, but it is a good read nonetheless and you get a better picture of how twisted Katja Guenther’s philosophy regarding race and shelter animals is by reading it.
Winograd begins his article by noting the great advances that have been made over the last few decades, and even centuries, regarding the treatment of shelter animals. It used to be that being sent to an animal shelter was statistically a death sentence for any animal, as it was typical for animal shelters to kill “roughly 70% of its animals”. But over time, residents of various cities demanded that the shelters would stop routinely killing the animals and instead attempt to find homes for those animals at higher rates.
According to Winograd, “Millions of municipal shelters are now finding homes for upwards of 99% of animals… The result has been a 90% drop in pound killings nationwide since the 1970s. Despite the fact that pet ownership has doubled, the number of dogs and cats killed has gone from roughly 16 million a year to less than one million.”
But despite all the great progress made with regard to keeping animals safe and alive, particularly being placed in good homes which can and will take care of them, writer Katja Guenther argues in her book “The Lives and Deaths of Shelter Animals” that animals are killed because of “capitalism, anthroparchy, white supremacy and patriarchy.”
Frankly, the only things Guenther is missing in her typical liberal blame-game are homophobia, transphobia and xenophobia, but this is wacky enough as it is.
Guenther argues that dogs are “privileged” if they are allowed to sleep inside because such a thing is reserved for the white and wealthy, and argues that policies which are against keeping dogs chained up in the backyard are meant to oppress minorities by imposing upon them “middle-class norms of animal keeping in which companion animals are considered family and treated accordingly,” and which ignore that minorities “are themselves trapped in poverty, may have few options for legitimate income generation and possibly rely on their dogs for… status.”
It’s pretty darn easy to see that Guenther equates being black, brown, etc. with being poor. At one time or another, such a thing would be considered racist, but today, I guess it’s considered “anti-racist”, a term which is utter bullcrap and masquerades anti-white racism (and practically speaking, anti-black racism, as you can see here).
And as often is the case, the most insane of far-Left-wing proposals tend to gain some amount of traction. Winograd notes that one shelter director believes Guenther “gets it right” in saying that “racism, classism and the caste system are at the heart of the broken animal sheltering institution.” And people working at the University of Denver Institute for Human-Animal Connection argue that laws which prevent abuse of dogs discriminate against “anyone in the US other than white, middle class and upper-class individuals”, proposing that enforcement of animal protection laws be relaxed.
I don’t think I have to tell you why such a proposal would be detrimental to the progress made with regard to protecting animals.
And while I have never been one to believe in “animal rights” like liberals (ironically) usually do, I am not exactly heartless regarding animals and believe they ought to be protected, at least if they are domesticated animals or if they are in danger of going extinct. Humans were created by God to be above all animals and plants – above all other creations by God.
Genesis 1:26 says: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
But this dominion does not equal a right to abuse. Proverbs 12:10 says: “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.”
Of course, this has more to do with the fact that a wicked man, even when showing mercy, is going to be cruel so one ought to be righteous, but there is reason King Solomon opted to talk about having regard for animals and not simply other people. He easily could have written “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his neighbor” or “for the life of his fellow man”, but he chose to write “for the life of his beast” because a righteous man is caring for the life of even his animals.
Sure, he says “life of HIS beast”, meaning of one’s own animals and livestock, but there is no denying that the care of animals and not abusing our dominion over other creatures is something which is important. Not as important as other things, of course, but still important enough.
So it is quite easy for me to see just how twisted and evil such a proposal and book are. To argue that dogs are “privileged” to be able to sleep indoors and that such ideas are “oppressive” of poorer people (particularly, poor black and brown people, as again, Guenther equates being poor with being a minority) and seeking to undo decades of progress regarding the killing of animals in shelters in the name of “wokeness” and “anti-racism” and “social justice” is putrid to me.
At any rate, Winograd then goes on to point out how Guenther herself admits to not being impartial with her research.
“Guenther writes that, because of racism, the overwhelming majority of the dogs who ended up at the Baldwin Park, California shelter where she worked as a volunteer had belonged to poor people of Asian and Latino heritage and, to a lesser extent, black people. But this simply reflects the demographic make up of Baldwin Park itself. When I ran a shelter in a predominantly white community – a shelter with a higher per capita intake rate than the Los Angeles County pound system of which Baldwin Park is a part – most of those who surrendered animals were white… In other words, the ethnicity of the people who surrender animals to shelters is largely a function of demographics, not race.”
“Guenther deliberately rejects objective evidence of this kind, admitting that ‘it is not possible for me to be impartial’: ‘I was trained in sociology, a discipline that emphasizes impartiality and the need to systematize observations and analysis in ways that distance the researcher from the researched. I deliberately turn away from these tendencies and instead embrace the messy possibilities of being a researcher with complex ties to the social setting I am analyzing.’”
So basically, Guenther admits that she is biased in all of this and has a subjective opinion that is tied to the conclusions of her research. That is a MASSIVE no-no in the scientific community and enough to warrant entire papers and theses to be disregarded because, at best, they can only be considered OPINIONS and not scientific proof, data, or evidence.
In that little bit alone, Guenther completely destroys her own credibility and reputation (of which there was very little to begin with considering she doesn’t have to admit it in order for one to recognize all of this as hogwash). So why, then, would anyone take her or her book’s findings seriously?
Well, because they say the “right” things. White people bad, brown people good, and that is true pretty much no matter the context. The only time they consider a white person even semi-decent or a brown person to be bad is when the white person capitulates to the Leftist narratives and when the brown person is a conservative, at which point the conservative brown person is called an “Uncle Tom” or some derogatory term to mean “race traitor” as though brown people can only ever be Leftists.
At any rate, Winograd continues, noting Guenther’s insane and racist belief system:
“In Guenther’s book, moreover, white people do things; people of color have things done to them. For example, people of color who abandon their dogs in empty apartments are victims ‘ensnared in the legal system,’ forced to leave their animals behind ‘under the duress of sudden eviction or deportation or arrest.’ Guenther even claims that such people actually believe that what they are doing is for the best, because of ‘the constraints of their knowledge and resources, both of which are limited by the nexus of their class, status as immigrants, and ethnicity.’”
So when a Latino man on a bicycle drops a dog “while escaping from mall security officers… after stealing a pair of Wrangler jeans,” Guenther explains this away as being a result of his “status as marginalized.” Basically, she excuses the criminal behavior of the Latino man and the result of the dog being dropped because HE is a victim of the system.
Excusing crime is bullcrap and extremely dangerous, which is why the Left loves to do this. Everyone has a choice, including committing a crime. Even if one argues “I didn’t have a choice, I HAD to steal food to survive” or whatever else, that is not necessarily true. It’s a hard choice, don’t misunderstand, and it makes sense that one will do whatever it takes to survive, but choices are always up to the individual. One might argue that it’s okay to steal food to survive, but they absolutely cannot argue that a choice was not involved. They weren’t forced at gunpoint to steal food – they made the conscious choice of doing it. So excusing it as “I had no choice” is bullcrap.
Not to mention that if a Latino man has enough money and resources to have a bike (granted, it could be stolen, but still) AND own a dog, then that Latino man has even less of an excuse for stealing a pair of jeans. Excusing criminal behavior does not lead to a good society.
Guenther also seemingly argues that if a minority person can earn a profit or build a reputation for themselves through exploitation of animals, that that excuses such exploitation: “[R]escuers… critique urban Black and Latinx communities for not seeing companion animals as sufficiently part of the family and instead seeing them as resources, whether protective (as in guarding) or financial (as in breeding or possibly fighting)… From a class perspective, wealthy people are believed to be too ‘civilized’ to engage in barbaric activities like dogfighting, and it’s no coincidence that the only affluent person who has been publicly shamed for dogfighting in the U.S., Michael Vick, is Black, newly wealthy after growing up in poverty.”
Good Lord, she is trying to excuse MICHAEL VICK and what he did because he is black and grew up poor. No, idiot, Michael Vick was not publicly shamed simply for participating in dog fights. He was publicly shamed because he hosted dog fights in his own home and investigators found the decomposing corpses of dogs who were killed by “hanging, drowning, and being slammed to death.”
These people, possibly Vick himself, would clip jumper cables onto the ears of underperforming dogs, connected the cables to car batteries, and threw those dogs into a pool.
One of the rescuers in the case noted: “It seems that while they were scrambling to escape, they scratched and clawed at the pool liner and bit at the dented aluminum sides… This death did not come quickly.”
So no, Michael Vick was not publicly shamed for participating or even hosting dog fights. He was publicly shamed because he participated and hosted dog fights and proceeded to GRAPHICALLY AND INUMANELY TORTURE AND KILL the dogs which performed poorly.
Further, Vick was far from the only one who was prosecuted and publicly shamed for it. Pretty much everyone involved here, including many white people, were also prosecuted and publicly shamed. It’s just that Michael Vick was the most recognizable of the bunch, being a star quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons at the time.
In any case, there is plenty more I wish I could put here, but this article is already pretty long, so I will conclude here. It is absolutely insane that there are people out there who will make the claim that being compassionate to domestic animals is racist and “white privilege” and that abuse of animals, if done by poor brown people (or even rich brown people, seeing as she is defending Vick), is perfectly okay and understandable.
Again, I don’t put animals above humans or even on the same level of importance as humans. But it takes an inhumane and heartless person to abuse an animal, and an equally inhumane and heartless person to argue in favor of animal abuse at any capacity.
May God curse the kind of people who think this way.
“Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?”
This is the third “Meet X” article I have written which demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of the fake news media, the Left, and BLM Inc. (but I repeat myself) when discussing unjust killings of people.
First, there was Ryan Whitaker, who was killed by police officers back in May of 2020, but whose story was not widely reported because Ryan was a white man and the narrative surrounding police is that they only kill black people.
Then, there was Cannon Hinnant, who was a five-year-old white kid executed by his black neighbor while riding his bicycle. His story was not widely reported because 1) the kid was white and 2) the killer is black. CNN, by the way, now has three stories where they mention Cannon Hinnant, and egregiously, they dare include the following paragraph in the last story where they mentioned him: “And in the midst of the same racial unrest experienced throughout the rest of the country, our collective hearts were broken over the senseless killing of 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant, who was White. Though the suspect, a Black man, was apprehended… many people in Wilson and throughout the country politicized this tragedy to counter the legitimacy of those protesting generations of institutionalized and overt racism…”
First of all, their hearts did not break over the killing of Cannon, because they took their sweet freaking time talking about Cannon, their first story was the length of 222 words, and have now mentioned George Floyd over 2,200 times in their own articles. And, by the way, this latest article wasn’t about Hinnant himself, but about elections in North Carolina.
Second of all, a bit rich to accuse others of politicizing that tragedy considering JUST WHO THE HELL THESE PEOPLE ARE. The media narrative is that white people are racist and black people are oppressed by them and their racism. That story ran contrary to that narrative, so they swept it under the rug as much as possible in order to focus on things which help their own agenda. Invert the races in that story and you would watch a nation cry for justice, as it should. But because Hinnant was white and his killer is black, that story is not only buried, but ATTACKED as being a political tool for countering “the legitimacy of protesting generations of… racism.” What a load of utter bullcrap, but what can you expect from the demons at CNN?
At any rate, now that that’s out of the way, let’s talk about Robert Howard, who himself was killed by a cop for no apparent reason whatsoever.
Robert Howard was a 30-year-old black man, who was killed by a Memphis police officer on January 5th, with the officer reportedly having forced Howard into his squad car and executing him while on duty.
According to WREG Memphis, “Patrick Ferguson, 29, is charged with first-degree murder, including aggravated kidnapping, tampering with evidence and abuse of a corpse in the death of 30-year-old Robert Howard.”
Memphis police released a statement on Sunday outlining the allegations. “On Jan. 6, Howard’s girlfriend called police to report him missing. He had last been seen around 5 p.m. the day before in the 3500 block of Mark Twain Street in Frayser.”
“Police said an investigation revealed that Ferguson, armed with a handgun, encountered Howard outside his residence and forced him into his squad car. The two knew each other, police said.”
“Ferguson then drove to Frayser Boulevard and Denver Street, where he shot and killed Howard, according to MPD.”
“Another man, 28-year-old Joshua Rogers, also is charged with tampering with evidence and abuse of a corpse in this case. Police say he was an acquaintance of Ferguson and helped him relocate the body.”
Assuming we have just about the full story here, what we have is a pretty gruesome and awful situation. A man was seemingly minding his own business when a police officer, whom Howard knew, used force to get him into the back of his squad car and, at some point, killed him and abused his corpse, with the help of an “acquaintance” of the officer who helped the officer move the body.
Howard does not seem to have committed a crime here and was seemingly just kidnapped. The only thing I really question here is that “acquaintance” status for Rogers, seeing as no acquaintance would just help someone with getting rid of a body. I imagine, if Ferguson didn’t really know Rogers all that well, that Ferguson paid Rogers to help him with that.
But at any rate, why do you think the fake news media didn’t cover this or that BLM hasn’t made this a massive spectacle? Now, you might guess that the date of these events had something to do with it. Howard was kidnapped and, likely, killed on January 5th, when the biggest subject was the Georgia run-off elections. He was reported as missing on the 6th, when the biggest subject was the pro-Trump protest which eventually led to some people rioting and storming Capitol Hill (while some also seemingly were just allowed to go in).
However, stories like these usually don’t get reported until a good deal later, so the vast majority of people were not even aware that this had happened. WREG initially posted the story on January 10th, so not that long ago. One could argue that a couple of days is not enough for BLM and the fake news media to make a big deal out of this, but here’s the thing: they won’t make a big deal out of this no matter how much time passes.
The reason for this is simple: both the officer who kidnapped and killed Howard, Patrick Ferguson, and the officer’s “acquaintance” accomplice, Joshua Rogers, are black themselves.
Without that fact, the story of a black man killed by a cop, particularly when it was almost certainly an illegitimate execution, would make national news and BLM would demand you to “say his name” and sports athletes would take a knee supposedly in his honor. But that narrative doesn’t really work very well if the police officer who carries on such an illegal execution is black himself.
The narrative only works if the following parameters are met: the “victim” (sometimes, they actually are the victim, such as in Howard's case, but not most of the time) is black and the officer(s) is/are white.
As with the case of Ryan Whitaker, the cops that undoubtedly extrajudicially killed him hardly matter because the first parameter was not met. Whitaker was shot and killed by a white police officer, but because he was, himself, white, his story was not told.
And with Cannon Hinnant, though it wasn’t a police-involved killing, it does involve race in a way. The killer was black and the victim was white. The narrative of black people being oppressed and white people being the oppressors doesn’t work here, so it’s largely ignored, and when people point out that fact and the hypocrisy that goes alongside it, the fake news media acts as though those people are just playing political games.
It’s really quite disgusting the way in which the “free” press acts in this country. Only *certain* groups of people get a story about them made into a big deal. Even then, only if *certain* conditions are met. If a white man is killed by a white cop, the story doesn’t get covered a whole lot. If a white man is killed by a black cop, the story definitely doesn’t get covered. If a black man is killed by a black cop, the story doesn’t get covered a whole lot. Only if a black man is killed by a white cop does the story get plenty of coverage.
And the reason for the killing doesn’t really matter. They made Rayshard Brooks into a big story, despite the fact that he had stolen a cop’s taser and tried to use it against him. They made Michael Brown a big story despite the fact that he quite literally tried to beat a cop with his own squad car’s door. They made George Floyd into a big story because, despite the fact he was not really a threat to the officers, he died in their custody (and despite the fact that he was later discovered to have been under the influence of drugs and he overdosed).
But if a black man is brutally and extrajudicially executed by a black cop, that story doesn’t get much outrage and outcry and coverage despite how absolutely awful that is.
Now, I can suspect the motive for the killing in the first place. Ferguson and Howard, as WREG reported, knew one another, so this clearly wasn’t a random kidnapping and execution. If I had to guess, it might have had to do with some unpaid debt or some sort of strife between the two men. But the fact of the matter remains that a cop kidnapped and killed a person for any given reason. That idea ought to frighten people, regardless of motive. And the officer should well face serious charges and, if found guilty, face serious consequences.
But despite the fact that such an astoundingly disgusting thing happened, the incident doesn’t help the narrative of the Left. Granted, they are currently trying to just orchestrate a not-so silent coup against the President of the United States, so I think that even if the cop had been white in this scenario, this story likely would not have been talked about much, but the point remains that they will not cover even extrajudicial executions of people by police if a narrative cannot be drawn from it to advance their agenda.
The fake news media disgusts me to my core.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.”
One aspect of Leftists changing culture is mandating employees of companies and even government departments to undergo some sort of “training” in order to further indoctrinate employees whom may not have been sufficiently indoctrinated at colleges. Often times, what they do is force employees to undergo “unconscious bias training” which is just “white people bad” training.
However, as with many other ideas the Left comes up with, there is no evidence that it works, and in some cases, it has utterly backfired. As a result of this, the British government, surprisingly enough (and I will share why this is surprising in a moment), will no longer require its civil servants to undergo this training, citing such lack of evidence.
On Tuesday, the BBC reported that Cabinet Officer minister Julia Lopez wrote a statement regarding this topic, saying that “unconscious bias training does not achieve its intended aims. It will therefore be phased out in the civil service.”
She added that they “encourage other public sector employers to do likewise.”
The BBC reported: “The government says it is ‘determined to eliminate discrimination in the workplace,’ but unconscious bias training is the wrong approach. The Government Equalities Office says there has been ‘no evidence’ that the training improved workplace equality. Among the researchers cited is psychologist Patrick Forscher, who examined more than 400 studies on unconscious bias. He said that few studies measured changes over time, and among ‘the most robust of those that did’, the findings suggested ‘changes in implicit bias don’t last’. Dr. Forscher said such training had too often been used by employers as a ‘catch all’, which failed to really tackle the specific barriers for different groups.”
Psychologist Dr. Stuart Ritchie also told the BBC that there was “nowhere near robust evidence” to suggest that this kind of training positively changed behavior, adding that it really was just used to “placate worries” instead of actually trying to reduce racial bias.
And that actually plays into why this is so surprising in the first place. When was the last time you heard of a government entity getting rid of a program because there wasn’t evidence that it worked? If the government had a habit of getting rid of things that didn’t work, there would be no Leftist policies in place in any country whatsoever.
I don’t doubt that there is no evidence that this “racial bias” training doesn’t work or that it even backfires. The very crux of it is that white people have systematically (not systemically) and unconsciously subjugated non-white people and hold implicit racial biases against them. They blame just about everything on capitalism, but most importantly, on white people.
They hold that the world sees the injustices that it sees because of white colonizers, slave traders and unconsciously biased tyrants in government who constantly, if unwittingly, put minorities down. They are utterly devoid of any knowledge of history and pretend as though white people have never been subject to slavery or persecution either (and often conveniently forget that Africans often enslaved fellow Africans and sold them to the white slave traders to send to the Americas), but that’s just the way they think.
As a result, that is bound to create anti-white sentiment, which I’m willing to bet is what they are talking about when they say that the training tends to backfire. Instead of leading to less discrimination for black people (and other minorities), it just creates more discrimination for white people.
Now, the woke don’t exactly care, and would consider such a result to be a good and just thing, to “get back at white people whom have perpetrated discrimination and hatred for centuries”, but for anyone with a brain, this obviously would present a problem. The outward objective of that “unconscious bias training” is supposedly to reduce discrimination, and that doesn’t happen by creating more of it directed towards white people.
But while that may be the case, it’s still odd and surprising to see the British government taking this kind of step.
Now, obviously, those who profit from these ridiculous training sessions are very much against this. Halima Begum, chief executive of a “race equality” think tank, told the BBC that the government “mustn’t backtrack on anti-racism training,” insisting that if the government was going to make changes, they should replace that training with something that would address “ingrained views” as well as “fair pay, progression and work practices.”
The obvious problem with that is that, at least according to Dr. Forscher, that very variety in subject matters is a big reason as to why the training is not effective (there are other reasons, of course, such as the fact that it’s very explicitly against white people and blames white people for everything, like I already mentioned). To quote the BBC again: “Dr. Forscher said such training had too often been used by employers as a ‘catch all,” meaning that the training is put together very sloppily with various talking points that address very dissimilar things.
The training doesn’t work because, among many other reasons, it encompasses too many varied things. Similar to the BLM website’s “About Us” page which used to include a whole bunch of far-Left, LGBT propaganda stuff, despite the fact that the vast majority of black people do not tend to support the LGBT agenda.
But again, despite all of that, it is extremely odd that the British government would get rid of this, particularly since it is a popular agenda item for Leftists and people in the fake news media. Which is why I can hardly trust that the British government will stick with this. No doubt, they will face pushback for this, to some degree or another, and such pushback could force the British government’s hand to undo this action. After all, Boris Johnson isn’t exactly someone who is known for having backbone in the face of pressure and pushback.
However, even in spite of that, I hope that logical thinking which has led to this canceling of that ridiculous training continues throughout various governments with regards to other areas. Keep in mind that the same government entity which dropped this training because of lack of evidence that it worked is also going into its THIRD nationwide lockdown over the Chinese coronavirus, despite the lack of evidence that lockdowns work (and despite the fact that if you think you need more than one lockdown, that should tell you how effective they even are).
“Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future.”
It is rather well-documented just how tyrannical and even anti-Semitic New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is, so it is not really surprising to see him utter yet another threat to a synagogue which refuses to be illegally and unconstitutionally shut down by the dictator. However, what he said specifically is fairly brow-raising.
During a press conference earlier on Tuesday, de Blasio uttered a threat to a synagogue for having a secret funeral which sounded as though he was taking revenge on them. For additional context, this is the same synagogue which was previously fined in November for holding a large secret indoor wedding.
De Blasio, according to The Daily Wire, said: “If we see another confirmed situation in which an inappropriate event is happening in that same building, then we’re going to have to move to shut down the building once and for all. That would be the next step if we see non-compliance.”
“Once and for all”? It’d be one thing if he said “for good” or “permanently” which would still be problematic and emblematic of his hatred for those who exercise their constitutional freedom of religion, but “once and for all” sounds like he is plotting revenge, as if he had wanted to do this previously and is now fed-up to the point of doing it.
“Once and for all,” of course, still means permanently, but putting it this way makes it sound like he figured it was a long time coming.
De Blasio went on to say “I do think there’s an ideological factor that’s making things a lot harder,” seemingly implying that one of the biggest reasons for the Jewish community’s non-compliance with the city’s and state’s orders comes from their widespread support for President Trump. To me, I don’t doubt that there is an ideological factor in de Blasio’s actions as well.
As I pointed out in a previous article where de Blasio personally went to break up a Jewish funeral back in April (getting some SS roleplay time), while he has shut down churches and synagogues, he has allowed mosques to remain open for daily prayers, which tend to be just as crowded as normal congregations for churches and synagogues, not to mention Muslims do this five times a day, thereby showing that this isn’t about health and safety at all. Furthermore, since the writing of that article, the George Floyd situation happened and protests and riots have been allowed to take place – with de Blasio personally attending at least one of those protests.
So he allows mosques to remain open, likely because many Muslims would be calling for his head (both figuratively and literally), and he allows protests that push a Leftist message of racial injustice and inequality, but any other kind of protests, such as anti-lockdown ones, he is against, and anyone else who is not a Muslim wanting to go to places of worship must still be disallowed from doing so.
Mosques are allowed to remain open for daily prayers, but if a synagogue or even a church wants to do the things they have always been allowed to do before this dictatorship, de Blasio goes full SS on them?
I should not sound so surprised. Again, his anti-Semitism and hypocrisy are well-documented, even beyond his actions during this pandemic.
The funny thing is that, back in October, he seemingly reflected on his words and actions from back in April, when he personally shut down that Jewish funeral, telling a reporter from the Jewish Insider: “I look back now and understand there was just more dialogue that was needed. That one night in Williamsburg I let my frustration and concern get away with me and I should have been more careful in my language and I’ve expressed my apology for that before. The No. 1 takeaway from the meeting (with Haredi leaders) is more dialogue. More communication is the way forward.”
That didn’t last long, did it? Now, he’s gone back to “you disobey me, you feel my wrath." Again, with those words of “once and for all”, it sounds like he is plotting revenge on at least that particular synagogue (and all other synagogues and churches would likely further incur his wrath just to “teach them a lesson”).
Now, seemingly, those threats are “laughable” according to an unnamed source who talked with the Gothamist. “These tactics were available to him the entire time. I don’t see any reason to think he’s going to do it this time.”
To the guy’s credit, de Blasio has repeatedly threatened with permanently shutting down synagogues and churches which did not comply with his regime’s rules, but he has not actually gone through with such threats. Possibly because he understands that it would still not exactly look good for him if he were to do so, even with the “justification” of them not complying with his rules, but even then, I’m not sure why he hasn’t.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope he never does and, if recent history has shown anything, he likely won’t either, but considering he is a Democrat and the media would be on his side to spin things in his favor, I don’t know what exactly is keeping him from pulling the trigger. NYC has a large Jewish population (over 1.1 million), which means a rather sizable voting bloc, but Jews tend to be Republican, so it’s not like de Blasio has hopes of retaining or gaining their support, either for re-election bids or for any presidential aspirations he may have.
It very well could be that all of his threats end up being nothing more than bluffs, but there exists the possibility that they aren’t. That’s not to say that the synagogues or churches should alter their behavior – they very well should be fighting for their rights and freedoms which have been illegally and unconstitutionally taken away under false pretenses – but that is to say that de Blasio may reach a tipping point at some point, and places of worship (excluding mosques since they won’t be targeted by the Left) ought to prepare for such an instance.
At any rate, the way de Blasio put his threat was fairly brow-raising, in my opinion, and sounded an awful lot like a revenge-type of threat. Whether or not he goes through with it is another matter entirely, but I hope we can kick out of power the people who have demonstrated do not deserve to wield it.
“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, He may give it to you.”
I have talked plenty about BLM’s impact in the United States (and will continue to do so as long as that garbage organization continues to exist), but they are, unfortunately, an international terrorist organization too, and they have also impacted the United Kingdom (and other places).
That is not surprising, of course, seeing as I have already talked about BLM in an English setting, what with a black British MP having destroyed Critical Race Theory (CRT) and BLM Inc back in October.
However, we find today a poll, run by Opinium, of over 2,000 people (so a rather sizeable sample), that finds a majority (55%) of Brits believe BLM has made racial relations worse, along with 44% of minorities saying the same.
According to Breitbart: “Some 55 per cent of Briton’s believe Black Lives Matter has made race relations in society worse rather than better. The remaining 45 per cent of respondents were not all actively opposed to this idea, either, with the figure for people who actively disagreed standing at just 17 per cent.”
So 83% of Brits surveyed either said that BLM definitely made things worse or MAY have made things worse in terms of race relations in the U.K.
As I have been saying for a very long time now, these lunatic Leftists are far from the majority thinking. They are loud and they control several pillars of power in the world, but their thinking and ideology is not the one that the vast majority of people subscribe to (and why I refuse to believe 80 million people voted for Joe Biden).
Most people do not look at one another with hatred like the Left does. A normal black or Latino person will not look at a white person and think that they are oppressors or fraught with vast amounts of privilege. Only an insane Leftist will do so. And funny enough, one does in response to this poll.
For a bit of added context, the number of white people who said that BLM made race relations worse was slightly higher than the national average, with 70% of Conservative Party voters saying that BLM made things worse in that regard.
From those numbers alone, a rabid racist Leftist will say that these white people are, themselves, massive racists for pushing back against the “justified” anger of black people who are in the BLM movement (despite the fact that such people are hardly anything more than criminals and terrorists who assault officers, other people, and burn and destroy businesses, even black-owned ones). And The Guardian, unsurprisingly, found such a rabid racist Leftist in Professor Kalwant Bhopal, Director of the Centre for Research in Race and Education at the University of Birmingham.
Bhopal is quoted as saying that the poll suggests BLM has made white people “feel their privilege is being threatened and questioned… When they see something like BLM they do what they can to protect it and there is a backlash.”
Oh, yes, white people are defensive against BLM because they want to protect their “privilege” and what not. And, apparently, so do minorities and even 40% of LABOUR voters. Again, 44% of ethnic, minority voters agreed with the idea that BLM has made things worse in terms of race relations. Boy, who would’ve thought that nearly half of all minorities have white privilege? And who would’ve thought that 40% of Labour voters, who are basically the U.K.’s Democrats, also have white privilege that they wish to protect against BLM?
That, among many other reasons, is why colleges and universities, basically across the Western world, are centers for indoctrination and not education. That woman is a professor and head of a department that is not worth a damn, and she can’t gather two brain cells to rub together to recognize why her racist and dumb argument is, in fact, racist and dumb.
It’s not that white people feel their “privilege” is being threatened. It’s that there exist many among the BLM crowd who outright spew hateful and racist crap, such as a BLM activist being recorded as saying that intersectionalism “means recognizing that there is one common enemy: the white man,” and that “we need to get rid of them.”
One would only need to replace one word for the entire world to be appalled and shocked at the racism and utter hatred being spewed here. Had that been a white person saying that the “common enemy” is “the black man” and that they need to get rid of them, it would have spurned an immense backlash from every single person who could. Everyone with a social media page would have denounced such a person or made fun of them. Every politician would have scorned them. In fact, the U.K. police would have been sent to that man’s home to arrest him, seeing as the U.K. has some pretty extensive hate crime laws, which include the restricting of free speech.
People can be arrested for cracking seemingly racist jokes online in the U.K., but that racist nut-bag gets to walk? Not that he should have his free speech restricted, but the hate speech laws ought to, for as long as they are around, at least be consistent.
Hardly anyone bats an eye when a BLM activist (and btw, that particular activist was barely even black; he even had BLONDE HAIR and only relatively dark skin) expresses that white men are the enemy and that “we need to get rid of them”, which would easily be considered inciting violence if the targeted race were any other than white, so can you blame people when they think BLM as a whole has made race relations worse? Their activists actively despise and hate white people, express scorn for them and wish ill upon them, with many of them harassing, assaulting or destroying them/their property.
And it’s not like they just damage white people either. Again, they have also destroyed, in America, at least, black-owned businesses in black neighborhoods. They have destroyed black lives in the name of black lives. They cannot, by any reasonable standard, be considered to be noble in their pursuit or their actions, particularly as their actions contradict their supposed pursuit.
So no, you ignorant racist “professor”, it’s not that white people are trying to protect their “privilege” against BLM, since even a decent number of minorities and LABOUR VOTERS agree that BLM have made race relations worse; it’s that BLM has ACTUALLY AND NOTICEABLY made race relations worse.
When BLM tells businesses they can bully around to meet a certain quota of black hirings, that’s not expressing equality, it’s expressing dominance – supremacy. You don’t right a wrong with more wrongs. You don’t justify the (sometimes) unjust death of a black person at the hands of an officer by unjustly forcing businesses to do as you want them to do, or by coercing dumb woke white people into kissing your boots.
And when such things are forced upon the majority of us – when multiple businesses are looted or burned down, harming families for an extended period of time, when buildings are being destroyed when people are being hunted down and assaulted, when officers who do not unfairly wield their power on the people they swore to protect are killed – when all of these things, and more, are not only being brought about by an organization but also being argued as being JUST, can you really expect people to just go along with it?
When the George Floyd riots/protests were going on, many supported them (at least, the protests), but as time went on, violence only continued going up and it became far more widespread. Severe damage was being made against countless businesses which were already hurting because of unconstitutional lockdowns mandated by cowardly or tyrannical state and local governments. People weren’t mourning over a life which was unfortunately lost – they were taking advantage of the chaos and anger to achieve personal or ideological goals. And people noticed.
So no, the people responding how they are in that Opinium survey are not racist white people hoping to hold on to their “privilege”. They are rational people who see what BLM has brought on and do not like it. It is precisely because of the things that organization has brought on that I refuse to call them by anything other than their initials – black lives do not matter to the organization commonly-known as Black Lives Matter, and it is an insult to rational black people who want to live normal lives in peace to recognize that group by their full, official name. To me, and to many, BLM does not stand for “Black Lives Matter”, but rather, for “Burn, Loot and Murder”, because I have seen them act more towards that kind of goal as opposed to leading black people to a better future.
That many of their top-brass openly declare themselves to be communists and Marxists, as well as the fact that their “about” page used to include Leftist, LGBT agenda garbage, also goes to show how utterly insincere this organization is when it comes to caring about black people.
BLM, and Antifa, and all communist organizations past, present and future, are all cancers in the world which must be utterly defeated.
I’m just glad to see that most Brits recognize how awful BLM has been for race relations.
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Among the many egregious running lies from the fake news media and the Democrats is the idea that Donald Trump has never denounced or condemned white supremacy and that he actually refuses to condemn white supremacists because he supposedly is one of them. This is, of course, a contemptible lie that has multiple times been debunked and Trump himself has recently debunked by sharing a video (below) of nearly 40 times that he has denounced white supremacy and racism.
Now, I could share each and every time he has done it, but I would like the focus of conversation to be on something else entirely. Of course Trump has condemned white supremacy time and time again! He’s not a racist! In a recent NBC News townhall, he repeatedly denounced white supremacy.
During the first presidential debate, he denounced white supremacy. Back in 2016, he said he “totally disavow[s] the Ku Klux Klan. I totally disavow David Duke.”
Time and time again, when the fake news media asked him to denounce white supremacy, he has done it without fail and without question. They have done this multiple times despite the fact that, for a long time, he has denounced white supremacy. They KNOW that he does not support it, but they have to keep up the lie that he has never denounced white supremacy and they do this by asking him again and again, as though it’s necessary.
I think Trump needs to change things up a little bit whenever he is asked that question. Of course, he should still denounce white supremacy, but he should push back against the fake news media for asking them over and over again (admittedly, he has done a bit of this particularly in recent time) and he should ask the fake news media if they will disavow the left-wing, Antifa and BLM violence that we have seen over the last few months and years.
There will not be any more debates, so he can’t ask Joe Biden directly if he will do this (which he won’t since these animals are his supporters) so he should ask the fake news media if they will do this, because they so far have not.
Following the death of George Floyd and the response to it from BLM and Antifa terrorists, the fake news media happily shared the riots that were occurring, though reframing them as “mostly peaceful protests” or “demonstrations”. They never went so far as to support the riots outwardly, but they sure as hell did all they could to make them look legitimate in the eyes of the people.
They literally had burning buildings in the background as they reported “slightly fiery but mostly peaceful protests.”
This was not reported by the fake news media, but as of August 19th, according to The Federalist, 30 people have died since the “mostly peaceful protests” erupted, and according to the Associated Press (so not exactly a right-wing source), “many of the people killed were African Americans, compounding the tragedy for black families.”
Many black people were killed during the “mostly peaceful protests”. And while the fake news media no longer covers them, that doesn’t mean they aren’t still happening. Philadelphia has been subject to further rioting following the police-involved shooting of an armed black man (who was charging at officers) and the only thing the MSM is reporting about it is the shooting of the black man, not the rioting that ensued.
And the ONLY reason they have stopped showing all of this is because they saw in numerous polls that people, quite unsurprisingly, were not exactly fans of all of the violence that the fake news media was assuring them was not happening as they were showing it.
With the Democrats either condemning violence in general or outright siding with the “protesters” in wanting to destroy law enforcement in this nation, the fake news media could not continue covering them because this would only have led to an easy victory for Trump. They switched back to the Chinese coronavirus because they believe Trump was far more vulnerable on that subject (and it’s also why each debate began with that discussion).
They have never outright denounced this Left-wing violence, and in some instances, have even tried to gaslight people into believing that it was TRUMP SUPPORTERS who were doing this.
While I think continuing to disavow white supremacy is a smart political decision, the truth of the matter is that he should not still be doing it because he should not still be asked to do so.
Again, the fake news media KNOWS that he has done this many times. Trump was asked by Chris Wallace during the 2016 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY DEBATES if he would denounce white supremacy, and yet, Wallace acted as though the first 2020 debate was the first time he asked that question. He unequivocally understands that Trump is against white supremacy and still acts as though no one has ever asked him to denounce it or as though he has always refused to do it.
Remember the Charlottesville “fine people” hoax? Immediately after he said the “fine people” part, he also said: “And you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”
He said this in the same interview which the fake news media and the Democrats claim that he called white supremacists “fine people.” For the last three years, they ran with that lie – with that HOAX – as though he didn’t say what he actually said about not including the white supremacists as “fine people.”
Time and time again, he has denounced white supremacy whenever he was asked to do it. He should still do that (because God knows these people will not relent on this idiotic idea) but he should also go on the offensive on this.
At no point throughout these riots has the Left ever denounced the left-wing violence that we have witnessed. At no point did they denounce Antifa and BLM. In fact, they’ve done the opposite. Regarding Antifa, they maintain that it’s not a terrorist organization, or even an organization at all, and that it’s just “an idea.” An idea which has now killed multiple people, including Trump supporters.
Regarding BLM, because of its name alone, they claim it is a good thing. After all, you’re a bigot if you don’t support Black Lives Matter. If you don’t support them, that means you don’t think that the lives of black people matter. Despite the fact that they, too, have blood on their hands and have had people commit multiple crimes including arson, theft, assault (both on civilians and police officers), etc., etc.
We all know that these two Marxist organizations are terrorist organizations, now not too dissimilar from al-Qaeda and ISIS. The fake news media has refused to condemn these Left-wing terrorists, and will maintain that they are not actually violent or EVEN REAL in some cases, but that’s not a good thing for the Left.
Like I said, the only reason they stopped showing the riots is because the poll numbers showed that people didn’t like the violence and the violent people behind those acts. The fake news media is already pretty hated because they don’t even try to hide their partisan support for the Democrats. That they had to stop showing those riots is an indication that the people are not with them on this, and it further hurts them to not disavow the people committing these crimes.
The Democrats are pretty good at making emotional connections, like when Biden repeatedly talked directly to the camera during the debates to talk with people about how “because of Trump and his handling of the virus, you don’t have someone at your dinner table”, but the truth is that (apart from the fact that Democrat governors have directly been responsible for thousands of deaths) these riots have also led families to be broken up.
At least 30 people have died so far, meaning that 30 families have been broken. 30 families no longer have that someone at their dinner table or no longer can contact that person through their phones because they can’t pick up any more. What about these families, Leftists? Must these families be forsaken because “people are hurting” over the deaths of criminals and thugs who happen to be black?
Like the AP pointed out, many of the victims were black people. Must innocent black families suffer because these “mostly peaceful protesters” need “a way to vent their frustration and anger at systemic racism”?
Real people, real businesses, real families are being negatively impacted, in major ways, because of these riots. Businesses were already on the brink of collapse due to the unconstitutional lockdowns, and the riots are the final nail in the coffin for many of those businesses.
Why are Leftists ignoring the pain and suffering of these innocent people, many of whom are black? Why do Leftists refuse to disavow the violence that has befallen at least 30 families and hundreds if not thousands of businesses? Why do Leftists make excuses for these violent acts and outright gaslight people into believing that what is very clearly happening is not actually happening?
These are the kinds of questions I wish Trump would ask these heartless Leftist bastards because you and I both know they cannot give a good answer. Whatever answer they give will just be a parroted talking point that only further hurts them and at best, all they can do is sit in silence (which is something the Left never does anyway).
Trump should not have to be posting videos pushing back on the Leftist narrative that he hasn’t denounced white supremacists. But since the fake news media will continue to do so, it’s in his best interest to denounce white supremacy at every given opportunity. However, whenever it happens, he also needs to turn it back around on them and ask them if they will denounce the Left-wing violence which has so far led to 30 deaths, 30 families broken, and hundreds or thousands of businesses ruined.
Someone needs to hold these people accountable for their egregious actions and Trump should be the one leading that charge.
“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.”
In the current social and political climate, most people largely know where they stand: they are either in support of “anti-racist” or anti-capitalist Marxist organizations like BLM and Antifa, or they are against those terrorist organizations because anyone with at least a solitary brain cell can tell that these are not groups acting in good faith towards a noble and reasonable goal.
BLM and Antifa are terrorist organizations which have no qualms whatsoever about ending the lives of whomever stands in their way, be they people who openly stand against them or the wealthy, even if the wealthy are entirely with them (which will end as soon as they bring an actual working guillotine to the homes of people like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates).
In social media, you are supposed to “stand in solidarity” with these terrorist organizations or you have a higher chance of accidentally being suspended or banned altogether from Twitter, Facebook, etc.
The Left deludes themselves into believing that what they are doing is brave or courageous, but in reality, when corporate America endorses your ideology, you are not being brave and you are not “struggling”. What takes actual bravery and courage is to stand AGAINST this insanity and one black British Member of Parliament did exactly that recently (video below).
In a scathing retort to Labor MP Dawn Butler’s demands to “decolonize” history (another word for re-writing it to fit the Leftist ideology), Woman and Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch said the following:
“Our curriculum does not need decolonizing for the simple reason that it is not colonized. We should not apologize for the fact that British children primarily study the history of these islands, and it goes without saying that the recent fad to decolonize maths [sic], decolonize engineering, decolonize the sciences that we have seen across our universities to make race the defining principle of what is studied is not just misguided but actively opposed to the fundamental purpose of education.”
“What we are against is the teaching of contested political ideas as if they were accepted fact. We don’t do this with communism; we don’t do this with socialism; we don’t do it with capitalism. And I want to speak about a dangerous trend in race relations that has come far too close to home to my life, and it’s the promotion of critical race theory, an ideology that sees my blackness as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression.”
“I want to be absolutely clear: This government stands unequivocally against critical race theory. Some schools have decided to openly support the anti-capitalist Black Lives Matter group, often fully aware that they have a statutory duty to be politically impartial.”
“Black lives do matter; of course they do. But we know that the Black Lives Matter Movement, capital “BLM,” is political. I know this because at the height of the protest, I’ve been told of white Black Lives Matter protesters calling – and I’m afraid, I apologize for saying this word – calling a black armed police officer guarding Downing Street a ‘pet n*****.’”
“That is why we do not endorse that movement on this side of the House. It is a political movement, and what would be nice would be for members on the opposite side to condemn many of the actions that we see this political movement, instead of pretending that it is a completely wholesome anti-racist organization. There is a lot of pernicious stuff that is being pushed and we stand against that.”
“We do not want to see teachers teaching their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt. And let me be clear: Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory as fact or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views is breaking the law.”
Could we please have some more of this everywhere, not just in the House of Commons or British Parliament in general? Could we have some House Representatives in the States, or some Senators, echoing these sentiments (which are right on the money, as anyone who has been paying attention for the last half a year can tell)?
Could we have some more bravery like this? Like I said, when corporate America endorses your ideology, you are not the one who is taking a brave stand. When the mainstream media and pop culture endorses your ideology, you are not the ones who are struggling.
Fighting back against the ideology endorsed by these seculars is courageous because just about everyone would pile on top of them as a result. For crying out loud, we’ve gotten to the point where largely apolitical celebrities like Chris Pratt get cancelled for NOT attending a Joe Biden fundraiser.
In the working environment, you can be scolded for not openly supporting BLM and Antifa on social media. Remaining apolitical is no longer enough for these people: either you stand with them or against the wall. Pushing back on these insane ideas and ideologies takes courage and Minister Badenoch has plenty of it.
And she is so right about everything she is saying!
The push to “decolonize” educational curriculum is a thinly-veiled attempt at restructuring things to fit the Marxist ideology to indoctrinate our children. Yes, they’ve been doing this for years now, but they are beginning to be a bit too comfortable with openly showing their hand for all to see.
The idea of “decolonizing” school subjects is entirely asinine and nonsensical. It’s a push to make those things “less white”, as though facts and being correct are strictly white things (which would be the racist talking point 50 years ago. Funny how woke people today so closely resemble old timey racists).
They want to push the idea that 2 + 2 could, if you wanted, equal 5 or 3 or 666, as long as that is what YOU believe it equals and that there are no right answers IN MATH.
And, of course, they do this kind of crap with race relations in general, pushing the idea, as Minister Badenoch pointed out, that white children are naturally guilty because of the color of their skin and black children are naturally victims for the same reason. It doesn’t matter if a rich black woman comes across a homeless white man, according to these people, the homeless man has more privilege because of the color of his skin and because of his gender (that is, of course, until we begin talking about transgender issues which largely run contrary to feminism and this idea that men have privilege over women, but that is a different ideological train wreck).
As far as BLM goes, I tip my imaginary hat to the minister because she is absolutely right and said something I had been saying myself for a while now: there is a noticeable difference between black lives matter and Black Lives Matter. The former is a logical and obvious testament that the lives of black people matter (because the lives of all people, naturally including black people, matter), and the latter is a self-admitted Marxist organization which seeks not the reparation of race relations throughout the globe but black, and more importantly, Leftist supremacy over everyone else.
Here is how the hierarchy goes in the Leftist mind: Leftist black (or other minority race) person, Leftist white person, conservative person.
Notice that I did not have to distinguish races for the conservatives, because to the Left, anyone who is not with them, regardless of race, is equally an enemy to them. Someone who is black but is a conservative is not really black, as Joe Biden so boldly declared. Such a person is a “race traitor”. Someone who is Latino but voting for Trump is not really Latino and is a “traitor to his Latinx hermanos and hermanas” (brothers and sisters). Someone who is a woman but is conservative is not really a woman and is a traitor to her gender.
The presupposition is that all these minority and “protected” classes have to be Leftist, otherwise they are an anomaly like a defective gene.
I am not the least bit surprised that white BLM terrorists would call a black officer guarding Downing Street a “pet n*****”. These racists have no qualms whatsoever about letting out some of their most racist sentiments (which they would scold others if they did the same to Leftists) against whom they perceive to be a political enemy: a black cop.
These imbeciles don’t stop to think that maybe the police aren’t so racist if they are willing to take in black officers and that black officers would be willing to lay down their lives for their fellow officers if need be, regardless of race.
And yes, I have no issue calling them imbeciles because these are the grunts. The top brass of these communist organizations are not the imbeciles because they get something out of it. They get wealth and power. They get to rule according to how they want. The politicians get elected and the BLM and Antifa chapter leaders get lots and lots of funding and under-the-table deals from which they can profit.
The grunts going out to the streets are the useful idiots, so the distinction has to be made here.
At any rate, like I said before, I just wish more people would be willing to stand against this insanity as openly as Kemi Badenoch did here. What the Left is in pursuit of is a present and clear danger to the lives of the vast majority of people and they must be fought to the death (of the ideology, not the people) on this.
This is the cold war of this century, and sadly, it is being fought on the Homefront in many different ways.
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...