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.”
Over the years, I have written plenty about how God-awful colleges in this country are not merely for their Marxist indoctrination programs but simply because they are where education goes to die altogether. And sometimes, colleges do such idiotic and nonsensical things that I cannot help but to point them out and laugh at them.
This is one of those times.
You see, the University of California recently submitted student race and ethnicity data to the Integrated Post Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which they (and all other colleges) are required to do every year if they want to participate in federal student aid programs. The university gathered the data, but the data itself is not what I care to discuss here (largely because it’s nowhere to be found in the PDF I wish to talk about). I couldn’t care less about the demographical makeup of the college, since that hardly tells us anything other than perhaps some attempts at forcibly diversifying the campus via affirmative action.
What I care about, however, is roughly the way the college went about gathering said data. For the different races, the school had to sort of identify where each region fits for each race. For example, for those who are Hispanic/Latino, the school understandably pointed out that those who are of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Latin American, or other descent are all under the race of “Latino.”
This makes perfect sense and there’s really nothing peculiar about this.
For African Americans/Black, it is a bit more vague: they just have “African American, African, Black Caribbean” and “Other African American/Black.” To be fair, someone who is from Africa is most likely going to be considered Black or African American (if they are Americans), so it still holds up.
In the Asian category is where things start getting a tad bit strange, though not as much as in the White category, but we’ll get to that one in a moment.
In the Asian category, we find some fairly common types of people that we would recognize as being Asian: Asian Indian (this one is a bit of an asterisk since Indians kind of are their own thing, but I will let it pass for this one since they technically are, in some way, Asian), Bangladeshi, Cambodian, Chinese/Chinese American, Filipino/Filipino American, Hmong (a group of people in South East Asia), Indonesian, Japanese/Japanese American, Korean/Korean American, Laotian, Malaysian, Other Asian, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese/Taiwanese American, Thai, Vietnamese/Vietnamese American.
Now, you might be asking yourself: “Freddie, this looks perfectly normal. What’s the weird part?” A fair question. You see, I omitted the weird nationality from that original list for added effect.
The nationality that is in that Asian category that I omitted is: Pakistani.
Yep, Pakistanis are considered Asian by the University of California. Now, I understand that Pakistanis are not exactly the darkest of people (an excuse that will not be usable in a moment), but it’s a bit of a stretch to clump them in with Asians. And while I can somewhat understand including Indians here (though I’ve already kind of explained how they can be a separate ethnicity), the two really aren’t all that similar to the point where one could say that Pakistanis are reasonably Asians.
Pakistan is officially called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It’s part of the Muslim world. It’s pretty far east, considering it borders both India and China, but Afghanistan also borders China, as do Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, and no one would reasonably consider them to be Asian countries.
And while earlier in the PDF file where I found this data it says, “The categories do not denote scientific definitions of anthropological origins,” meaning they are not trying to redefine what each ethnicity is in terms of race, they still decided to organize them the way that they did, for some reason.
Keep in mind, this isn’t the strangest part of the entire debacle, we still have another race to go.
Finally, it’s in the category of White that we find the most head-scratching ethnicities put into this category.
They have the standard “European/European descent”, as well as Caucasian, which makes sense… and that’s where the logic ends because we find the following nationalities under the category of White:
Now, I can excuse a couple of them, such as Georgians since they are pretty light-skinned (and largely associated with Russia because of Stalin), and Israelis for also being rather light-skinned, but what in the world is JUST ABOUT THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST DOING HERE!?
Take a look at this picture:
These are Somalis. Yep, definitely look white to me!
Are you really trying to tell me that Ilhan Omar is white, University of California? Is she Elizabeth Warren-ing us?
You’re telling me that Rashida Tlaib, daughter of Palestinian immigrants, is white?
No one in their right mind would consider any of these nationalities to be under the category of White. Look at that picture of Somalis again. Who would classify them as being White? The same goes for the vast majority of the ethnicities in that list. Sudanese are just as dark-skinned as Somalis, and everyone else is fairly dark-skinned as well, up to a point.
Again, I can understand Georgians and Israelis to an extent, but the ENTIRE Middle East?!
Like I said, it’s not like they are trying to redefine what it means to be White or Asian or whatever else and they are not trying to make a scientific argument (yet, at least, considering the scientific fact of two genders is being so heavily challenged because of woke-ism). But they are still classifying such people in such categories and are still gathering this data the way that they are.
In the Legend for the chart, they say that Pakistani was “Collected as ‘East Indian/Pakistani’ prior to 2010,” so they used to have a different section for that ethnicity, but they still decided to add it in Asian anyway and decided to omit an entire section to “Middle Eastern” which would’ve made a good amount of sense and would’ve spared them the mocking that I am delivering.
(As a side note, they have a “Pacific Islander” section as well, and the strangest one there was “Hawaiian”, seeing as it’s a State, but I can understand their logic for that one).
They also do not make any such clarification for all the Middle Eastern nationalities that they put under the category of White, so what’s their excuse there?
Now, one could try to argue that they are just trying to make classifications for race, not for nationality, but there are several problems with that.
First of all, they include, like I said, Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaskan Native. That denotes to location more than skin color or race.
Secondly, the PDF is literally titled: “Student Ethnicity Collection and Reporting at UC,” with “ethnicity” being synonymous with “nationality.”
Thirdly, again, LOOK AT THE SOMALIS! If this were strictly about classifications of race, someone REALLY screwed up big time somewhere along the way because no one can tell me that those people are white by race.
I have no idea why it is that the University of California decided to make this hilarious list of nationalities according to race, or rather, why they did it the way that they did, but I cannot help but to laugh at them. Again, it’s not that they are trying to redefine what these terms mean or try to make a scientific argument about it, but they still decided to collect their data in this manner, classifying people from the Middle East as either being White or Asian, and that is hilarious to me.
I just hope they aren’t telling their Middle Eastern students, particularly the more dark-skinned ones, that they are actually white according to their own data-gathering methods.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
This, sadly, is not the first time I have talked about Leftists trying to take this country back in time with repackaging of segregation as being a good thing for minorities. A little more than a year ago (and this feels like it was a lot farther back in time than it was), I talked about white (mostly female) students in Columbia University wanting to segregate whites from blacks, supposedly for the benefit of black people.
And going even farther back, roughly a month and a half after Trump’s inauguration, my associate wrote an article about black University of Michigan students wanting to self-segregate, demanding “safe spaces” to “fight ‘against oppression.’”
Funny enough, the University of Michigan is once again the subject of racism and segregation, though this time it’s in the Dearborn campus of the school and it comes from faculty rather than students.
At this campus, Leftists thought it would be a fantastic idea to host a whites only café, which they dubbed “non-POC café” probably because they realized that actually calling it “whites only” would have sent a worse message than this already does.
The university’s Center for Social Justice & Inclusion (so you already know how hilariously pathetic this entire thing is) invited whites to a virtual café where they would discuss what it’s like to be white and how to be a useful white person for non-white people, because if there is something non-white people love is white liberals coming in and virtue signal to the point where the white liberals expect something like this to happen:
More specifically, the invite reads: “Feel free to drop in and discuss your experiences as non-persons of color and hopefully brainstorm solutions to common issues within the non-POC community. The café will be held bi-monthly, generally to occur on the 1st Tuesday of every month at 2:00pm and the 3rd Wednesday of every month at 7:00pm. Dates and times are subject to change depending on feedback and demand.”
Suffice it to say that they absolutely got railed online, as they deserve, because they are literally hosting a segregated, whites only café where minorities are not allowed. Now, the university did apologize for this, saying the event was “not reflective of the university’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.” The university has also made it so you can’t access either their “non-POC only” café or their “BIPOC only” café (Black and Indigenous Person of Color, and yes, this is still extremely stupid Leftist virtue signaling).
Speaking of which, I think they figured having a whites only café would have been a bit too outrageous if they didn’t also offered a coloreds café, because the mind of a liberal works in reverse.
Still, despite them walking this back, it is clear what the intent here is: return to segregation. The only difference between what it used to be and what the Left wants it to be now is that minorities aren’t the ones getting the crappy stuff.
Back when segregation was a thing, white people had nice water fountains, nice public restrooms, etc. and colored people had comparably worse water fountains and public restrooms. Now, the Left is trying to repackage segregation as a good thing for minorities because minorities wouldn’t be the ones getting the short end of the stick when it came to public utilities.
Is this the lesson the Left got from the Civil Rights movement? Do they think that if the water fountains and restrooms had been a bit more up to standard, that would have made black people fine with segregation?
The Left’s racism knows no bounds.
But even still, there is no doubt what the play here is: trying to divide Americans.
“Wow, Freddie, I couldn’t figure that one out on my own, durr.” I know, that was an obvious thing to say, but listen to me. Remember how I said that my associate wrote an article about black students in the University of Michigan wanting to self-segregate? This is the effect the Left wants to achieve nationally. They want black and white people to be so divided and separated (what do you think all of the attacks on white people are about?) that black people will see it as beneficial to segregate themselves from whites.
The aim of the Left is to have Americans so divided that they become easier to control. Division, deception and destruction are the Left’s most oft-used tools and pretty much the only ones they know how to use.
They can tear things down but not build things up. They can destroy buildings and statues, but not build them back up. They want power and will get it however they need. I wouldn’t be surprised if at one point or another, they began to argue for white slavery.
I know that that seems like a far-fetched idea, but considering we have Leftists openly heaping praise at a pedophilic movie, depraved things like the dissolution of the 13th amendment for the purposes of getting revenge on white people (who had nothing to do with the slavery of centuries past) are not things I would put past them to be willing to push for.
Already, we are seeing far-Left lunatic black people giving seminars and Ted Talks about how literally all white people are racist. It’s a nonsensical argument, but they are still trying to make it. Not to mention many are pushing for reparations, and the looting of stores has been excused by BLM leaders as a type of reparations (and BLM protestors have gone into residential neighborhoods demanding the white people give their homes to black people). The idea of white slavery, if it is ever pushed, would be pushed as part of “reparations”, which is really nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at revenge rather than justice.
Not to mention that if black people really wanted reparations, they should go after the DNC, which has been the number one enemy of black people and continues to be so.
But returning to the University of Michigan, I can’t say I’m surprised that a university is so fraught with blatant racism like this. And I know that they “meant well”, at least that’s what they will argue, but no one can tell me that racial segregation is anything short of racism, regardless of the supposed reasoning behind it.
If white people want to segregate themselves from black people because they don’t like black people, that’s wrong and racist. If white people want to segregate themselves from black people because they don’t want to “burden” black people (or something dumb like that) with their presence, that’s wrong and racist. If black people want to segregate themselves from white people because they believe they are inferior, that’s wrong and racist. If black people want to segregate themselves from white people because they don’t like white people, that’s wrong and racist.
SEGREGATION IS RACIST! That I have to say this is ludicrous, but here we are, thanks to the hateful and racist Left.
“Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.”
Jemele Hill is not exactly what people would call “smart.” This was very much clear when on Sunday, the former ESPN host suggested that the United States was just “as bad” as Nazi Germany, and that the Nazis “learned” from “watching America”.
Her initial tweet read as follows: “Been reading Isabel Wilkerson’s new book, ‘Caste,’ and if you were of the opinion that the United States wasn’t nearly as bad as Nazi Germany, how wrong you are. Can’t encourage you enough to read this masterpiece.”
Naturally, for comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany, she was destroyed online for her sheer ignorance. Former Acting Director of National Intelligence and Ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell replied: “Read a book. The Nazis murdered 6.5 million Jews.”
Daily Wire writer Matt Walsh replied: “Been reading Jemele Hill’s tweets, and if you were of the opinion that she’s smarter than a cactus, how wrong you are.”
Tim Young replied: “Just the basic fact that you have a huge platform/make a solid living s****ing on the President and haven’t been locked in a labor camp says this is the complete opposite of nazi Germany. Grow up.”
To that particular tweet, Hill replied with the following: “Nowhere in my tweet did I say the current state of America is like Nazi Germany. I was referring to our racial history. The parallels have been pointed out by plenty of historians, not just Isabel Wilkerson. You tell me to grow up. I say, you need to read more.”
To be fair, the initial tweet did not specify that she was referring to Civil War-era America and not contemporary America. The wording was just ambiguous enough for people to reasonably believe she was referring to the current state of the country and not its history.
At any rate, she also replied to Arc Digital Editor-in-Chief Berny Belvedere, who originally told her: “This is breathtakingly irresponsible. How is anyone supposed to trust your judgment after this horror show of an opinion?”
To go on a bit of a tangent before quoting Hill’s reply to Belvedere, THIS particular opinion was only the latest one in a series of them which ought to demonstrate to people that her judgment is not to be trusted. She has REPEATEDLY compared Trump to some of the worst dictators in history and suggested he was on track to doing the same things that they did. This particular opinion was not particularly exceptional in comparison to the other atrocious takes she has uttered.
In any case, Hill’s reply to Belvedere was as follows: “What would you call it when a country that murdered millions of Jews learned their systems of genocide by watching America, and studying our history of racialized slavery, and great knack for racial terrorism?”
This is where I have to give up a point, but not a point she would want me to take note of: The Nazis DID learn from Americans – just not the country as a whole nor the kinds of Americans she would want them to have learned from.
What I mean is that Nazi Germany didn’t learn its practices from watching America. They learned their practices from watching THE DEMOCRAT SOUTH.
Hill, in her original tweet, was promoting a book that compared Nazi Germany with America, at least in its history as a country. Allow me, then, to promote a book that dispels the Leftist notions that America as a whole is to blame for the atrocities of the Nazis: Dinesh D’Souza’s “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of The American Left.”
The subhead is, admittedly, a tad misleading. The modern American Left certainly has roots in the Nazis, but the Nazis also have roots in the old American Left – the one which fought for slavery, enacted Jim Crow laws and made it nearly impossible for former slaves to succeed and prosper, enacting laws and regulations that basically forced the freed slaves to return to the plantations while being paid peanuts and not living much differently free as they did when slaves.
Simply, to answer her question regarding what I would call it when a country that committed egregious crimes against humanity learned from watching politicians in America basically doing the same would be “learning from Democrats.”
Democrats were the ones who founded the domestic terrorist group known as the KKK. They were the ones who fought to keep their slaves. They were the ones who fought a war which led to the genocide of Native Americans.
Here’s an excerpt from D’Souza’s book, in a section aptly titled: “Learning from Hitler.”
“In this book I will show what the Left learned from the Nazis, and also what the Left taught the Nazis… Hitler… specifically said he intended to displace and exterminate the Russians, the Poles, and the Slavs in precisely the same way Americans in the Jacksonian era had displaced and exterminated the native Indians. The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were directly modeled on the segregation and anti-miscegenation laws that had been implemented decades earlier in the Democratic South. Forced sterilization and euthanasia aimed at eliminating racial ‘defectives’ and producing a ‘superior’ Nordic race were two additional schemes the Nazis got from American progressives…
… Franklin D. Roosevelt was an avid admirer of Mussolini who sought to import Italian fascist schemes to America. FDR also collaborated with the worst racist elements in America, working with them to block anti-lynching laws and exclude blacks from New Deal programs and name a former Klansman to the Supreme Court. Mussolini, for his part, praised FDR’s book ‘Looking Forward’ and basically declared FDR to be a fellow fascist. Hitler too saw FDR as a kindred spirit and the New Deal was widely praised as an American form of fascism in the Nazi Party’s official newspaper ‘Volkischer Beobachter’ and other Nazi publications.”
“JFK toured Nazi Germany in the 1930s and came back effusive with praise of Hitler and his theory of Nordic superiority. ‘I have come to the conclusion, ‘JFK wrote in his diary, ‘that fascism is right for Germany and Italy.’… [JFK] described [Hitler] as ‘the stuff of legends… Hitler will emerge from the hate that now surrounds him and come to be regarded as one of the most significant figures to have lived.’”
D’Souza notes that the American Left learned from Nazi Germany, following World War II, as much as Nazi Germany learned from the American Left which was directly responsible for the darkest parts of America’s history.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a massive advocate for eugenics (as evidenced by her founding of PLANNED PARENTHOOD) long before Hitler rose to power. She sought to eliminate black people, whom she considered “weeds” of society, and had black people fooled by a black eugenicist who would parrot Sanger’s eugenics propaganda as being beneficial to black people.
In a way, Hill is right in saying that Nazi Germany learned by watching America. However, they didn’t learn by watching Republicans or right-wingers. They didn’t learn by watching the people the Left now associates with them. They learned from THE LEFT and the things they had done. Like I pointed out, the Nuremberg Laws were modeled after the Left’s racist segregation laws.
The Nazis learned from the Left and the Left learns from Nazis. Take the following quote, as an example: “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation… and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
This sounds exactly like something someone would’ve said (or basically, someone did say) at last week’s Democratic National Convention. This quote, in fact, came from a 1927 speech made by Adolf Hitler.
D’Souza writes: “The Nazi Party at the outset offered a twenty-five point program that included the nationalization of large corporations and trusts, government control of banking and credit, the seizure of land without compensation for public use, the splitting of large landholdings into smaller units, confiscation of war profits, prosecution of bankers and other lenders on grounds of usury, abolition of incomes unearned by work, profit sharing for workers in all large companies, a broader pension system paying higher benefits, and universal free healthcare and education.”
With some slight alterations, this sounds exactly like the Leftist plan of today. Modern Leftists want, to some extent or another, each of these propositions, with some slight alterations to account for our modern era.
The American Left and the Nazis are inseparable, much as they might try to deny it. The American Left at least partly inspired Hitler and the Nazis in their quest to eradicate “inferior” races (I say partly because I believe Nietzsche’s theory of the “ubermench” or “superman” was also partly to blame). The American Left, past and present, has clear ties to Nazi Germany.
So, no, it’s not that Nazi Germany learned from watching America, because different states had different policies, as did different presidents in different times.
No, Nazi Germany specifically learned from watching American Leftists in how they enacted their racist and egregiously inhuman laws.
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
“Police have charged a 25-year-old man with first-degree murder after they say he shot and killed a 5-year-old boy last week in Wilson, North Carolina.
Austin Hinnant told CNN affiliate WRAL he was inside the home when his son, Cannon, was playing outside and was shot.
Hinnant says he ran outside and scooped up the injured child and held him in his arms.
‘I screamed “somebody help me, please help me save my son,”’ he said.
Hinnant told the affiliate he looked up and saw his neighbor, Darius Sessoms, in the yard next door with a gun in hand, pacing and frantic.
‘I was looking at him as I was picking up Cannon, and I was so full of rage, but I could not leave my son's side,’ he said. ‘I just wanted to be with my son.’
Hinnant's fiancé called 911, he said, and Sessoms drove away.
In a news release, the Wilson Police Department said officers were dispatched to the 5100 block of Archers Road on August 9 in reference to a shooting and found a 5-year-old suffering a gunshot wound, who later died at a nearby hospital.
Police identified Sessoms as a suspect and arrested him after he was found Monday in a Goldsboro residence about 30 minutes south of Wilson. It is unclear if Sessoms has an attorney.”
This is literally all CNN had to say about Cannon Hinnant. Roughly one week after the gruesome and heartless execution of the 5-year-old child, after multiple conservative outlets had already covered it and after multiple conservative accounts started the trend of “#SayHisName” in reference to the little boy, one mainstream news outlet (that’s not Fox News) has finally come around to begrudgingly talk about Cannon Hinnant.
Well, sort of.
Allow me to explain. What you just read above came from CNN INTERNATIONAL. Not even the main branch of CNN quite talked about it, just the international branch.
So that’s one ghastly and disgusting aspect of this scenario. The other is the fact that that entire excerpt amounts to only 222 words. That’s local news level coverage. That’s not even close to what I usually write or what other news outlets usually write about anything.
There is an article on CNBC about a mall owner acquiring denim retailer Lucky out of bankruptcy for $140.1 million. That article has a higher word count than CNN International’s article about Cannon Hinnant. Who the hell cares about a mall owner acquiring a denim company, other than the people involved in the deal and possibly the investors in those companies? Well, seemingly, more people on the fake news media care more about that random story than about the EXECUTION of a 5-year-old. This should be sickening, regardless of the races involved in the story.
Just for reference, CNN has 1,709 stories that mention George Floyd by name. For every word in that Cannon Hinnant article, there are EIGHT STORIES about George Floyd.
CNN also has 1,204 stories that mention Trayvon Martin. For every word in the Cannon article, there are five and a half stories that talk about Trayvon Martin.
CNN has 148 stories about attempted cop-killer Rayshard Brooks. For every word in the Cannon article, there are 0.66 articles about Brooks.
CNN has 73 stories about whiny, attention-seeking NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace, who faked a hate crime by pretending a garage door pull was a racist noose. CNN talked far more at length about this hoax than Cannon Hinnant.
So not only did it take CNN nearly a week to cover a horrific story that you and I both know perfectly well they would’ve covered as soon as they got a whiff of it had the races been reversed (a white man executing a 5-year-old black child), and not only did it take their INTERNATIONAL branch to begrudgingly talk about it, but they could not even spare 300 words, minimum, to talk about it.
Notice also that at no point in the story do they mention the races of the people involved. In the actual article, they have a picture of Sessoms, so those who read it will see that the suspect is black, but they don’t, at all, mention that Cannon is white.
This, again, you and I both know, would NEVER be the case if the races were reversed. This story, especially the races involved, would be ALL we would talk about for the next month, and likely even to election day.
If we had heard a story of a 25-year-old crazy bastard of a white man EXECUTING an innocent 5-year-old black boy in front of his two older sisters, supposedly for riding his bike over the white man’s lawn, people would have lost their MINDS. While there are still riots going on since George Floyd’s death, this story would have led to even more riots, and maybe even worse ones than what we saw.
The fake news media made the Trayvon Martin a national story. Like I said in the first article covering the Cannon Hinnant story, Trayvon’s name is ingrained in the minds of this nation. We remember his name roughly 8 years after his death. Despite the fact that Trayvon was the aggressor in that situation, his story gets remembered and told and retold whenever issues of race are brought up JUST because he was a black kid killed by someone who was only HALF white. The media does not extend the same courtesy to a 5-year-old white child who is gruesomely and unjustifiably executed by an evil s.o.b. of a neighbor who happens to be black.
It's not even like Cannon having been black would have made much of a difference to the fake news media.
Remember Secoriea Turner? The 8-year-old child who was killed by BLM terrorists who occupied the burned-down Wendy’s where Rayshard Brooks was justifiably killed by police? CNN only has 10 stories about her.
The first one covering the story has to do with Atlanta’s mayor talking about the incident. Had she not brought it up, CNN wouldn’t have covered the story.
The next three stories they wrote about it had more to do with overall crime, more specifically, what they called “gun crime” and “gun violence”, blaming guns in America as opposed to DOMESTIC TERRORISTS CAUSING CRIME ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO SKYROCKET BECAUSE OF LIMP-STICK DEMOCRAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS NOT DOING A THING TO PROTECT THE CITIES AND STATES THEY RUN!
The last article that CNN ran that mentioned Turner’s name was in July 16th (as of this article going live). Meanwhile, they are still trudging out stories that mention George Floyd.
The reason for CNN not covering the death of an 8-year-old black girl is because of just who was responsible: the very people that CNN roots for and covers for. A black BLM terrorist killed that girl. CNN lies for, covers for and gaslights for BLM terrorists. CNN does not cover black-on-black crime.
This is why I say that, even if Cannon had been black, CNN wouldn’t have talked about it because his killer was black. How many other black men kill black kids that hardly, if at all, get covered by the mainstream media? That number is infinitesimally smaller than the stories they write about ONE instance of a black man dying seemingly at the hands of a white person or a white cop.
Again, they have mentioned Floyd’s name in nearly 2,000 DIFFERENT ARTICLES. They have mentioned Trayvon’s name in 1,200 different articles. They mentioned Brooks in roughly 150 articles so far.
8-year-old Secoriea Turner, meanwhile, only gets 10 articles, at least 30% of which are meant to attack guns and blame guns, as opposed to radical Leftist terrorists. And 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant gets ONE article that one could read multiple times while riding in an elevator.
Meanwhile, other fake news outlets have not even talked about Hinnant at all, so I suppose I should give CNN SOME credit for finally kinda sorta talking about Cannon Hinnant in passing. That was their “there, we talked about the kid, now leave us alone” article. Their “there, we covered what you were pestering us about” article.
They don’t care about journalistic integrity or truth. Like I said, a white person being the victim of a black person runs contrary to the Leftist narrative of white people being oppressive and dominant over black people. At this point, I’m rather surprised they don’t cover these stories through the lens of black people “fighting back” against their “white oppressors” but I think we are still a bit away from that level of moral bankruptcy, even from the Leftist fake news.
To rephrase my ending note in the first article covering Cannon’s story: the fake news media’s treatment of this story tells us everything we need to know about them. Evil bastards, the lot of them.
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”
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...