My friend, Diversity Chronicle, sent me an article from the “Chicago Unheard” blog. My friend pointed out that the article is pure, unadulterated, hogwash. It claims that white people, specifically white liberals, are “racist” for clinging to one of the few shreds of humanity they still have: Caring about their own children.
Many White folks, especially northern white liberals who voted for Obama, would argue they are not racist, even while they actively cause harm to Black folks by their racist actions.
Since so many people don’t know what racism is or how they are racist, here are three racist things that northern White liberals do:
1. Engage in “White flight”—when poor Black folks move close to White folks, they flee and move to racially segregated, high-income communities. Today, White flight can also take on subtler forms, especially involving schooling—it can be the decision to apply for a magnet school with more white students than a family’s neighborhood school.
2. Live in high-income, racially-segregated communities that are not accessible to poor Black folks.
3. Enroll their children in racially-segregated, high-income schools that are not accessible to poor Black folks.
It never occurs to the author, ShaRhonda Knott-Dawson, that parents don’t want their children to suffer the attacks and indignities that I suffered in majority-black schools. Yes, protecting your own kids from harm is now “racist!”
The article is such drivel that it doesn’t merit a point-by-point refutation. I did want to draw attention to the name of the blog: Chicago Unheard.
It’s a common tactic, among Communists, to describe things as the opposite of what they really are. Just as they love to accuse their opponents of crimes that they, themselves, are guilty of, so too do they describe their own narratives as “unheard.” They like to think of themselves as downtrodden and “marginalized.”
I couldn’t help but notice that Chicago Unheard has a Twitter page and a Facebook page; it hasn’t been cancelled. So much for being “unheard.” In real life, people who are “unheard” are censored by those in power.
The blog is managed by a “liberal white person” named Maureen Kelleher. She is also a senior writer and editor at Brightbeam. Who supports Brightbeam?
We’re grateful to our funders, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Walton Family Foundation, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the City Fund, for helping support the work of dozens of advocates, activists and contributors all across the country.
It turns out that Brightbeam is funded by some of the wealthiest people on Earth. Considering the above, the name “Chicago Unheard” rings hollow.
Anastasia Katz, writing for American Renaissance, sums up the attitude toward Derek Chauvin within black officialdom:
Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s murder trial began yesterday, accompanied by all the expected theatrics.
Reverend Al Sharpton has held several press conferences recently, accompanied by members of George Floyd’s family and their attorney Ben Crump, who represented them in the civil suit against the city of Minneapolis, which resulted in a $27 million settlement. On Sunday, Rev. Sharpton spoke at a Baptist Church in Minneapolis, saying “Chauvin is in the courtroom, but America is on trial.”
On Monday morning, Rev. Sharpton again stood before the press and called George Floyd’s death a “lynching by knee.” He led those assembled as they took a knee for eight minutes and 46 seconds — the time that former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin restrained Floyd. Some of those surrounding Mr. Sharpton were wearing facemasks with “8:46” and a flatlined heartbeat printed on them. The group then chanted, “No justice! No peace!”
Like most Americans, I’ve stumbled upon many statements by BLM supporters expressing a desire to punish Mr. Chauvin, and that the jury can only reach one acceptable verdict: Guilty!
If Mr. Chauvin were released in the midst of a BLM crowd, would there be any doubt what would happen to him? Of course not; he would be lynched.
I’ve already pointed out that BLM supports slavery. Now we see that it also supports lynching. Does it support segregation? Indeed:
Yes folks, BLM stands for slavery, segregation and lynching. Doesn’t sound very “progressive” to me.
To all my Jewish readers, I wish y’all a happy Passover. To all my Gentile readers, I wish y’all a deliverance from slavery under the yoke of the strange god of Diversity. May the blessings of peoplehood, liberty, strength and courage be upon you!
We can’t know for certain, but the Hebrews in Egypt were probably an ill-defined people. Some were probably assimilated into Egyptian culture, speaking the Egyptian language and worshiping Egyptian gods. They spoke like Egyptians, married Egyptians, dressed like Egyptians – and probably even walked like Egyptians.
But persecution forced them to make a choice: Are they truly Egyptians, or are they Hebrews? This choice solidified the formation of my own nation, the Jews. In the same way, intensifying persecution against whites is forcing many people to ask themselves about their identity. Are they deracinated consumer units, or are they members of a great and upcoming White-American nation? Events in their lives sometimes make that choice an easier one – for example, when non-whites attack them, or when self-hating whites disparage them and deny them benefits or rights.
White Americans don’t have the benefit of a Moses, and nobody’s going to split the sea for them – but each white person can be his own Moses. Deep inside each and every one of us is a Moses; he simply needs to be set free.
A 12 year old white boy was attacked, at a McDonald’s, by a middle-aged black man who yelled anti-white slurs. From The Gateway Pundit:
A black man stabbed a white 12-year-old boy at McDonald’s in Pittsburgh in what appears to be a clear anti-white hate crime.
The child is in stable condition after being stabbed by Charles Edward Turner, 51, on Sunday.
The child was with his family when the man tackled the boy and stabbed him in the neck with a box cutter.
“According to police, the boy was stabbed in the neck inside the McDonald’s at Liberty Avenue and Stanwix Street near Market Square around 2 p.m. Officers Ross Small, Harry Siwik and Steve Harris sustained injuries during the arrest. David Lewandowski and Henry Seifried, employees at McDonalds’s, also were injured,” the Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports. “According to the criminal complaint, Mr. Turner fought with officers as they tried to arrest him. The complaint alleges that Mr. Turner used racial slurs against officers, patrons and employees during his arrest and bit one of the witnesses.”
According to local television reports, Turner was muttering “white devils” and other anti-white slurs at the crime scene, though the Post Gazette opted not to include the details about the “racial slurs” he was using.
Let’s see how other “news” outlets reported the incident.
The local Pittsburgh site, WPXI, mentions the “racial slurs” only in paragraph 10, and toward the end of the embedded video:
After the incident, Turner was found outside pacing back-and-forth and yelling racial slurs, before going back into the restaurant. The criminal complaint says family members tried to question Turner, who told them “he only wanted to finish his coffee and then leave the restaurant.”
Nowhere in the article is there any mention of an anti-white sentiment, nor are we told what race the victim is; for all we know, he could be Asian or mestizo.
CBS Pittsburgh reported the story, and embedded a video, which includes various interviews. Neither the article, nor the video make any mention of “racial slurs” or anti-white sentiment.
Kiro7, from Seattle, mentioned nothing about “racial slurs” in the accompanying video, and only on paragraph 6 does the article mention “racial slurs,” omitting the fact that they were specifically anti-white slurs:
A criminal complaint states that there is no indication that the suspect knew the victim and that Turner was seen pacing outside following the incident – yelling racial slurs – before re-entering the restaurant.
CNN/NBC, sanitized the racial angle from the story entirely. From beginning to end, there is no mention of any racial motive or slurs.
Local12, (Cincinnati Refined), makes no mention of “racial slurs” or anti-white animus.
Fox News mentions “racial slurs” in the headline, and elaborates on the racial angle in the first two paragraphs.
This pretty much covers the first page of Google results for “Man Stabs 12-Year-Old Boy.” It’s true that Fox does not provide reliable news, but it’s the only corporate media company that doesn’t try to hide the facts when white people are attacked by non-whites.
Will the culprit be charged with a hate-crime? It will be interesting to see.
Yesterday, a BLM mob attacked a grocery store in Rochester, New York, and prevented about 100 people from leaving. From The Daily Wire:
Black Lives Matter protesters in Rochester, New York, mobbed a Wegmans grocery store on Tuesday afternoon, trapping an estimated 100 customers inside.
Video shows protesters chanting “Black Lives Matter” and referring to Daniel Prude, a black man who died about a week after a viral encounter with the Rochester Police Department. The state’s Democratic Attorney General announced last month that a grand jury will not seek charges against officers involved in the incident.
Before heading to the grocery store, protesters yelled, “We have a long walk today, we’re shutting s*** down,” according to 13WHAM-TV reporter Michael Schwartz…
The store was mobbed and forced to close, as an estimated 100 customers remained locked inside…
Schwartz reported, “The group has set up here at East Ave. Wegmans. Cars following have carried these supplies. Last time I saw a tent setup was at Occupy City Hall. Shoppers cannot leave.”
The article includes some video clips, and points out that the police did not intervene.
I’m not an attorney, so I can’t give legal advice, but it seems to me that a case can be made that lethal force might be justified in such situations. What BLM did to the shoppers appears to be “unlawful restraint” or “abduction.” From the New York penal code, article 135:
S 135.00 Unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping and custodial interference; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. “Restrain” means to restrict a person`s movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful. A person is so moved or confined “without consent” when such is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or (b) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.
2. “Abduct” means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either (a) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found, or (b) using or threatening to use deadly physical force.
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person…
None of the exceptions listed thereafter apply to this situation. Also, any reasonable person would recognize that a raging mob, such as we see in the videos, does pose a risk of “imminent use of unlawful physical force.”
It appears to me, as a non-attorney, that people are legally allowed to use physical force to free themselves from unlawful abduction in the State of New York. As for the courts upholding such a right, that’s something we would expect in a First World country – and I don’t think the US qualifies as such any longer.
It’s now the norm, rather than the exception, for corporations to discriminate against white men. It’s a matter of policy for them, as they follow the lead of the Biden administration, and years of precedence. The latest to be exposed for blatant anti-white discrimination is Cigna.
Cigna, one of the nation’s largest health insurance providers, has allegedly told employees not to hire white men as part of the company’s broader critical race theory campaign.
According to an internal chat log obtained by the Washington Examiner, a hiring manager at Cigna dismissed a white candidate because he did not fulfill the company’s diversity standards. In the chat, an employee suggested the company interview a man with extensive experience for an open position. The hiring manager allegedly told the employee that the man could not be interviewed because he is white.
In a separate chat log, a hiring manager dismissed another candidate who he assumed to be white. The candidate was a racial minority. After learning of the candidate’s accurate skin color — and little else — the hiring manager allegedly reversed course and hired the candidate.
Employees were also forced to undergo training wherein they were taught that white people have “white privilege,” straight men have “gender privilege,” and Christians have “religious privilege.” The company defines religious privilege as “a set of advantages that benefits believers of a certain religion but not people who practice other religions or no religions at all.”
Apparently, being denied a job or promotion now counts as a “privilege,” and it’s a privilege that white people have had for decades.
It’s possible that a successful lawsuit could come from this, but looking into the future, I see less and less recourse for anti-white discrimination. After several years of Harris/Biden, the courts will be even more packed with activist judges. Also, how can we expect the government to protect the rights of white people when it’s at the forefront in discriminating against us?
The “Tolerant Left” is showing its true colors in Canada, as a father tries to protect his daughter from state-sponsored child abuse. I recommend reading this article by The Post Millennial. It describes how Mr. Hoogland has sacrificed his very freedom to protect his daughter from possible life-long harm. It also describes the soulless transition industry, whose goal seems to be destroying the well-being of countless children in the name of profit. Shame on them. Here are some excerpts:
There is a man in Canada who can only be alluded to as He Who Shall Not Be Named: Robert Hoogland. For the sake of natural justice, it is important to speak this man’s name. He is now the Canadian state’s prisoner of conscience.
The warrant was issued by a judge for the arrest of a father after calling his biological female child his “daughter,” and referring to her with the pronouns “she” and “her.” Hoogland was found to be in contempt of court.
Hoogland is a father to a gender non-conforming biological female 16-year-old who identifies as transgender and prefers the use of male pronouns. Hoogland has repeatedly called this person his daughter, though the court has forbade it. The transition has been underway for more than two years.
According to the article, the child had experienced various mental health issues from about the age of 13.
When Hoogland accompanied his child to a consultation with Wong, the psychologist advised the pubescent child to take testosterone. Wong referred the child to the endocrinology unit at the local hospital. Meanwhile, Hoogland was looking for mental health solutions to help the child without drugs.
On the child’s first visits to the hospital, a treatment plan was put into action. Both the child, and her mother—Hoogland’s ex-wife—signed a consent form which explicitly stated that the “treatment” was experimental, meaning that the endocrinologists recommending the treatment didn’t know the long-term health impact.
A gender identity activist lawyer, Barbara Findley, represented the child in court. Justice Boden decided that the child’s best interests lay in destroying her long-term health to make her body appear more like that of a male.
The article claims that an estimated 85 percent of children… desist in their belief that they are the opposite sex once puberty ends. This claim is disputed, and hard statistics don’t seem to exist. An NBC article from 2019 cites several studies. At the lower end, we’re told that about 2 percent of participants expressed regret after undergoing gender-affirming surgery.
Is it acceptable to perform a procedure upon a child when there’s a 2% risk that it will lead to irreversible damage? I don’t think so. In my opinion, only life/limb threatening emergencies should justify the performance of such a procedure.
In a sane world, a troubled child should be offered counseling. In severe cases, mild medication should be prescribed. Only when she has fully reached adulthood, some time in her twenties, should hormone replacement, or surgery, even be considered. At that point, she can make her own decisions.
What about Mr. Hoogland’s freedom of speech? How can we describe a regime that jails people for “misgendering” as anything other than a tyranny? I hope China throws this case back in Canada’s face, when the latter accuses China of “human-rights abuses.” Nice going Canada; you have just moved into a glass house.
I do wish Mr. Hoogland the best, and I hope his daughter survives this ordeal. Whatever the outcome, Mr. Hoogland can take comfort in the fact that he’s doing the best he can to protect his daughter against an evil state apparatus.
I’m always the last person to view viral political videos. As a matter of fact, to this day, I haven’t viewed the entire George Floyd “knee on neck” video; even if it only LOOKS like he’s being choked by the cop, and crying for his mother, I wouldn’t enjoy watching it. I don’t even like watching fictional movie scenes of that nature.
But when I stumbled upon a Forbes article that downplayed Biden’s falls on Air-Force One, I realized that people are ignoring the obvious: Watch the other presidential stumbles that Suzanne Rowan Kelleher uses for comparison.
In the first one, involving President Ford, he was helping his wife down the stairs when it happened, and even then, it was one fall. He didn’t struggle, nor was he disoriented; he simply fell. It’s hard to read anything into it, except that he had a fall.
The second “gaffe,” involving President Trump, wasn’t even a stumble at all; it was simply a piece of paper stuck to his shoe. How this is comparable to Biden’s fall escapes me. Obviously, Miss Kelleher is grasping at straws here to find ANYTHING that might minimize what happened with Biden. All the other incidents were actual falls and stumbles. She deliberately expanded her criteria just to include Trump’s piece of paper.
The third and fourth (honorable mentions) stumbles, involving Vice President Pence and President Obama, aren’t even remotely comparable to Biden’s stumble. Both of them were walking at an excessive pace, clearly overconfident in their own youth and vigor. They both stumbled once, and quickly gained composure.
What about Biden? He stumbled THREE times, and he was clearly disoriented, seemingly trying to rediscover his feet at one point. We get the impression that he’s trying to put on a show of health and youth – but fails miserably.
I couldn’t help but notice that all the other “stumbling” videos in the Forbes article can be viewed within the article itself – but not the one with Biden stumbling; that one has embedding disabled. It’s possible that this happened after the article was published, but it is convenient that readers can’t easily see it, and compare it to the other incidents.
Biden is falling apart, and he’s taking the country with him!
Even though the corporate media cannot truly be honest about “hate-crimes,” especially when dealing with recent anti-Asian attacks, it’s still possible to approach the truth somewhat – at least if it’s a non-white journalist doing the reporting.
The nation is reeling from the news of three shootings that took place at Asian-owned massage parlors in Atlanta; the suspect, a young white man, is in custody and has admitted to the murders. The attack is the latest in a series of high-profile crimes from coast to coast that have victimized Asian-Americans, though initial reports suggest that the latest crime may not be motivated by anti-Asian hatred. The attacker reportedly saw the parlors as a “temptation he wanted to eliminate,” suggesting a perverse sexual violence-related motive rather than a racial one.
But this has not stopped progressives from blaming the murders on white supremacy, as they have been for the duration of this epidemic of violence against Asian Americans. Democratic politicians, liberal-leaning media outlets, and the progressive nonprofit world have been quick to blame “white supremacy” or right-wing political rhetoric about COVID-19 for the brutal attacks, and the attack in Atlanta has been cast as the culmination of these forces; the news that race may not have been a factor in this attack will probably not shake their conviction that the greatest threat to Asian Americans right now comes from white supremacy.
And yet, unlike the suspect arrested for the crimes in Atlanta’s, few of the attackers in most of these cases are even white, let alone white supremacists.
Jilani goes on to blame poverty and racial stereotypes for black-on-Asian violence – thus (probably) saving his career. Had he simply blamed blacks for the violence, in the same way whites are blamed for (perceived) group shortcomings, he most likely would have been cancelled.
Another Newsweek article is eager to point out the race of the Atlanta shooter, mentioning it in the third paragraph:
Former President Donald Trump referred to COVID-19 as the “China virus” in a television interview on the night that several Asian women were shot dead at three massage parlors in Georgia.
In that article, Khaleda Rahman doesn’t even bother pointing out that a disproportionate number of such attacks are committed by blacks – even though she spilled much ink blaming Trump for the attacks. We’re not told how many of the perpetrators cited Trump’s rhetoric as their motive. We can safely guess that the answer to that question would be NONE.
As for the recent shootings in Atlanta, whatever the shooter’s motivations turn out to be, I hope he gets executed for his crimes. Also, I have the utmost confidence in the Establishment Left that it will find a way to blame “white-supremacy.”
Dr. Vernon Coleman is a known conspiracy theorist, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s wrong. You might have noticed that none of the above videos are hosted by YouTube. This is probably because, like the election fraud issues, YouTube has appointed itself The Ministry of Truth, and has removed “misleading information” from its platform.
It’s possible that the anti-vaccine videos ARE misleading. I don’t know, because I’m not an expert on this field of research. Few of us are – and half of the population is of below average IQ.
Most of us simply don’t have the training to discern truth from fiction when it comes to such matters – but Mediagov has decided that only one narrative is allowed. Many of us find this suspicious, and we’re not sure who to trust. I’ve written about this before, that a controlled media creates fertile ground for conspiracy theories.
Speaking of conspiracy theories, let’s not ignore the Tuskegee Syphilis narrative. Jared Taylor wrote about this a few years ago:
The Tuskegee syphilis study ranks almost with slavery and lynching as a symbol of America’s racist past. There is probably not one black American adult who does not know — or thinks he knows — about an experiment from the 1930s in which government health authorities deliberately withheld treatment from 400 black syphilitics just to see what would happen to them.
In some versions of story, the government deliberately infected the men. At the very least, the authorities are said to have been guilty of withholding the effective treatments that became available in the 1950s.
Blacks often cite fear of “another Tuskegee” to explain why few of them cooperate with public health programs or donate organs for transplant. They never know when white doctors might experiment on them…
The study was undertaken by “progressives” who wanted to fight a disease that afflicted many blacks, it had the full support of black medical authorities to the end, and — most important — it probably caused no harm to the 140 men (not 400) who took part.
The U.S. Public Health Service started the study in 1932 in Macon County, Alabama, where syphilis rates for blacks ranged between 20 and 36 percent.
At the time, there were a number of treatments for the disease but they were complicated, disagreeable, and not very effective. They involved a year-long series of carefully-monitored intravenous injections of an arsenic compound that had such unpleasant side-effects that fully 85 percent of patients dropped out before treatment was complete. Of the 15 percent who stuck it out, few were cured.
Public health officials knew they needed better drugs. But they also needed a baseline to which they could compare the results of treatment. This was why they wanted to know what happens if there was no treatment…
It was this latent stage that health authorities wanted to investigate in 1932. Consequently, when they examined 410 syphilitic blacks for possible inclusion in the study, they found many were in the early, infectious stage, and rejected them as candidates. They turned over no fewer than 178 for the standard arsenic treatment, and kept 140 for the study. They then checked up on these men at rather lengthy intervals — in 1938, 1948, 1952, and 1963 — giving them full physical examinations, and treating them for any disease other than syphilis.
A black nurse named Eunice Rivers ran the program, keeping in close contact with the men to make sure they did not drift out of touch. She was apparently a remarkable woman who created something of a social club around the study.
The outset of the program was therefore entirely unobjectionable. The men had already entered the latency stage of syphilis, for which the standard and largely ineffective cure of the day was no good at all. Forgoing that was no hardship, and in exchange they got free medical checkups and the benefits of Nurse Rivers’ kind attention. The authorities at Booker T. Washington’s Tuskegee Institute blessed the study.
And yet, the Tuskegee Experiment is cited over and over again as justification for black Americans’ distrust of the medical establishment. Far be it from me to claim that blacks were not subject to unethical medical experiments – but crucial details are left out of the history books, as we see in the above quote.
I find it ironic that the same actors who bemoan the lack of trust, among American blacks, toward the medical establishment are the ones who created the misleading narrative that brought about the distrust in the first place.
When it comes to the Covid vaccine, the Establishment Left has created a situation where it can’t win. If it makes sure that more blacks get the vaccine, some will surely die – and accusations of “racism” and “genocide” will inevitably follow. If it fails to get the vaccine to more blacks, the same accusations will be heard.