The sick ideology known as “Critical Race Theory” teaches that all Whites are considered racist, by default, against blacks. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean that our system of Trial by Jury is flawed, and needs to be amended. If all Whites are racist, consciously or otherwise, then this means no black defendant can expect a fair trial when all, or most, of the jury is White.
Once this flawed conclusion is reached, it’s only a matter of time before policies are implemented where only black jurors can serve when the defendant is black. In contrast, since blacks cannot be racist, there is no reason to prevent blacks being on a jury when the defendant is White.
Watch for it; you heard it from me…
… and we’re already seeing the groundwork for such policies being laid. Too many times, we’ve seen news stories decrying the fact that so-and-so black defendant was “convicted by an all-White jury” – as if this necessarily means the trial was unfair.
Case in point: Richard Moore. Convicted in 1999 or murdering a White store clerk during a robbery, Moore was sentenced to death. In case you’re bad at math, or consider it racist, this means the murder was about 24 years ago. If there was misconduct during the trial, or new evidence has come to light, then by all means, let’s retry Moore.
The Change.org petition makes no mention of any such misconduct or new evidence. It makes four arguments:
That the jury was “all White”
That Moore was unarmed when he entered the store, and had no intention to kill
That the mode of death now presented is “cruel and unusual” and
That blacks are overrepresented in death penalty cases.
Without getting into details of the last three arguments, it’s telling that the very first one is that the jury was “all White, and that the victim was White.” The presumption is that Whites are biased toward black criminals when the victim was White. Would a black jury be more objective? Does anybody remember O.J. Simpson?
Mr. Moore was convicted and sentenced to death for the alleged murder of a white male store owner by an all white jury (11 White and 1 Latino) during what was reported to be a robbery. Mr. Moore entered a convenience store unarmed with no intent to kill, and did not own the gun that was fired during the altercation. The owner of the store was killed during the incident.
How much longer before every verdict where the jury was all, or mostly, White is thrown out? I foresee a day, in the not too distant future, where this will happen. As a result, many thousands of dangerous criminals will be let loose on society. They will kill again.
To recap:
CRT teaches that all Whites are racist by default. All White juries are, therefore, unacceptable for black defendants. Based on this conclusion, all the verdicts of such trials are thrown out. Thousands of vicious, hardened, criminals are let loose. Many innocent Americans are murdered or raped as a result.
I was impressed with the video, especially considering how young Mr. Cheon is. I predict great things for this young man, and told him so in comments…
Speaking of comments, many of the comments are from other non-Whites who agree with him. We do have many non-White allies, and it has always been my position that we should recognize them and encourage them.
Westernkind Art has this to say:
Interestingly, while he does encourage nonWhites to treat Whites well, he seems certain of the reduction of White political and economic power and doesn’t condemn this. While this video is still insightful and surprising coming from a nonWhite, his message is condescending.
It seems to me there are two schools of thought in the Dissident Right: Purists and Pragmatists. Though I sympathize with the Purists, I find myself in the Pragmatist camp. It’s my view that if we demand 100% compliance or nothing, we’ll end up with nothing. There are at least two reasons for this. Firstly, we don’t have the power to demand all we want; we’re lucky to get some of it. Secondly, few of us can reach an agreement on what our ultimate goals are. If we were to ever get close, we’d be fighting to the very end about the details.
Verily, reasonable men can take either position, and I’ve had ongoing feuds with fellow White-advocates on this very subject. It’s clear to me that neither side will ever be able to convince the other, and reality on the ground will be the final arbiter.
Spoiler alert: We will NOT get everything we want within our lifetimes. Best to make the most of what we CAN get. Furthermore, common decency demands that we recognize those who support us, regardless of their race or ethnicity.
I’ll conclude by pointing out that Jared Taylor agrees with me. One of his most moving speeches, at least for me, was a short one he made at one of the Amren conferences, where he recognized our non-White allies. His speech was so heartfelt, almost tearful, that it made a huge impression on me. Unfortunately, that speech was not recorded.
A video has been circulating, showing a man robbing a restaurant in Texas. As he was wrapping it up, and on his way out, a diner shot him dead. When I first saw the video, the full version was available. Now it’s been scrubbed from the internet, and only a truncated version is available.
The robber was black, and the shooter is White. After shooting him, the diner approached the now horizontal robber, and finished him off. When shot, the robber had his gun (which turned out to be fake) aimed at an employee; he still posed a danger. Here’s the truncated version, with Andy Ngo’s commentary:
Houston Police are seeking a robbery victim who shot dead a masked male who used a realistic-looking fake handgun to rob people at the Ranchito Taqueria on Jan. 5. Because the robber was black, some leftist activists say this was an unjustified shooting. https://t.co/G7OROWTtn4pic.twitter.com/lIykfwbQdc
There are many insightful comments on Twitter, mostly explaining why the shooting was justified. Some have raised questions about the second shot, not shown in this video. We can’t tell exactly what happened…
… but I’ll add my own insightful comments.
Even if the robber posed NO FURTHER THREAT to anyone in the restaurant, the diner was still justified in confirming the kill. Why? Because the diner probably didn’t know that a security camera was capturing the incident, and had the robber lived, it would have been his word against the robber – a White man’s word against a black man. Regardless of what actually transpired, the media would have published headlines quoting the robber as saying, “I put my hands up and begged him not to shoot! He called me a dirty nigger and pulled the trigger. Praise the Lord I’m still alive to raise my ten children.”
Who knows how cooperative the one or two witnesses would have been. Perhaps they would have been too traumatized to be of any use. Perhaps they would have been hostile. Perhaps the man sitting across from the shooter has good reasons to avoid being a witness.
When they find the shooter, thousands of leftists will be searching any social media posts he may have made – going back as far as possible. ANYTHING he might have posted, even in jest, will be used against him. If he appeared somewhere making the “okay” hand gesture, it will be used as “evidence” that he’s a White-supremacist. They’ll contact members of his family, neighbors and coworkers. Maybe he made an off-color joke once at work. That will be used as “evidence” that he’s a bigot.
For argument’s sake, let’s say the man is a flaming neo-Nazi. Does that mean he was wrong to shoot the robber? Do neo-Nazis lack the right of self-defense or the duty to protect others? The media will announce to a gullible world: NEO-NAZI murders helpless black man in cold blood!! The odds of getting a fair trial would be slim to none.
As a White man in today’s America, even in Texas, it’s doubtful he’ll get a fair shake. With luck, the prosecutor might decline to press charges – and then there will be protests. We’ve seen this before, and the prosecutor changes his mind. It’s all downhill from there.
Maybe I’m wrong in this case. After all, there are still pockets of sanity in this once-great country. They are getting fewer and fewer. Let’s hope fortune smiles on this man.
In a long-overdue decision, the European Union president Charles Michel has announced that member states must destroy most stained-glass windows, depicting people, within cathedrals and churches.
The reason for this edict should be obvious: They lack diversity. The ruling doesn’t apply if the windows are inclusive (defined as depicting 100% people of color or LGBTQ).
To much fanfare, Michel explained:
We cannot move forward unless we confront our racist past. Science has proven, with Cheddar Man, that Europe’s native people were people of color. They were MIGRANTS! Whites came later and slaughtered the native, peaceful, inhabitants, just like in America.
Unfortunately, we cannot bring Cheddar Man’s people back, but it behooves us to correct what we can – and medieval stained-glass windows, depicting white people, have no place in the New Europe.
To illustrate his point, Michel displayed a hideous example of the white-supremacy he was referring to:
Naturally, some extremists on the far-right have objected to this decision. Some have even suggested that instead of destroying the windows, they should modify them. With modern technology, it should be possible to alter the appearance of the people so that they appear African American. It has even been suggested that the face of St. Martin Luther King be used as a model – or St. George Floyd.
More rational people have rejected this nonsense on the grounds that even if we were to fix the windows, they still carry the legacy of racism. This is not acceptable.
Pope Francis has applauded the European Union for this decision. He has even gone the extra mile, showing his piety by offering to purge the Vatican Museum of all depictions of white people.
I applaud this decision. In the name of the Lord, and His son Jesus Christ, we have a spiritual duty to rid ourselves of whiteness. I am ordering all depictions of whiteness to be removed from the Vatican Museum. It is unacceptable that its millions of visitors be forced to endure such hate.
Europe has had a whiteness problem for far too long. It is time to put an end to it. A “Final Solution” if you will. Greek and Roman statues, medieval tapestries, classical paintings and, of course, the stained-glass windows will all be purged.
Praise the Lord!
Indeed, we haven’t had such a righteous pope since St. Peter. This is the true meaning of Christianity, to cleanse ourselves of hate. Hate has no place in the Vatican or in any church.
Asked if the European Union would take steps to remove crosses as well, since many migrants find them offensive, Michel replied:
The battle for tolerance cannot be fought in one day. I fully appreciate the trauma and hurt that our migrant sisters must feel when they are forced to confront this symbol of bigotry and intolerance. Those women and children have suffered enough, braving human traffickers, dangerous seas and cold to reach our shores… and then… to be confronted with this symbol of colonialism and hate… it’s just too much.
There will come a day, soon, when we’ll address this problem. Mark my words.
As some of y’all know, I moderate the Quora group It’s Okay to be White. Trying to keep inferior posts to a minimum, and maintain some level of quality, is an uphill struggle. The group now has well over 30,000 followers.
One pet peeve of mine is when pro-Whites object to reparations “because nobody alive today was a slave or a slave-owner.” In response to one such post, I commented:
I approved this answer to make a point: None of us can be taken seriously when we don’t know what our opponents actually say. Frankie, do you actually believe that leftists want reparations for slaves who are alive today? The following is their position, in a nutshell:
Slavery, and subsequent Jim Crow laws/redlining etc. set in motion a series of events, and circumstances, where blacks were disadvantaged. This continues to our own time.
Reparations aren’t only for slavery, but also for other injustices, such as housing discrimination, mortgage discrimination, overpolicing etc.
There are plenty of good rebuttals to both. For example:
If slavery/Jim Crow were the actual cause for today’s disparities, we would see the disparities diminishing as those institutions fade into the past. Instead, we see the OPPOSITE; since the Civil Rights Act, black crime, illegitimacy, poverty and academic failure have gotten WORSE, not better.
If we’re going to look at such recent injustices toward blacks, then we must also look at injustices toward Whites. For example, how much in extra taxes have White people paid due to black criminality, disproportionate welfare and incarceration? How much have Whites lost due to their housing being devalued as a result of black incursions into White neighborhoods (and the accompanying crime)? How many Whites had their childhoods destroyed due to excessive black-on-White bullying and assaults? How many White families have been destroyed by black-on-White homicide and rape?
Let’s UNDERSTAND opposing views, and then offer intelligent responses, instead of regurgitating the same old tired talking points.
In less than an hour, I was informed that my comment was deleted for “hate-speech:”
Your content has been deleted as it was found to be in violation of our Hate Speech policy. To learn more about our Spaces policy, click here. If you think this is an error, you can appeal here.
The reason I bring this up is that I think it’s a good example of how the censors will tolerate low-quality pro-white content (it makes us look bad), but remove high-quality content.
We see this same approach in how the media relates to toothless, tattooed skinheads versus Jared Taylor; it ignores Mr. Taylor, but will gladly put the skinhead on display for its gullible audience all day long.
Then again, maybe I’m flattering myself, and there are other reasons my comment was removed.
The European Union and the United States should increase the number of migrants immediately. Due to a dearth of White women in Africa, we have learned that some African youth have, out of desperation, taken to having sex with donkeys.
We’re supposed to pride ourselves in our humanitarian ideals, in our love for fellow human beings. How then, can we justify placing barriers in front of the millions of African men who wish to improve their lives, and gain access to White women?
Fifteen youngsters developed an ‘admiration’ for a donkey spent a week in a Moroccan hospital after catching a highly-contagious disease from the beast.
The fifteen teenagers from rural Morocco had to be treated for rabies after reportedly gang raping an infected local donkey.
Had we simply allowed these young men to migrate to the West, this never would have happened. The donkey would not have been raped, and these gentlemen would have been spared the horrors of rabies.
Biden and EU leaders, this message is for YOU! I urge you to airlift all African males to Europe and the US immediately! There can be no more excuses, and no more delays. Access to White females is a human right, and it is our moral duty to protect this right, and to guarantee a level playing field. There can be no level playing field as long as even ONE African man remains in Africa.
The technical term for this type of behavior is “chimp out.” In this case, assuming the background information in the tweet is accurate, it’s a good example of what I’ve been saying for years: Blacks are trained from an early age to assume racism is the reason for life’s inconveniences.
Of course, the corporate media won’t report this story, except maybe local news. Hence, the masses remain ignorant… but there was a recent incident where a White police officer was forced off a crime scene by a racist black mob. MSN included it on its page – but made sure to have it embedded several minutes into a video by a black conservative. Here’s the incident:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1605279555912187906
Here’s another “non-story” that’s hard to watch. Not “news” according to the corporate media:
Laura Loomer has repeatedly claimed that her natural right to own a gun has been violated by the Federal Government due to her politics. She writes:
What I haven’t shared with you is that last year, I found out my 2nd Amendment rights have also been stripped without warning or explanation.
That’s right, I – a young woman who faces constant death threats – cannot own or possess a firearm for my own personal protection. My 2nd Amendment right has been BANNED.
While I have NEVER been convicted of a felony, domestic violence, and I’ve never been adjudicated mentally unfit by a judge, my name was placed in the Federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and I have been prohibited from ever owning or even touching a firearm.
It’s called “Red Flagging”.
The only people who have the ability to put you in the NICS database is the FBI.
I learned during my campaign for Congress that despite the fact that I have never been charged or convicted of any crime whatsoever, my name had been placed on a secret Federal “no buy” list maintained by the FBI, which prohibited me from my legal right to buy a firearm.
My name landed on this secret “no buy” list shortly after I questioned the former FBI director James Comey at his first book signing event about a number of lies in his published memoir. I was acting entirely legally in my role as an investigative journalist and as an attendee of the event.
As a result, I’ve lost my rights to protect myself and my home.
But, with your help I WILL be getting my rights restored.
I’ve been sitting on this news for months while others helped me investigate and find out why I’ve been Red Flagged.
I’ve had the deepest background checks run against me . . . and I don’t even have a speeding ticket.
We’ve concluded the obvious . . . I had my 2nd Amendment Rights stripped due to my political views and activism.
Given that the FBI is the only organization that can put you in the NICS database, I have reason to believe that I’ve been targeted by the FBI.
Naturally, leftists dispute this. A Google search for “Was Laura Loomer denied gun ownership for politics” features a “fact-checking” site called “Misbar” at the very top.
Note that Google results are not random; they’re manipulated by Google to promote its “progressive” agenda. In this case, Duckduckgo yields similar results, as it also has a leftist agenda.
Misbar is primarily an Arabic-language website/blog, and it’s sympathetic to Islam. This might provide some insight, as Muslims are not fond of Laura Loomer; she keeps exposing their misdeeds – making her an “Islamophobe.”
Laura Loomer Was Not Denied Gun Ownership Due to Politics
Misbar’s Analysis
Misbar’s analysis finds Loomer’s claim that her political beliefs are the reason why she has been banned from owning a gun to be false…
She goes on to claim she has never been convicted of a felony or of domestic violence, and has never been deemed mentally unfit. Nonetheless, her name appears on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as not cleared to purchase a firearm. The FBI’s website lists several ways a person’s name can wind up on the list including misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, being under indictment, and the vaguely titled category of “state prohibitor.” A state prohibitor is a specific state’s reason for adding a person to the NICS.
At the end of her blog post, Loomer states her intention to sue over improper denial on the NICS and requests donations to help her do so. From an in-depth study of the NICS by the Federation of American Scientists, between 1998 and 2018, one-fifth of denials were appealed (which Loomer has already done), and one-tenth of those appeals were actually overturned. Most of the overturned cases were due to misidentifying the denied person. Also, according to the official NICS guidelines, Section 25.10, Loomer can obtain the reason for her denial.
Loomer has faced arrest and possible convictions in several cases. In 2017 she was arrested for public disturbance after storming on stage during a theater production of “Julius Caesar.” She is accused of jumping the fence to Nancy Pelosi’s California home, and climbing the fence to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s home while wearing a sombrero.
While Loomer posted proof that she had been denied, there is no proof that the denial has anything to do with her political beliefs.
Misbar’s Classification
Fake
Misbar’s “analysis” uses several slights of hand to make readers believe it’s legitimate.
Firstly, it includes narratives that have nothing to do with the claim at hand. How is it relevant that Loomer is a “self-proclaimed Islamophobe?” How would her being banned from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have any bearing on the voracity of her claim? If anything, it adds credence to Loomer’s claim – especially now that it’s become even more clear that government and Big Tech have been colluding. In essense, what Misbar is saying is:
Loomer is a bad person, because she was banned from social media, and because she doesn’t like Islam. Therefore, her claims of political persecution CAN’T be true!
The “analysis” blurs the line between having been arrested/possible convictions with actual convictions. It looks like this obfuscation is intentional. I’m not an attorney, but my research on why people can have their gun-ownership rights rescinded shows that it’s only CONVICTIONS (or ongoing investigations) that count, and even then, only certain ones. Loomer (correctly) points out that she’s never been convicted of such a serious crime. The “fact-check” neglects to make this distinction, even though it does quote Loomer.
Thirdly, the “fact-check,” AT BEST, makes a case that Loomer’s claim isn’t proven. It doesn’t even remotely establish that it’s false. The casual reader, having read the header and the “Misbar Classification” would conclude that Loomer’s claim was proven to be false.
The Misbar article links to The Trace, where the 12 most likely reasons for FBI denial of firearm purchases. None of those reasons apply to Loomer – except perhaps number 10, which reads:
10. Federally Denied Persons File: 6,367
This is a catch-all category that includes various people whom the FBI deems ineligible to possess a firearm even though the relevant state records may not be entered into NICS or the National Crime Information Center. Also included in the Federally Denied Persons File are people who may not possess guns as a result of a deferred judgement.
If this is the category that Loomer falls under, then it begs the question: Yes, we know that the FBI deemed Loomer ineligible to purchase a firearm. We want to know WHY. Given the FBI’s recent history of bias, we wouldn’t be out of line to suspect dishonorable motives.
In my opinion, Loomer’s claim is plausible. Hopefully, time will tell if it’s actually true. I strongly suspect that it is. I’d like to know how many leftist agitators have had their gun rights stripped from them for similar “offenses.” Probably none.
NOTE TO READERS: My blog might be down for a while on December 20th. This is due to server maintenance. There is nothing to be alarmed about.
Elon Musk has been facing a lot of criticism lately over how he’s been running Twitter. Just today, I got an email from Gab:
Elon Musk is in over his head when it comes to free speech.
Musk is quickly learning that in order to run a free speech platform you need two things: thick skin and a fanatical commitment to free speech, even when being pro free speech is bad for business, and even when being pro free speech means tolerating the most excoriating criticism of yourself.
Elon’s “free speech” saga at Twitter is really nothing of the sort. He’s treating the product, and his users, as his playthings. Flailing, hyper-feminine emotional outbursts are a substitute for a “leadership style.” All told, he has revealed that he has no interest whatsoever in bringing actual free speech to Twitter.
Twitter was, ironically, more measured and free when there were thousands of mentally ill blue-haired Communists with their fingers on the ban hammer. At least the Communists tried to come up with an objective and consistent rationale for their actions. Contrast with Elon, who waved the flag of free speech as soon as he took over but immediately began compromising on that promise for the sake of business expediency.
When it came to Alex Jones being reinstated, Elon had an emotional reaction and invoked the loss of his child. When it came to Kathy Griffin impersonating him, Elon had an emotional reaction and swung the ban hammer on anyone in his way. When it came to Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, posting a symbol of a French UFO cult which combined a swastika and a Star of David, Elon had an emotional reaction and banned him so as to be hip with all of the other California types who were throwing Ye to the wolves.
Now with the ElonJet and journalist ban situation, where constitutionally protected information which is publicly available is being removed from the site (despite being massively available practically everywhere else on the Internet) Elon is once again “leading” with his emotions and treating Twitter not as a product, not as an essential and vital publication utility for the entire world, but as a toy, and one controlled by a petulant child at that.
Men who lead do not make decisions and dictate on the whims of their emotions. Weak, hyper-effete men “leading” with emotions instead of reason and logic is a big reason Western society is crumbling. Given Elon’s Reddit-tier political takes and patchy soy beard, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out that he is low on the testosterone side. But I digress…
Conservatives and White-advocates have been criticizing Musk for failing to re-instate Jared Taylor or even Alex Jones. He’s been criticized for banning Kanye West (Ye). Leftists are, all of a sudden, concerned about “freedom of speech,” and they don’t like it when their precious “journalists” are held accountable for enabling the stalking of Musk or his son. CNN is threatening to pull out of Twitter.
It’s easy to bash Musk for his decisions when we’re not the ones who have to live with those decisions. Musk paid a lot of money for Twitter, and it’s clear to me that if he were to reinstate too many controversial figures in a short period of time, Twitter would shrivel and die. Though I don’t agree with the (apparent) decision to keep Jared Taylor banned, I fully understand it. Similarly, I understand why he banned Kanye West. It’s easy to be a free-speech absolutist in theory. In practice, the real world tends to get in the way. One must make practical decisions, and consider the long-term consequences.
I’ll use this to segway to another topic I’ve been wanting to write about:
The Cambridge Dictionary has updated its definition of “woman” to include anyone who “identifies as female” regardless of their sex at birth.
Though I disagree with this new definition, I do understand why they did it; a large enough portion of the English-speaking population now uses the word in this way. Ideally, dictionaries would be politically neutral – but this is impossible. I doubt that dictionaries ever WERE politically neutral. The editors must take practical trends into consideration. The real world doesn’t stop at the editor’s office.
My answer to the Cambridge Dictionary is a measured return to Free English, where spellings and definitions are valid as long as they’re in common usage. In other words, there is no such thing as “correct” or “incorrect,” at least on the basis of dictionaries. The people decide, through their usage, what is correct and incorrect.
This is how it was for most of English history. There was no standardized spelling, and people simply wrote things phonetically as they spoke them in that particular time and place. This is how we know the pronunciation of earlier forms of English; we assume that the “misspellings” were based upon actual pronunciation.
When I say “a MEASURED return to Free English,” what I mean is that we can still use what is perceived as correct spelling and grammar in order to project professionalism or education. Indeed, we should always do so when writing pro-white/pro-liberty articles. Aside from that, I don’t think we should give dictionaries as much weight as we used to. If they’re telling us that a man can be a woman, then we shouldn’t take them too seriously.
The ancient Jewish sages once said, “He who receives a greeting from a passerby, and does not return it is a thief.”
I’m a slow learner sometimes, so I’ve made an effort, over the past several years, to be kind and civil to my leftist foes online. I’ve gone out of my way to be nice…
… but over and over again, they respond to my kindness with disdain and rudeness. My kindness was wasted on them, and I felt like the person who greets passersby, but gets no greeting in return.
Sure, one in a million might be open-minded enough to actually READ our arguments and try to understand them. Hence forth, I’m not going to waste my kindness on the off chance that my opponent is that one in a million.
Furthermore, I’m done showing any form of humility with them. Even if they catch me in an error, correct my facts, point out a typo etc. acknowledging this will only be seen as a sign of weakness. I’m sick and tired of their arrogance; there’s no need for me to inflate it even more.
I’ve been naive that way. When I see somebody who looks human, or writes like a human online, I assume that they’re human. Now I understand that leftists are, in a very real sense, less than human. They lack what we used to call “common decency.” They feel no shame for their own political misdeeds, and they’ll do everything they can to excuse their fellow leftists of crimes.
I would go so far as to describe them as a race of psychopaths. “Right” and “wrong” are alien concepts to them – unless it’s to advance their sick Communist ideology. Then it’s “By any means necessary.” This is how Communists of the past were able to slaughter so many innocent people, including women and children. “By any means necessary” includes mass executions. It includes election tampering, physical assaults, vandalism and theft. They’d sell their own mothers if it helped The Cause. This is the behavior of those who lack souls. The spiritual void is filled with whatever propaganda the powers-that-be elect to pump into their heads.
Enough ranting for now. I just had to get it off my chest.
