DeSantis Shocker: It’s Not OK to Hate Whites

I’ve got a lot to say, but today’s Taki’s Magazine article, by Anne Coulter, is so good, I decided to give her the floor:

DeSantis Shocker: It’s Not OK to Hate Whites

Gov. Ron DeSantis is pushing a bill through the Florida legislature to put a stop to the modern pedagogy of making little girls cry because they’re white. The bill, called “Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act (WOKE),” prohibits classroom instruction that contradicts these concepts:

“No race is inherently superior to another race”;

“An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex”…

The left has been having a sneer-fest over the proposed law, howling that it protects “white people” from feeling “uncomfortable.” SNOWFLAKES!

E.g.:

“A bill pushed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis that would prohibit public schools and private businesses from making white people feel ‘discomfort’ when they teach students or train employees about discrimination in the nation’s past …” — The Associated Press (emphasis added)

“The right likes to talk so much about, you know, snowflakes. It seems like they may be raising snowflakes because if they think people are going to be uncomfortable by the actual facts — facts are uncomfortable.” — CNN’s Don Lemon

“Ron DeSantis and his GOP allies are pushing a bill … that would prohibit public schools [from making] white people squirm. Those poor, wittle babies.

“Their feelings are hurting. Some poor, wittle white people are uncomfortable about the hundreds of years of racism and hate that built this nation.” — Laura Washington, Chicago Sun-Times

(Saving the best for last …)

“[H]e’s trying to make it illegal, Governor Ron DeSantis, to teach history that would make white people uncomfortable. Does that law include saying you can’t make black people feel uncomfortable or indigenous people? The history of indigenous and African Americans could make one uncomfortable? Is that illegal too, or is it just white people?” — MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid

To know the answer to Joy Ann’s question, you’d have to actually read the bill. Or an article about the bill. Or commentary on an article about the bill. Joy Ann Reid: highly literate and well-informed Harvard graduate.

But, duh: A bill prohibiting the teaching of race hatred will primarily prevent the teaching of white hatred for the simple reason that it’s the only race we’re allowed to hate. Not merely allowed to hate, but taught to hate, encouraged to hate, paid to hate.

We’re now entering the sixth decade of open, widespread, official discrimination against white people on the basis of their race. Even the Asians suing Harvard dare not stress the humungous advantage given to blacks and Hispanics. No, their beef is about white applicants getting preferential treatment over Asians.

This is odd, to say the least. According to the plaintiffs’ own expert witness, an Asian with a 25% chance of admission to Harvard would increase his chances to 36% if he were white — but to 77% if Hispanic, and to 95% if black…

School districts around the country teach white children that they were born racist and assign books like, “Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness,” that portrays “whiteness” as a contract with Satan.

So yes, a race-neutral law that prohibits teaching race hatred will, in practice, prohibit teaching hatred of whites because that’s the only race-hate that’s taught.

Liberals jeer at whites who object to this constant disparagement, calling them “poor, wittle babies.” Does the left have any self-awareness at all?

A 6-year-old girl is a total pussy if she can’t take a little abuse for being white — at a school her parents are paying for. But our entire country has been turned upside down for the past half-century to prevent any other race from experiencing a fleeting moment of discomfort.

Historic Confederate statues are torn down and melted; newspapers refuse to identify the race of criminals — or even show photos of the arrestees; the Oscars will not consider a movie for Best Picture that does not have 30% non-whites.

Otherwise, black people might feel uncomfortable.

Professor Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania Law School is routinely threatened with suspension or firing from her tenured position for stating facts about black students’ performance. Her remarks make black people feel uncomfortable.

Hey, where’s the rush to review Charles Murray’s recent book Facing Reality about black crime and I.Q.? Nope, might make black people uncomfortable.

A few years ago, Kansas City officials were advised not to impose a curfew in response to the violent mobs of black teenagers descending on a shopping plaza because, as the black mayor said, it would “make a lot of black kids angry.” His remark inspired the title of Colin Flaherty’s book about black crime, Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry — a book that is currently banned from Amazon. It might make black people uncomfortable.

Anti-whiteness books are flooding the grade schools, but you aren’t allowed to spend your own money to purchase books on Amazon that make some people “uncomfortable.” Not only Flaherty’s book, but:

— Ryan Anderson’s When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment — might make transgenders uncomfortable.

— Jared Taylor’s If We Do Nothing, as well as two books he contributed to: Race Against Time and Face to Face With Race — might make black people uncomfortable.

— The Kindle edition of the widely praised 1973 dystopian novel by French author Jean Raspail, Camp of the Saints — might make third worlders uncomfortable.

— David Cole’s rollicking autobiography, Republican Party Animal — makes Debra Messing uncomfortable.

The FBI allowed the 9/11 attack to happen by blowing off an Arizona agent’s warning that a lot of Arabs were enrolled in flight school. Three thousand Americans had to die because noticing Arabs in flight school might make some people uncomfortable.

Last week, a Muslim terrorist, Malik Faisal Akram, seized a Texas synagogue and held four hostages for 10 hours. The media universally identified Akram as: “British man.” He didn’t even call himself “British”! A week later, the Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt went on MSNBC and tried to suggest “Republicans” were responsible for the attack. The truth might make Muslims uncomfortable.

A virus that originated in China cannot be called anything with “China” in the name. That might make Asians uncomfortable.

Before we go, here’s another “actual fact,” as Don Lemon put it, and “facts are uncomfortable” (especially for the black Harvard grad on MSNBC who can’t read a bill): By Harvard’s own admission, nearly 60% of the black students it admits are there only because they are black.

It’s so great that liberals have finally turned against snowflakes so we can discuss “actual facts” again!

Anne Coulter, if you see this post, I hope you don’t mind that I’ve reproduced most of it here; it’s very powerful.

Posted in government/corporate discrimination against whites, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

“I Wasn’t Aware That You’re a Person of Color”

Any time there’s an incident of blatant “racism” from a white person, the Corporate Media creatures rejoice, and cherish it like a fine pearl. They’ll highlight it on The News for days or even weeks.

Thus we find MSN featuring a story titled “I wasn’t aware that you’re a person of color.” They’ve been running the story for a few days now.

Reading the included text, from the white customer, I get the distinct impression that the customer either has mental issues, or is trying to make a political point. Either way, she’s rude:

“Can you please cancel my order? Unfortunately, I wasn’t aware that you’re a person of color and I just don’t like to support small business[es] that do not [align] with my version of support. Before you start and go on a race tyrant please be aware it [is] called my preference […] Because we are all aware of how you people like to act when things do not go your way.”

Translation: The customer wants to support white-owned businesses, and was disappointed to discover that this was not a white-owned business. In this post, I’m conceding that the customer was out of line in making the comments she did. Whether your goal is to support black-owned business, white-owned businesses or Jewish-owned businesses, it’s not nice to go back and request a refund when it turns out the owner is not of your favored ethnicity. It’s also uncalled for to demean the owner’s ethnicity or race in the way this customer did.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, the main objection seems to be that the customer prefers to avoid giving his business to “people of color.” In other words, she wants to support white-owned businesses, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

What happens when those who want to support black-owned businesses find out the business in question is actually owned by a white person?

Noooooo! Some Of Your Favorite Black-Owned Hair Brands Aren’t Black-Owned

But what’s making us travel even deeper into a different dimension is, apparently, some of your favorite “Black-owned” hair brands are not really black-owned, leaving many sistas confused, like myself, lost and feeling bamboozled.

See, it all started on June 7, when BeautyBossLab posted this comprehensive list, ruffling many of feathers. Take a look…

Then, days later, Black Twitter started popping off with “The Owner   The product” tweets to remind us that not even Blue Magic, Cantu or African Pride is ours!

People Are Shocked These Brands Aren’t Actually Black-Owned

Some expectations have been shattered for people who advocate supporting Black-owned businesses after social media revealed certain brands aren’t wholly owned by Black people.

SheaMoisture was one of the first to start trending on Twitter when it was revealed that the personal care brand was no longer Black-owned. The brand was initially started in Harlem in the early 1990s by Richelieu Dennis and Nyema Tubman, who are Black.

Anger at white woman running black-owned business Instagram

PEOPLE are furious after the creator of a Instagram page promoting black-owned businesses turned out to be white.

The owner of Independent Black Businesses apologised for “being unclear” as she revealed herself as Helen, a white woman, after being accused of digital blackface by people online.

The Brighton and Hove social media page which “celebrates indie black business” was started in June this year and has been asking for money through PayPal and Patreon.

With all of Corporate America, government and the media promoting black-owned businesses, fair-minded people should strive to support white-owned businesses – at least small, family-owned businesses. We should support David in his competition against Goliath. This is the moral thing to do, and we should do so without any disrespect toward non-white business owners.

Posted in Africa and blacks, examples of propaganda, government/corporate discrimination against whites | Tagged , | 2 Comments

PolitiFact Deception About Judicial Double Standards

A Revolver article clearly describes the double standards that American whites face when accused of a crime. Comparing the Kyle Rittenhouse case with the Timothy Simpkins case:

by Scott Greer

A school shooter wounded three people in a rampage at an Arlington, Texas, high school Wednesday. He spent a grand total of one day in jail before he was released on a $75,000 bond Thursday. Media outlets are sympathetically portraying him as a victim of bullying and amplifying his family’s defense. This may shock some readers. Who could be worse than a school shooter? Aren’t we supposed to keep these young monsters locked up so they don’t hurt any more kids?

But there’s something different about this school shooter from the ones you usually hear about on the news. Timothy Simpkins, the 18-year-old shooter is black. In the Globalist American Empire, that awards him privilege. No white school shooter could’ve expected such a generous treatment…

Simpkins’s defense claims he used a gun in self-defense. He allegedly grabbed a gun after the fight and unloaded it in the school. One of his victims is a 25-year-old white teacher who was shot in the back as he tried to break up the fight. He suffered a collapsed lung and broken ribs. Another victim is a 15-year-old male who remains in critical condition.

This sounds pretty indefensible, but Simpkins’s family and lawyer make the case anyway.

“I’m not trying to justify the gun that was brought, but when you’re being bullied, when there’s bullies, throughout this nation you hear of young people … committing suicide,” said family spokeswoman Carol Harrison-Lafayette. “The decision he made, taking the gun, we’re not justifying that. That was not right. But he was trying to protect himself…”

No white family could’ve gotten away with these public statements if their child did a mass shooting. They would’ve received a flood of online harassment and media denunciations. You’re not supposed to claim your kid, who just shot several people, is a lovely boy who did it to protect himself. But that rule apparently doesn’t apply to black school shooters.

It’s noteworthy the family turned to a civil rights attorney to defend Simpkins over a school shooting. Did systemic racism somehow drive him to go on a shooting spree? It’s also noteworthy that she implies this wasn’t a typical school shooting, but it actually resembles the typical mass shooting. Most mass shooters are black, according to a 2016 New York Times report, and the vast majority of them are not the work of some deranged loner murdering people at random. They’re mostly gang-related or the result of brawls—as was the case for Simpkins.

There are cases of whites who resorted to a gun to defend themselves against actual threats. Unlike Mr. Simpkins, they got the book thrown at them. Kyle Rittenhouse was hit with murder charges and a $2 million bail after he gunned down three men who attacked him during the Kenosha riot last year. You can face censorship on major tech platforms for daring to show support for that young man. Meanwhile, several people are openly supporting Simpkins on Twitter, even though there is far less evidence to support his act of violence.

The author of this piece, Mr. Scott Greer, makes a solid case that we have a two-tiered “justice system” in the United States, with a clear bias against white suspects (all else being equal; money still talks).

Along comes PolitiFact, a self-described “fact-checking” site whose motto is:

Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy.

It turns out that the truth is NOT their primary agenda. Regarding the comparison between Rittenhouse and Simpkins, PolitiFact has this to say:

Comparison of shootings omits key difference: 2 were killed in Rittenhouse case

Wide difference in jail and bail 

The jail and bail details have been widely reported.

Simpkins was released from the Tarrant County jail in Fort Worth on Oct. 7, 2021, the day after the school shooting, after paying a $75,000 bond. His case is pending, with a court date scheduled for Dec. 10, 2021.

Rittenhouse was released from the Kenosha County jail on Nov. 20, 2020, on $2 million bail. He had been in custody since surrendering to police in his hometown of Antioch, Ill., on Aug. 26, 2020, the day after the Kenosha shooting. The jury in his trial on homicide charges began deliberations on Nov. 16, 2021…

Wide differences in outcomes of shootings

Simpkins is charged with three counts of felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Simpkins, 18, was involved in a fight with a 15-year-old student at his high school in Arlington, which is between Dallas and Fort Worth, on Oct. 6, 2021, according to an arrest warrant and news reports. The incident left four people hurt, including three wounded by gunfire.

During the fight, Simpkins fired shots from a handgun, according to police. He turned himself in later that day after police said he was wanted for the shooting.

One teacher was injured from a fall. Three people were wounded, two seriously: the 15-year-old who was in the fight with Simpkins, who was released from a hospital after several surgeries about two weeks later, and a teacher who was hospitalized for about a week.

News reports initially linked the shooting to Simpkins being bullied at school, but the police chief later said bullying was not a factor.

It’s not clear to me how the differences in jail and bond (or bail) help PolitiFact’s case; if anything, these differences highlight the harsher treatment that Rittenhouse received, compared to Simpkins. Simpkins was in jail for one day before his release. Rittenhouse was in jail for almost three months before his release. Both suspects had turned themselves in to the police after the incident, and neither posed a flight risk. Rittenhouse tried to turn himself in IMMEDIATELY after the shooting, while Simpkins only did so later – AFTER HAVING FLED THE SCENE. So we see that Rittenhouse was more cooperative, but received harsher treatment.

The way PolitiFact describes the Simpkins injuries is slightly suspect. It gives the distinct impression that it’s trying to minimize the injuries suffered by Simpkins’ victims – because it should have pointed out that the 15 year-old shooting victim was in critical condition. Instead, it merely states that he “was released from the hospital after several surgeries about two weeks later.”

The PolitiFact article concludes with its most important distinction:

Rittenhouse is charged with four felonies, including two homicide charges.

Rittenhouse, then 17, traveled across state lines from his home in Antioch, Ill., about 20 miles to Kenosha, site of violent protests over a police shooting days earlier. He was armed with an AR-15, and on a self-described mission to protect property. During a confrontation, he shot three people, killing two.

Charged with four felonies and one misdemeanor weapons charge, Rittenhouse said that he shot in self-defense. 

If convicted of the most serious charge, first-degree intentional homicide in one of the shootings, Rittenhouse would face a mandatory sentence of life in prison.

It points out that Rittenhouse actually KILLED two people, and that he faced much more serious charges than Simpkins.

Regarding the charges, this begs the question. Why was Rittenhouse charged with weapons violations to begin with? In fact, as we saw from the trial, he hadn’t violated ANY weapons laws at all! As for Simpkins, why was he NOT charged with any weapons violations? It was clearly illegal for Simpkins to carry a gun, especially on school grounds. PolitiFact is actually bolstering the case for a double-standard by bringing up the charges.

Timothy Simpkins clearly violated Texas gun laws, yet he was only charged with aggravated assault. Kyle Rittenhouse did NOT violate any weapons laws, and yet he was charged with weapons violations. A clear double standard.

Rittenhouse was in mortal danger, and being attacked with deadly weapons when he shot his assailants. This was evident from video footage at the trial. In contrast, Simpkins was attacked only with fists; it’s unclear whether he fired his weapon during, or after, the beating.

So while it’s true that the Rittenhouse case involved actual deaths, those deaths were of men who posed imminent danger to Rittenhouse’s life, as became clear during the trial. Self-defense is not “murder.”

The most disturbing statement in the PolitiFacts article is this one:

Rittenhouse, then 17, traveled across state lines from his home in Antioch, Ill., about 20 miles to Kenosha, site of violent protests over a police shooting days earlier. He was armed with an AR-15, and on a self-described mission to protect property. During a confrontation, he shot three people, killing two.

The implication is that Rittenhouse violated a law by traveling across state lines – and that, somehow, the fact that he traveled 20 miles makes it worse. Conveniently, PolitiFact omits the fact that Rittenhouse had good reason to be in Kenosha, and that “protecting property” is a worthy endeavor, considering the fact that the government had neglected its responsibility to do so.

Worse of all is PolitiFact’s implication that Rittenhouse had illegally transported an AR-15 across state lines. Of course, the article doesn’t say so explicitly, but it cunningly uses wording to IMPLY so, while carefully leaving room for plausible deniability. If PolitiFact’s intentions were not to mislead, then why bring up “crossing state lines” at all? It’s completely irrelevant.

Another difference between the two cases is that Rittenhouse was legally a minor when the incident occurred. He was only 17. In contrast, Simpkins was 18, and legally an adult in Texas. Therefore, Rittenhouse should have been treated more leniently than Simpkins – and yet exactly the opposite is what happened.

Shame on PolitiFact; the truth is clearly NOT their priority.

Posted in crime and violence, examples of propaganda, government/corporate discrimination against whites | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

The “Benefits” of Diversity in the New York Subway System

A Change.org petition is asking the City of New York to built safety barriers to protect people from being shoved into oncoming trains:

Everyone deserves to be safe when riding the subways.

At least 4 Asians have been shoved towards the tracks in about 6 months.

At least 4 people have lost their lives having been pushed onto the tracks and others have narrowly escaped death. 

Other cities with less resources than New York  have barriers that prevent people from being pushed onto the tracks. Why not New York too!

Sign this petition to call upon Mayor Adams, Governor Hochul, our Federal, State and City elected officials and the MTA to put in barriers, first in heavily traveled stations such as Times Square, where Michelle Go tragically lost her life.

Yes, it would be nice if nobody had to worry about meeting such a grisly death, but let’s examine the four deaths cited in this petition:

The most recent one is the one that’s highlighted in the petition, that of Michelle Go. She was pushed to her death by this man:

Simon Martial admits fatally shoving Michelle Alyssa Go to death in New York

Here’s the suspect in a 2016 fatal New York subway pushing:

Here’s the man who killed an Asian man by pushing him in front of a subway train in 2012:

naeem davis

A woman who pushed an Indian man to his death on the New York subway in 2012 is described as:

Hispanic, in her 20s, heavyset and about 5-foot-5, wearing a blue, white and gray ski jacket and Nike sneakers with gray on top and red on the bottom.

Here’s a man who shoved a woman onto an approaching subway train in 2019:

Unhinged straphanger who shoved woman into Brooklyn train may face charges  in earlier Queens subway attack - New York Daily News

As a matter of fact, of all the suspects who pushed people onto subway tracks in New York, over the past few years, practically none were white, with one possible exception. Almost all of the suspects are black or Latino.

How much would it cost to install these barriers? According to a Spectrum News article it would cost around 7 billion dollars, and even then, it would not include all tracks.

At this point, it appears that the City of New York is seriously considering this step; public pressure is mounting. If New York City were all white and Asian, there would be no need for such an expense, and there would be no pressure to take this step.

The City of New York is estimated to lose between $215 and $300 million per year due to turnstile jumping. According to governing.org, 89% of turnstile prosecutions were of blacks and Latinos. This means that in New York, blacks and Latinos are responsible for annual losses of about $223 million a year.

The odds of getting shoved into the path of a subway train are slim, but the odds of having to pay more in taxes (if you live in New York) are very high.

These are the costs of Diversity as it relates to the New York subway – death, injury, fear and astronomical costs. It’s hard to see a benefit in any of this.

Posted in Africa and blacks, crime and violence | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Google and Media Collusion to Hide Images of White Murder Victims

It seems there’s a new corporate media guideline: When the murderer is black, and his victim white, do not show photos of both of them. In cases where the murderer is still at large, only the murderer’s photo will be shown, and the victim’s photo is flushed down the memory hole.

Thus, when corporate media reported on the killing of Suzanna Kauffman, and the discovery of her body in a hotel, the victim’s face is left to our imagination:

This story appears numerous times in various news sites, and each time, we see the image of the murderer, Quincy Cheeks Hannah.

Wanted man arrested in Florida after missing woman found dead at hotel in Mocksville, deputies say

But not a single site shows us Suzanna’s face. A google search of Suzanna Kaufman (or Suzzane Kaufman, as it’s sometimes spelled) yields nothing – except images of Susanne Kaufman, a “beauty pioneer” with no connection to the victim.

However, a Duckduckgo image search does include a photo of the actual victim:

It’s on the gofundme page dedicated to her funeral expenses. My guess is that the girl is a product of the union between Kauffman and Quincy Hannah. I think the money would be better spent teaching young white women to stick with white men. That would save a lot of lives, and a lot of taxpayer money.

Posted in Africa and blacks, crime and violence, examples of propaganda, miscegenation | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Woke School Teacher Openly Admits to Teaching CRT to her 6th Grade Students

How often have we seen the claim that Critical Race Theory is strictly college-level material, and that grade-school children are not the target?

Take NBC News for example. The headline loudly proclaims:

Teaching critical race theory isn’t happening in classrooms, teachers say in survey

… and yet when we read the actual article, it clearly states that almost 4% of teachers reported that their schools actually REQUIRE them to teach CRT to their students. 45% of these teachers feel they should have the option to teach it. If 45% of these teachers feel that they should have the option to teach CRT to their students, and (apparently) none of their schools actually forbid it (except where now prohibited by state law), the obvious conclusion is that at least 45% of these teachers are actually teaching CRT to their students:

The association surveyed its professional membership between June 24 and June 29 and received 1,134 completed responses, nearly 900 of them from traditional public schools. More than 96 percent said their schools did not require them to teach critical race theory, and only 45 percent said that teachers should have the option to add it to their lesson plans.

Taking NBC’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, we can argue that if less than 45% of teachers feel they should be allowed to sexually assault their students, we shouldn’t have laws against it. After all, most teachers are not so inclined.

The article goes on to quote one of the teachers:

Jenni Meadows, a teacher at a public high school near Dallas who specializes in teaching reading to at-risk youth, participated in the survey. She said the critical race theory discussion is not one that she’s having with her students because the focus in K-12 is on developing critical thinking skills.

Ironically, the author of this article, one Phil McCausland, assumes that his readers lack critical thinking skills – and he’s probably right in most cases.

Does Indianapolis Public Schools promote the teaching of CRT to K-12 students? Yes, it does. The district has a “Resource Guide for White Teachers” which includes a blog. Prominently featured on the blog is a post by former 6th grade teacher Thu Anh Nguyen. It’s titled:

Brand New Pandemic, Same Old White Supremacy

Even in the face of a global pandemic, white supremacy has been relentless. The chaos of schools regrouping so quickly was used as a reason to cut budgets so that professional development was completely frozen. That professional development was often the only way to offer and hold teachers accountable for doing social justice work. And when many of us asked what will happen this coming year to reengage with this essential work, our questions were met with silence.

And now the country and its schools are caught in the debate about critical race theory. In so many states, legislatures have proposed bills or passed laws that now ban teaching about the ways racism has shaped American public policy and, thus, the society. Critical race theory isn’t new, of course. But white supremacists have been actively misrepresenting it and using this misrepresentation to strengthen their grip on society and control what is taught in schools. It has come clear to me that this tactic is a symbol of how white supremacy, like the Delta variant, can mutate to be more effective. 

I have taught English Literature and Social Studies my entire career to date — and have always included critical race theory as an essential lens through which to understand literature and society. How could I teach any book written in the United States without discussing racism? How could I be asked to teach books written mostly by dead white men without honestly and openly criticizing the curriculum? 

The key argument against teaching critical race theory in schools, especially in the primary and secondary schools, is that students are not developmentally ready for a discussion of racism or that the discussion itself is divisive. The question that needs to be answered, however, is who is not developmentally ready? My students and families of color have lived with racism their entire lives. When people talk about critical race theory being developmentally inappropriate, what they are really saying is that white supremacy uses white fragility to keep us from making the institutional changes that will lead to racial justice.

Bearing in mind that this blog is the very first link, in the “Teaching While White” section of the Indianapolis Public Schools official webpage, it should be obvious that the views expressed by Thu Anh Nguyen are considered acceptable and wholesome by the school district.

Let’s summarize those views:

  1. Taxpayer dollars should be spent to enable school teachers to participate in “social justice” activism.
  2. Critical Race Theory is, and should be, taught to sixth grade students.
  3. Anybody who objects to young children being taught CRT is a white-supremacist, and is “fragile.”
  4. Books by “dead white men” should only be taught through the lens of criticism.

I’ll point out that Thu Anh Nguyen was born in Vietnam – and judging by her views, it appears that Vietcong Communism found fertile ground in her mind.

She also seems to have a case of lukophobia (an unreasonable fear of white people). In her blog, she tells of a nightmare she had:

In the dream, my white male head of school approached me with concerns from white parents that I was teaching too much about current events. The truth was too heavy a burden for kids to handle, he said. But if there is anything I have learned in fifteen years of teaching, kids are not the ones who cannot handle the truth. I have watched kids be the most resilient during the pandemic while adults have tried to catch up, or worse, actively work against change. 

I woke up from my nightmare wondering, are we going to learn anything from this pandemic? Who pays the cost of keeping things the way they are? Students and families of color certainly pay a huge toll.

She is a firm supporter of BLM, whose roots are in Communism, and I wonder if she is aware of the extent of black-on-Asian crime, such as this one (hat tip to The Mad Jewess):

Thai Woman, (Model) Savagely Beaten By Black Male On 34 St, NYC:

Posted on by davidbenmoshejtf

Thai Woman, (Model) Savagely Beaten By Black Male On 34 St, NYC:

By David Ben Moshe:

Beating up and mugging this Asian model, was it because she held slaves 175 years ago in America?

Bew Jirajariyawetch's injuries.

The perpetrator, who has yet to be caught:

Suspect.

Posted in crime and violence, examples of propaganda, government/corporate discrimination against whites | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Two Years in Prison for Owning a Book

The British people aren’t citizens, so much as subjects. The concept of individual rights never evolved in Britain, at least not past its most rudimentary stages.

This is why a young man by the name of Ben John was sentenced to two years in prison for the possession of an “unauthorized book.” From the BBC:

A man told by a judge to read classic literature after being found guilty of a terrorism offence will be jailed after a suspended sentence was quashed.

Ben John, who police described as a white supremacist, was given a two-year suspended sentence in August.

The 22-year-old was convicted of having a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook on a computer hard drive.

The Court of Appeal ruled the original sentence was unlawful and ordered John to serve two years in prison.

He will also spend a further year on extended licence.

Lord Justice Holroyde said: “We are satisfied that there must be a sentence of immediate imprisonment.”

Apparently, the British government considers it “terrorism” to own a book it doesn’t approve of.

How fortunate we are, in the United States, that we have a First Amendment. Unfortunately, it’s being relentlessly whittled away by powerful forces. Within a few more decades, Americans will also be arrested and imprisoned for the possession of unauthorized books. A constitution cannot guarantee our liberties if the demographics are not favorable. Both the Soviet Union and Communist China had/have constitutions that guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We can see how that worked out.

Posted in freedom of speech issues | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The “Deranged” and Homeless do CRT’s Dirty Work

We’re told that CRT is merely an academic theory, and yet (as we’ve seen) it’s the basis for much of the “diversity training” in Corporate America. It guides public policy and what our kids are taught in school. It permeates television programs, and the utterings of much of the political class.

It also trickles down to the homeless and mentally ill. The result? An epidemic of women lost to “random” attacks:

Brianna Kupfer, 24, has been stabbed to death in a random attack while she was working in a luxury furniture store in Los Angeles

Brianna Kupfer, 24

From The Daily Mail:

A UCLA grad student was stabbed to death in a random attack in the middle of the afternoon last week while she was working in a luxury furniture store in Los Angeles.

Brianna Kupfer, 24, was alone in the Croft House store on La Brea Avenue in LA’s upscale Fairfax neighborhood when a man walked in around 1:50 p.m. and knifed her.

The architectural design student from Pacific Palisades was discovered 20 minutes later by another customer.   

By the time police arrived at the scene, she was already dead.

Police said the male suspect is believed to be homeless and fled through the back door before calming walking down an alley, adding that he did not know the victim and that there is no known motive at this time…

The LAPD said in a statement: ‘The suspect is described as a male Black, unknown age, tall, thin, wearing a dark hoodie, sunglasses, a white N-95 mask, dark skinny jeans, dark shoes and carrying a dark back pack.

The suspect is homeless, and considering that this crime occurred in California, he’ll get less than 10 years in prison and then probation.

Of course it’s open season on Asians as well, which is why a homeless black man in New York chose to push an Asian woman in front of a train, killing her. A CNN headline reads:

NYPD make arrest in connection to the death of an Asian woman who was pushed in front of a train

… but makes no mention that the perpetrator is black. It does point out that he’s homeless, and that we need to do more to help the homeless. Millions of CNN readers now assume that the culprit is a white man; they won’t read alternative news accounts, because they’re “unreliable.”

Michelle Alyssa Go was fatally shoved from a subway platform in New York. Photo: LinkedIn

Michelle Alyssa Go, 40

In another recent case, the role of CRT is more obvious. From the NYDaily News:

Suspect arrested in fatal shooting of young Burger King cashier in East Harlem

Winston Glynn, 30, a former employee of the same East Harlem fast food joint he targeted, was arrested for the murder of Kristal Bayron-Nieves, 19, who tried to give the gunman what he wanted, but was killed anyway…

He then ordered the teenager to open another cash drawer, but she didn’t have the key. She was crouched down by the money box trying to appease him when he killed her.

“Ms. Bayron-Nieves scrambles to open the drawer,” Essig said. “She doesn’t have the key. That’s when he fires one shot, striking her and causing her death…”

Outside the 25th Precinct stationhouse, Glynn shouted obscenities at passersby and news photographers as detectives led him to a car to take him to court for his arrangement.

“Where’s our reparations for 400 years of f-–king slavery!” Glynn yelled.

Kristal Bayron-Nieves was shot and killed while working on a night shift at the Burger King in Manhattan.
Kristal Bayron-Nieves, 19

These three women, and many more, lost their lives lost their lives to the toxic alliance of black criminality and CRT. Remember this next time you see somebody claim that CRT is “just a college-level theory” or something to that effect.

Posted in Africa and blacks, crime and violence, examples of propaganda | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Studyfare: Smothering Truth with Many Studies

Most of y’all are probably familiar with the concept of “lawfare,” where an entity with immense resources (such as a government) bombards its victim with charges or lawsuits to the point where the victim simply runs out of resources to defend himself. A good example of this is the Charlottesville Unite the Right defendants:

A Gross Disparity in Legal Resources.  In January 2018, the 10 plaintiffs in Sines v. Kessler filed a 110-page amended complaint against 25 defendants. The plaintiffs’ complaint was based on allegations that although the defendants, who had participated in the Unite the Right rallies in Charlottesville in August 2017, might have appeared to be exercising their First Amendment rights by protesting the destruction of Confederate statues amid the provocations and violent attacks of counter protestors, in reality they had organized and conspired with each other with the intent and result of violently attacking the plaintiffs.  Three large New York City law firms and 38 lawyers, led by Roberta Kaplan, entered appearances for the plaintiffs.  These three law firms comprised over 1300 lawyers altogether and had income in 2020 of approximately $1.9 billion.  Moreover, Ms Kaplan was able to fundraise an amount probably in excess of $25 million to pay for the litigation, a staggering sum by any reckoning but especially so given that many of the plaintiffs’ law firms offered their services pro bono.

The defendants, by stark contrast, have encountered huge obstacles to obtaining adequate representation.  First, given hostile media accounts, antifa threats, and the defendants’ unpopular ideology or perceived ideology, few lawyers would even consider representing them. As this case painfully illustrates, the ethical rule admonishing lawyers to provide legal assistance to unpopular defendants is honored more in the breach than the observance – unless, of course, the defendants are the right kind of unpopular defendants, which these defendants are not.  Second, even if the defendants could find willing counsel, in most cases they could not pay the high legal costs the plaintiffs intended to impose, and did impose, by their scorched earth litigation.  Few defendants had significant wealth and most found their ability to raise money through crowdfunding or other donation paths restricted or cut off by deplatforming, media hostility, and antifa harassment.  As this case has at last, after three years, reached trial, most of the original 25 defendants have defaulted or are representing themselves.

It’s a perfect example of The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

A powerful entity needn’t have the truth on his side; he can overwhelm his opponents with a multitude of legal charges and claims, knowing that the victims cannot possibly defend themselves from all of them. It’s a flaw in our system – or a benefit, depending on your point of view.

Let’s take this concept a bit further: The case of Truth vs. Woke. In this case, Woke has unlimited resources at his disposal, including the entire educational establishment, practically all Western governments, the corporate media and all large corporations. As for Truth, he has a handful of online supporters, most of whom are too fearful of identifying themselves in real life. In the Court of Public Opinion, Truth will lose; he cannot get his message out, nor can he compete with the hundreds of thousands of “studies” Woke has at his disposal.

A Google search for “study systemic racism” yields 244,000 results, and it appears that most of those results are actual papers expounding upon the subject of systemic racism. They include titles such as:

Is obesity a manifestation of systemic racism?

Experiences of racism among urban Indigenous Australians

The four personae of racism

Perceptions of racism in healthcare among patients…

The list goes on and on. A typical example is “Systemic Racism in Canadian Occupational Therapy: A Qualitative Study with Therapists.” It’s steeped in Critical Race Theory, which it cites repeatedly. Near the beginning, we find this:

Conceptualizing Racism

“Race” is not a biologically meaningful category, but nonetheless holds very real social consequences, due to racism. Racism is a system of social power relations rooted in history and operating at multiple levels, through myriad intersecting social, political, and economic avenues. “Racialized” groups are those marked as subordinate in the sociopolitical and historical process of categorizing groups hierarchically (Miles, 1989). In other words, “race” is constructed as real, and as mattering, through racism. There are different ways of categorizing types of racism; here we employ the framework of interpersonal, institutional, and structural racism explicated by Nazroo et al. (2019). They emphasize the interconnections across levels that construct the all-encompassing nature of racism.

Further reading of this paper reveals it to be just so much radical gibberish:

As is well-established in critical race theory, there is no “neutral” institution or social structure, which may or may not be “tainted” by aberrant racism; rather, white supremacy and systemic racism are normative, shaping the status quo of institutions and social arrangements in ways that privilege some and harm others.

Based on the flawed foundation that there are no biological differences between human populations, castles are built, and then castles upon castles. Citing each other’s work, using academic jargon and legitimizing themselves as “bonafide scholars” in the eyes of the masses, these flimsy structures are reminiscent of religious writings. Generation upon generation expounds upon how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Proponents of Critical Race Theory are well aware that none of us can possibly read even a small fraction of these “studies.” Yet they’ll throw links to these studies at us, in the hope that we’ll acquiesce; after all, how could so many scholars be wrong? How could so much ink be spilled for naught?

Even highly intelligent people, faced with this veritable sea of studies, lack the ability or inclination to challenge them. How much more so the hoi polloi, a majority of whom are mediocre or less in intelligence.

This is why it’s so important to drive home the biological reality of race. Once this is established, all the CRT castles come tumbling down.

I do believe it’s possible to explain the biological reality of race even to less intelligent people; it’s not that complicated – and it is our duty to do so.

Posted in examples of propaganda, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments