Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Crime in UK

There is a report on crime in the UK which can be found here:

One thing that stood out to me was that this group "mixed" has a large percentage of victims:

The definition of "mixed" used in this report was:

In the US the "mixed" population would be lumped in with whatever the non-white parent was. So if we were to compare it to US figures the Black and Asian sections would balloon. It would seem that for the UK the "mixed" category serves to mask the true gross disparities in white vs. non-white victimization statistics.

Here we have the arrest rates:

You'll note the black arrest rate is far higher than the reported victimization rate which implies two things:

1) The crimes involve multiple perps.


2) Blacks are victimizing non-black groups.

Again the mixed population prevents a direct comparison to US statistics, but also again if we used the US "one drop rule" thing, the Black and Asian arrest rates would increase.

One of the pet arguments in left circles is that court systems regularly convict black (or non-white) suspects where white suspects are not convicted. The UK data show this to not be the case:

We can see that white suspects are convicted at a higher rate than black suspects by almost 10%. Though I say that a 10% variance is not significant.

Lastly we have in prison violence:

Once again black and mixed populations continue their violent behavior in prison way in excess of the white population. As noted before, if we used the US racial categorization scheme, the black (and possibly Asian) bar would be off the chart.

So to close I'd like to point out that in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, the usual suspects have come out for "gun control". Many black "activists" believe that gun control measures would prevent the issue of black on black violence. By looking at the UK data, a country where gun ownership is banned country wide and even possession of knives is prohibited, black crime victimization, perpetration and convictions STILL outpace that of the white population. Clearly then the issue is not the law.

Friday, October 06, 2017

More Data On The "Non-Existent" Races

Via Gizmodo originally from ScienceMag and the source paper:
Ever since researchers sequenced the first full genome of Neandertals in 2010, they have known that the ancestors of European Neandertals interbred with modern humans. By comparing the Neandertal genome with that of modern humans, they found a curious pattern: Present-day Europeans and Asians have inherited about 1% to 3% of their DNA from Neandertals, but Africans have not.
So Europeans are genetically a different type of human than the African.
All of this suggests that modern humans mixed with archaic humans at least three times after they migrated out of Africa. But that’s just a fraction of the intermingling that must have taken place. Neandertals also interbred with Denisovans. And the new study confirms that the Denisovans themselves did indeed interbred with a “superarchaic” hominin, possibly H. erectus, whom they encountered as early as 400,000 years ago. There are also hints that Denisovans interbred with modern humans in Asia more than once, based on different patterns in the distribution of Denisovan DNA in some Chinese and Melanesians. “One would think that mixing has occurred multiple times for a long time,” Castellano says.
Modern humans [in Europe] absorbed genes from archaic humans in Europe and Asia at least three times since moving out of Africa. So again, the African and the European (and Asian) are a different kind of human.
Europeans who still have genes from Neandertals that are shaping their health today. The inbred Altai Neandertal also got modern human DNA that may have been involved in speech, the immune system, and the production of sperm, Castellano says. And that fits with the theory that interbreeding was an important and rapid source of genetic diversity that could have been crucial for adapting to new terrain as modern humans spread into foreign lands.
Europeans got genes from archaic humans that did what? Impact speech? Isn't speech dependent upon brain development? Why yes, yes it is. So here we have a scholarly paper stating outright that the genes inherited by Europeans via their mixing with archaic humans changed their brain development. Not only that but these genes affected the immune system (which we would expect) meaning that there is a general difference between disease susceptibility between Africans and Europeans that is genetic in origins.
Many Neandertal variants associated with phenotypes and susceptibility to diseases have been identified in present-day non-Africans (6, 7, 10–12). The fact that the Vindija Neandertal genome is more closely related to the introgressing Neandertals allows ~15% more such variants to be identified (20). Among these are variants associated with plasma levels of LDL cholesterol (rs10490626) and vitamin D (rs6730714), eating disorders (rs74566133), visceral fat accumulation (rs2059397), rheumatoid arthritis (45475795), schizophrenia (rs16977195) and the response to antipsychotic drugs (rs1459148). This adds to mounting evidence that Neandertal ancestry influences disease risk in present-day humans, particularly with respect to neurological, psychiatric, immunological, and dermatological phenotypes (7).
But remember, there are no races. Race is [only] a social construct and all differences in humans are due to white supremacist oppression.

Wednesday, October 04, 2017

UK Falls Deeper Into Totalitarianism

[Edited 10-5-2017 8:30AM] From Breitbart quoting The Guardian
“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” declared British Home Secretary Amber Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.”
Not only does the UK government think it has the right to tell you what you can and cannot read. It deems it can tell you how many times you may read whatever it is the government deems "far right".

Also notice, and I missed this when I first posted it, but notice how there is no provision for reading "far-left propaganda". This was so obvious that I missed it sitting in plain view. Recall that in earlier posts I have made the claim that communists have essentially taken control of various so called "democratic" governments, including the UK. Here we see that they are establishing in law that their ideologies are the only legal ones. Opposing views are to be criminalized.

This chick, Amber Rudd, feels there is a "gap in the law". No, there isn't a "gap in the law". It is called freedom. Government does not exist to tell citizens what they can and cannot read or what they can and cannot think. If you told me the country I visited often as a child would pass a law that:

People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday.
I would have said you were mad. This is part of the "magic dirt" bullshit that liberals operate with and are increasingly imposing on society. If we pass a law against 'x' then people will stop doing 'x". No. People inclined to do "x" will find ways to do "x". What the government should be doing is not importing and deporting those persons who are inclined to bring harm to it's citizens. It ought not be trying to criminalize it's citizens who object [thus being labelled far right] to their countries and their freedoms being taken from them.

Statements like this:

According to the Home Office the updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be guilty of the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of “reasonable excuse” would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.
Should have Brits rioting in the streets. The government wants you to come up with a "defense" for reading or viewing material online? How do these words fall out of someone's mouth and not be immediately objected to by everyone else in the room? I watch what I want, as often as I want. Period. Reading and watching cannot be a crime. And since when are "academics" and "Journalists" afforded special status and rights that other citizens don't have?

"No Weapons Allowed"

If there is one image that completely and utterly shows how out of touch with reality liberals who wish to enact so called "gun control" legislation, it is this one:

This image taken from a video shown on Good Morning America, shows the sign that the shooter had to walk by when he was going to his room.

If anything underscores the absolute, rock solid argument that criminals and those who are to be criminals do not care about rules, laws, or whatever impediments are placed before them when they are seeking to commit a crime, this picture is it.

Liberals would have you believe that because there is some sign somewhere that says "gun free zone", that somehow criminals will stop and turn around, thwarted by The Sign. Only a fool, a damn fool believes this.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

They Don't Speak For Me

Why is it that whites and white looking people on the left feel that they have a right to speak on behalf on black people everywhere?
When we kneel in shul once a year on Yom Kippur we feel vulnerable. That’s how African Americans feel every day.
No. I do not "feel vulnerable every day". What kind of phobic moron would I be to feel vulnerable every day? This is such an insult to African-Americans.
And we Jews still aren’t doing enough to dismantle the American race privilege that we benefit from
Now this I agree with. I think Jews should remove themselves from their over-representation in media and finance for starters. That would be a most excellent start.
is there a fitting expression of solidarity that the Jewish community could make with the athletes that Trump has targeted?
Yes. Shut the fuck up. And if you can't do that at least tell the truth.
In other words, it often means something has gone terribly wrong.
Yes something has gone terribly wrong. I don't think you quite understand what it is though.
African-Americans don’t need to bow in shul to feel vulnerable to danger. To be black in America is to feel danger not just once a year, but all year, every year.
Really? Danger of what? From whom?
We need to acknowledge that we benefit from institutions, from schools to banks to workplaces to courtrooms to jails - that are stacked against African Americans.
Institutions like banks and media conglomerates....
Which means that they give unearned privilege to white people. Yes, even white Jews.
Glad for you to admit that. Jesus said something about rods, motes and eyes.

Monday, September 25, 2017

A Weekend Of Narratives

This weekend was a weekend of narratives. Two events happened this weekend that stood in stark contrast to each other. There were football games where players either refused to exit locker rooms for the US national anthem or got on field and made some show of protest. On the other hand was the Tunnel To Towers run in NYC where people of all types paid to run in honor of first responders who died on 9-11 and for first responders who serve communities from NYC to London, England. This morning when watching GMA, the former got all the air time and the latter were invisible.

To the brass (and presenters) of GMA, millionaire (at least in income) players of a game who's entire purpose is entertainment who are taking a knee over a completely fake narrative of black oppression in America is of more importance than thousands of ordinary citizens, most of whom have 5 figure salaries who paid for the honor of running in honor of those who serve the country and community daily and who are paid a small fraction of the salaries of the protesting NFL players.

Just let that sink in for a minute.

And understand that these protests are entirely contrived and entirely without merit. We know for a fact that the greatest danger to black lives are other black people. We know for a fact that the police use more force against white persons than black persons. We know for a fact that police officers, black and white, are more hesitant to use force against black suspects than white ones. We know that 9 times out of 10, when a deadly encounter happens between a police officer and a black suspect that the black suspect was at a minimum not following orders, actively trying to flee lawful apprehension or trying to kill an officer. I cannot understand how people in the black community feel that it is in their interest to support those who predate on our communities, making them unsafe and making suspects out of law abiding citizens.

Yes, Every time some black person, usually male, decides to assault or kill someone (which in NYC is the case in 90+% of assaults and murders), it makes every other black person in the community a suspect. You can't be mad at police for following up on a murder that involves a black male and then get mad when random black males are stopped and questioned. You don't worry about cats when it's the dogs that are doing the biting. So black folks need to be mad at black folks doing crime and the people that encourage and enable these persons to continue to predate on our community members. Recently where I grew up we have had a spate of car break ins and house break in's. Not a single mother fucker doing these crimes are white. Not a single one is a police officer and I'm supposed to be mad at white folks and police?

Fuck that in it's entirety.

I saw a photo somewhere which compared the NFL (and I suppose NBA) players to Jackie Robinson. Jackie Robinson broke "barriers". What barriers are these player breaking? What civil rights don't black people have in America? List the specific civil rights that black people in America do not have. You can't name one because this isn't 1960. It's 2017 and black people can actually now get away with violating the civil rights of other citizens and the media (and DNC) will cover for them.

These athletes aren't brave. Not a single one of these highly paid athletes will risk their lives and head to Chicago (or other city with high levels of black on black murders) and confront the people committing those murders. Not. A. Single. One. They will go to Miami Beach and party. They will go to LA and NY and shop. They might go to Monaco or wherever else and show off, but when 500 people are shot in Miami they don't have SHIT. To. Say. They are cowards. Each and every one of them. And all these news casters acting like they are so concerned. Those ones on GMA who live in high rises on the upper West Side (Robin Roberts), Who live in New Jersey (Strayhan) and down the Jersey shore, Long Island or Connecticut. None of these people who are nodding their heads and tut-tutting Trump live anywhere near the same people their money and status allow them to not. Live. Near.

Hypocrites, each and every one of them.

And then, then, we have the Sudanese guy who shoots up a church. This went entirely uncommented on for the first 30 minutes of GMA this morning (I had to go to work). When Dylan Roof shot up a church bible study meeting in Charleston, there was back to back coverage. The silence was deafening this AM. I thought shooting up a church was the evilest of evilest things a person could do in America. I've essentially cut myself off from broadcast TV as I'm tired of wasting my time on propaganda. This is CNN's home page right now:

Here's the Washington Post:

Here's the NYTimes:

A church was shot up and the lead everywhere are highly paid athletes.

If by now you don't understand the power of The Narrative and how there is a concerted effort to keep certain things out of view, then you are beyond help. When [mostly] black athletes are paid high 6 figures to millions for entertainment can honestly stand up (or kneel) and talk about how they (or at least black people) are oppressed in 2017 America, when these athletes owe their livelihoods to the fact that they are in America and are not oppressed (cause actual oppressed people don't make millions) and it's "hateful" to point that shit out, you know that all semblance of sanity has left the building and exited the parking lot.

The owners aren't going to discipline OR fire players because they depend on these players for their income. Understand that only if the owner's income streams are threatened will they do anything. These same owners disciplined players for 9-11 commemorations:

Williamson was going to wear custom patriotic cleats during the Titans’ home opener against the Vikings on Sunday, the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but those plans changed when a league representative called to inform him about a looming fine for violating uniform code...

In August, the league prohibited the Dallas Cowboys from wearing a helmet sticker honoring local police.

Last season, the NFL fined two Pittsburgh Steelers players $5,787 each for first-offense uniform violations –running back DeAngelo Williams for wearing "Find the Cure" in his eye black to promote breast cancer awareness, and cornerback William Gay for wearing purple cleats to raise awareness about domestic violence.

The New York Giants' Odell Beckham and Victor Cruz plan to wear patriotic cleats in Sunday's game against the Cowboys. The Tennessean has reached out to the NFL for comment on whether these players have received special permission or are simply willing to pay the fine.

So let's be clear. The NFL owners are not about free speech. They are not about athletes making 1st Amendment political statements. The NFL owners are scared shitless that their black players will accuse them of being racist and them getting the Donald Sterling treatment. They cannot afford to fire their players because then they will have no one to play and therefore no income.

And they think that their audience is sufficiently SJW that they need to pander to this bullshit. If they find that the fans are not having it, which will only come about when there are empty seats and record low levels of viewership, then they will change their tune.

Regardless though, this weekend has show us all, in no uncertain terms what narratives are in play.

Monday, September 18, 2017

The Hypocrisy Test

With so much being discussed about DACA, I often see that people have "misalignments" between what they think about their personal (immediate) property and family and their nation and fellow citizens. Below is a test to see how you rank on the hypocrisy scale.

Answer Yes or No to the following questions:


1) In my house (place of dwelling) I determine who can and cannot enter.

2) In my house (place of dwelling) I ultimately determine if and when it is time for non-residents to leave.

3) If I came home and discovered someone in my house (place of dwelling) who did not belong there, I would expect them to leave.

3a) I would expect that I could call the authorities to make sure said person left if they did not comply with my demand.

3b) I would expect recompense for anything said person may have broken during their "stay".

3c) I would expect the authorities, if called upon, to punish said offender under relevant law.

3d) I agree with laws against trespass against personal property.

4) If a visitor to my house (place of dwelling) does something that threatens or otherwise makes any member of my family uncomfortable, I reserve the right to have that person removed from my house (place of dwelling).

4a) If that person refuses to leave, I reserve the right to call upon the authorities to remove the person.

5) Strangers have the right to enter my property whenever they please regardless of how I feel about it.

6) Strangers have the right to partake of the food in my house whenever they please regardless of how I feel about it.

7) I have waited in line and brought all proper paperwork to rent a property. I expect others to do the same.

8) I am going on a cruise with my family. I paid for my room. It is fair that the cruise ship allows a stow away to be placed in my cabin with my family.


1)In my country I (the citizens) determine who can and cannot enter.

2)In my country I (the citizen) ultimately determine if and when it is time for non-residents to leave.

3)If I discovered someone in my country who did not belong there, I would expect them to leave.

3a) I would expect that I could call the authorities to make sure said person left if they did not comply with my demand.

3b) I would expect recompense for anything said person may have broken during their "stay".

3c) I would expect the authorities, if called upon, to punish said offender under relevant law.

3d) I agree with laws against trespass against illegally entering the country.

4) If a visitor to my country does something that threatens or otherwise makes any citizen uncomfortable, I (the citizen) reserve the right to have that person removed from my country.

4a) If that person refuses to leave, I reserve the right to call upon the authorities to remove the person.

5) Strangers have the right to enter my country whenever they please regardless of how I (the citizen) feel about it.

6) Strangers have the right to partake of the [goods and services provided by my government] whenever they please regardless of how I (the citizen) feel about it.

7) I paid all my taxes and got my paperwork per the law. I expect others to do the same.

Scoring: for the Personal give yourself 1 point for answers as follows:

1-4a: Yes
5-6: No
7: Yes
8: No

For total of 13 points. Subtract 1 point for every answer not matching above.

For the National give yourself 1 point for answers as follows:

1-4a: Yes
5-6: No
7: Yes

For a total of 12 points. Subtract 1 point for every answer not matching above.

Now add the two scores.


25: You are a consistent person.

Less than 25: You have a contradiction somewhere you might want to check.

13: You are a hypocrite of epic proportions.

Less than 13: You probably stumbled upon this blog by accident, perhaps the "feeling lucky" link in the Google search page. You simply cannot be serious.

General Moral:

The nation is an extension of the personal. National rules generally reflect the culture and expectations of the people. If you don't expect people to enter your home willy nilly, then you cannot at the same time be OK with people entering the country willy nilly. Your national politics should largely reflect what you expect in your personal behavior and expectations.

Thursday, September 07, 2017

Michael Bennett: Epic Liar

This morning I saw a report on GMA where Michael Bennett lied about his arrest in Las Vegas. The report on GMA was so biased I couldn't believe it was allowed to air. There wasn't even a "lets see what the police have to say" part. Bennett did his crocodile tears bullshit as he spoke of not being able to see his daughters:
"The Officers' excessive use of force was unbearable," Bennett wrote. "I felt helpless as I lay there on the ground handcuffed facing the real-life threat of being killed. All I could think of was 'I'm going to die for no other reason than I am black and my skin color is somehow a threat.'"

Bennett told reporters Wednesday that during the incident he was thinking about his wife and three daughters "and how much they mean to me."

Of course, as is now unfortunately typical, the video evidence proved otherwise:

All those black people the police could have up and decided to arrest but didn't. How does Bennett explain this? How does ESPN and ABCNews meaning Disney corp. explain giving this liar a platform? The story headline should not have been:

Michael Bennett: Cops drew guns on me for 'being a black man in the wrong place at the wrong time' It should have been:

Michael Bennett lies about LVPD while trying to make racial commentary.

This is the new Left Crow. This is the real "white supremacy": It is where white liberals make space for and promote black people being treated like children and not made to account for their behavior and words and those who object are made to be non-persons subject to RICO levels of civil rights violations and criminal violence.