Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Monday, June 24, 2019

Google Narrative Manipulation

I don't have the time currently to discuss this but I think it is important to get this out.

Using BitChute because, well, when you watch the video you'll understand.

It doesn't matter if you like/support Trump or anyone else. It should bother you that a company with the reach it has is engaging in this kind of manipulation.

Never Seen A Man Cry

Rapper Scarface has a track from back in the 90s called Never Seen A Man Cry:

Essentially, it talks about how these tough guys, when facing their final moments on earth, cry like everybody else. This track came to mind when I saw this video:

Oh. You're crying now. You want your momma now? But 10 minutes ago you were the big man stealing people's stuff. [edit] Completely assumed that people knew what this was. Mr Crybaby is the student that was caught stealing from Gibsons. This is what started Oberlin's Adventures in Libel-land(tm) that has cost them millions of dollars in damages.

Sunday, June 23, 2019

40 Acres and a Mule

So once again there is discussion of reparations going on in the US government. I don't have a dog in the fight because my parents came to the US after 1965. No slavery. No Jim Crow. No violation of voting rights. None of that. I have not been injured therefore I "deserve" nothing. Everything I can do now is because of those African-Americans who put their lives on the line and I respect and appreciate that. That said, I'll throw in a few cents on the subject.

One of the thorny issues with the current calls for reparations is that it makes claims against people who had no hand in "the crime". Generally under US law, you cannot hold the descendant of a criminal liable for what his ancestor did. Even if it is his father. If that were not the case a lot of people would be in legal jeopardy for things they know nothing about. Breaking this rule shouldn't be taken lightly at all.

Secondly, it is improper to compare to Jewish or Japanese internment reparations because in both those cases, the damaged parties were still alive and in cases where they are not, researched claims showing direct connections were established. In the case of reparation for African-Americans, the claim is that blacks as a class have been "injured" and that whites as a class are the responsible party, regardless of actual evidence of either injury or participation in an specific event.

This line of thinking also involves an implicit (and sometimes explicit) claim that blacks as a group would be in a different social and economic situation had x,y or z not happened and whites as a group would be in a different social and economic situation. That's a pretty hard thing to prove. Of course legislation doesn't require proof. But what about actual damaged parties? Let's take a look.

It should be noted that the idea of reparations was not foreign to the US government. The Freedman's Bureau was created as a means of helping formerly enslaved Africans. Then we have the infamous 40 acres and a mule rumor.

According to a letter Sherman wrote a year later, Secretary Stanton concluded that if given land, the freed slaves could "take care of themselves." And as land belonging to those who rose up in rebellion against the federal government had already been declared "abandoned" by an act of Congress, there was land to distribute...

Following the meeting, Sherman drafted an order, which was officially designated as Special Field Orders, No. 15. In the document, dated January 16, 1865, Sherman ordered that the abandoned rice plantations from the sea to 30 miles inland would be "reserved and set apart for the settlement" of the freed slaves in the region.

According to Sherman's order, "each family shall have a plot of not more than 40 acres of tillable ground." At the time, it was generally accepted that 40 acres of land was the optimal size for a family farm.

General Rufus Saxton was put in charge of administering the land along the Georgia coast. While Sherman's order stated "each family shall have a plot of not more than 40 acres of tillable ground," there was no specific mention of farm animals.

General Saxton, however, did apparently provide surplus U.S. Army mules to some of the families granted land under Sherman's order.

It's important to note that this field order was for Georgia. I'm going to skip a few lines to get to this part:
It has been estimated that approximately 40,000 former slaves received grants of land under Sherman's order. But the land was taken away from them.
So 40,000 formerly enslaved Africans received at least 40 acres of Ga land which was later take away from them by the government. Why did the government take this land "back"?
Andrew Johnson became president following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in April 1865. And Johnson, on May 28, 1865, issued a proclamation of pardon and amnesty to citizens in the South who would take an oath of allegiance.

As part of the pardon process, lands confiscated during the war would be returned to white landowners. So while the Radical Republicans had fully intended for there to be a massive redistribution of land from former slave owners to former slaves under Reconstruction, Johnson's policy effectively thwarted that.

I've often mentioned to people that the Civil War wasn't about slavery but about preserving the Union. Had the confederate states not decided to break away (as they apparently had the right to, but that's another discussion) and kept hammering away in congress over the issues that they had with the northern states (all of whom benefited from southern slavery produced materials, along with their own slave populations that were NOT freed in the Emancipation Proclamation), then there would have been no Civil War. Johnson, like Lincoln wanted the Union and slavery was a means to threaten the rebellious states. Hence it should not be surprising that in order to preserve the Union, Johnson would throw a few Africans under the bus...cart...plow.

So returning to this 40,000 people with 40 Acres of Georgia land we should ask what would that land value be today had:

1) They had not been tossed off of it.
2) The laws of the land were not corrupted to disenfranchise them?
According to MSN Money the current average value of land in Georgia is:

So $14,242/acre x 40 =$569,680 per person. Multiplied out by 40,000 it equals:

Yes, that's 22 billion dollars.

Now that's average. Clearly the specific plot of land could be of a higher or lower value. But that can be found out and dealt with.

So I think that any honest discussion of reparations should start with finding the names of the 40,000 people granted land by Sherman. Finding their descendants and paying them out $570k each.

Some could argue that not all those families would have kept the land or whatever. That isn't relevant. All over the country there are wrongful death lawsuits in which the families are able to claim "lost wages" and the like, even though there is no way to know whether such wages would have ever appeared. It is based on what they had at the time of the event. Here the event was reneging on a land grant.

I think this also shows an example of how reparations can be dealt with legally without the whole holding a class of people who had no direct or even indirect part in slavery (and I'm not even getting into Jim Crow). Find cases where the rights, privileges and immunities (as laid out in the 14th Amendment) of black person(s) were infringed upon by the Feds and repair each and every case. Where the Fed is not the culprit, then the state or municipality should be held to account so long as the evidence is there.

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Comrads Bernie and Cortez Would Have Blown Up Chernobyl

I saw this on YouTube and HAD to post because it is damn scary to think these two are popular.



You know what this reminded me of? Watching Chernobyl.

That movie revealed that one of the primary reasons Chernobyl happened was that total incompetents were placed in positions of power due to their loyalty to the party and their willingness to follow the party line regardless of consequences. The people who actually knew what they were doing lived in fear of these apparatchiks.

For real though. You should watch that movie. it's also a great demonstration of "male privilege" like being exposed to lethal doses of radiation so that your people can live, eat and drink. But I digress.

Secondly, I have an issue with Bernie and Cortez treating people like children. You sign up for credit and don't look at the terms? You know what? Sucks to be you. You didn't look and see that 5% had a star next to it? Never crossed your mind to see what that star stood for? No? Sucks to be you.

Look. I'm not with banks being vultures. I've had banks try to shaft me. I paid the card off and cancelled the account. Next level game is getting banks to pay you to use their services. That's what Comrad Cortez and Bernie ought to be teaching their constituents. How to make Bank Of America chip on on your gasoline. How to get Chase to help feed your family. How Citibank can chip in on your next vacation. Yes. It can be done. And it doesn't matter what the interest rate is. But first you gotta get off the victim mentality.

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

NY Magazine Finds Hillary Clinton Guilty.

Full credit to Mr. Obvious for bringing this to my attention via his video.

NY Magazine wrote the following while reviewing AG Barr's interview:

This is just a wild lie. Mueller was unable to establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump and Russia. He was unable to establish this, in part, because “some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right,” or “provided information that was false or incomplete,” or “deleted relevant communications.” Indeed, the two Trump campaign officials most closely linked to Russian cutouts, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, refused to cooperate with prosecutors. A failure to establish a criminal conspiracy is not the same thing as finding “no evidence of a conspiracy.” Nowhere does the Mueller report say there’s no evidence of a conspiracy. Some of the potential conspiracy elements were unprovable — Mueller never figured out why Manafort gave 75 pages of polling data to a Russian agent.
Did you see it? No? Let me pull out the relevant part:
He was unable to establish this, in part, because “some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right,” or “provided information that was false or incomplete,” or “deleted relevant communications.”
So according to NYMag, "deleting relevant communications" is evidence of a crime (in their argument, collusion). Indeed if someone "deleted relevant communications" then they are probably under indictment, assuming they aren't already in jail.

Here is's summary of Hillary's server. Mind you Snopes is no friend of Trump.

March 4, 2015: The Benghazi committee issues a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over all emails from her private server related to the incident in Libya.

Between March 25-31, 2015: The Platte River Networks employee has what he calls an "oh s---" moment, realizing he did not delete Clinton’s email archive, per Mills’ December 2014 request. The employee deletes the email archive using a software called BleachBit.

However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.

The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department.

Uh huh. So some 'Trump associate" "deleted relevant communications" and it's evidence of criminal activity. When a Clinton associate "deletes relevant communication" it "is unprovable and flat out wrong" to imply some sort of criminal intent.

Uh huh.

Upended Rule Of Law

Continuing my discussion on the fundamental changes going on in American society, here is a video discussing Mueller's little speech the other day. Mr. Gorka makes a point that I had missed.

Did you catch it?


He provides the presumption of innocence to the Russian military intelligence officers involved in the attack against our election. He actually stated that. "I do not want to make any comment against their presumed innocence." He actually stated that. A page later he denies that of the president. He provides the option of innocence to foreign intelligence operators but says no to our president?
Let's not take Gorka's word for it. Let's look at the transcript itself:
And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation, where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election. These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.
So it is clear. Mueller gives Russian agents the presumption of innocence but "cannot determine, either way" when it comes to the president. This is totally consistent with the New Left Crow. Others/Foreigners are given more deference than citizens by "our" own representatives and agents.

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

The Next Stage

Recently I posted about how the New Left Crow should be in full view. The video clip below will show you the full danger of de-platforming.

This is already happening in America. China is further along with it's Social Credit system. China is further along because it has no constitutional restraint on it's power. What is currently keeping US persons, in general, out of danger is the constitutional restraints put upon government. But understand that these restraints are not unbreakable. As we see things like the Electoral College compact, where states will disenfranchise its voters to turn elections into rule by mob (which is what majority rule is). As we see government officials turning centuries of jurisprudence on its head and declare that they cannot "exonerate" a person who is to be presumed innocent. As we see governments passing legislation that bans boycotting of "favoured states". As we see governments running struggle sessions called "diversity training". As we see governments creating concepts as "hate speech" and then declaring said speech as "illegal" in flat contradiction to the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings. As we see government openly asking private companies to censor those who it [currently] cannot legally censor, we must understand what is actually coming down the pipe.

Monday, June 10, 2019

My Intersectionality Score

So apparently 73% of people have more privilege than I do. Now if I changed one thing, being not white, then I become more privileged than 75% of people:

Oh and the intersectional score of the 30-ish white, able-bodied male on the side of the highway I gave food to, last year while driving my German Convertible, while on my way to a relatively high-end resort in Virginia Beach is:

Imagine telling some poor white guy begging for food on the side of a highway exit that he's more privileged than 83% of the population, including the black guy giving him food and you can imagine why Trump got elected.

Take the test here:

Third Discrimination Suit Filed Against Masterpiece Cakeshop

Let's be clear here: Masterpiece Cakeshop is being harassed. Period.
Scardina had filed a previous lawsuit against Phillips following her request for a cake – an order she placed the day of the SCOTUS ruling. Previous reports say Scardina’s order was for a cake celebrating her gender transition.
"The day of the SCOTUS ruling".

Clear harassment.

I also blame The Court for this. The case should have been decided on clear 1st and 14th Amendment grounds which would have put an end to this harassment by making those attempting to harass the cakeshop liable for civil rights violations. But let's go on.

The newest lawsuit claims Phillips discriminated against Scardina and used deceptive and unfair trade practices.

“The dignity of all citizens in our state needs to be honored. Masterpiece Cakeshop said before the Supreme Court they would serve any baked good to members of the LGBTQ community. It was just the religious significance of it being a wedding cake,” Griesen said. “We don’t believe they’ve been honest with the public.”

In the complaint’s text, Scardina’s attorneys cite testimony in previous court proceedings: “Mr. Phillips, for himself and on behalf of Masterpiece Cakeshop, confirmed that they would happily make the exact same cake requested by Ms. Scardina for other customers.”

So the pin here is that since Mr. Phillips said he would make the exact same cake for other customers, he, therefore, should make that cake for them too. On the surface this looks like a slam dunk argument. I've even said that the cake shop would be discriminating if it refused to sell a cake to any homosexual. However; that isn't the issue here.

Let's go back to the statement about the wedding cake. Obviously, it could have been said that Mr. Phillips would have made the exact same cake (or AN exactly identical cake) for a heterosexual couple. The issue wasn't directly about "the cake" but the purposes of the cake. Mr. Phillips operates his business in a way that expresses his Christian faith. Standard Christianity is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman (male and female). Mr. Phillips refusal to make the cake was his refusal to participate in a behaviour that contradicted his held beliefs.

This is what the Supreme Court should have ruled on rather than the state's hostility to Phillips beliefs.

The same exact thinking goes here. That Phillips would make the same exact cake for other customers is not relevant. Once the customer revealed the purpose to which they wanted the cake to be made for, Phillips retained the right to decline to participate based on his clearly known beliefs.

The customer could have simply walked into Masterpiece and asked for the pink and blue birthday cake and declined to say what it was for. They could have told any story at all and gotten the cake. Instead, they wanted to force Phillips to participate and approve of their behavior.

What needs to be done here is for the SCOTUS to make clear that the states are prohibited from creating laws, commissions and the like that infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of citizens as stated in the 14th Amendment. Secondly, no one can be forced to participate in behavior that they do not wish to be associated with.

If YouTube can refuse service to anyone who runs afoul it's "rules", then so can Masterpiece.

If the protected Class framework stands in the way, then it's time to revisit and remove this legal concept as it is in contradiction to section 1 of the 14th Amendment. It is clear that some of these "classes" are using their super-citizen powers to disenfranchise "lesser citizens".

Thursday, June 06, 2019

Carranza Thinks Non-Whites Are Inferior

I've written before that The Regressive Left believes that black people are inferior to whites. One of the proofs of this is that The Regressive Left keeps saying, and instituting, that black people cannot be held to the same standards as whites. So for example, Blacks need different policing because, well blacks don't respond to authority the same.

Black children shouldn't be suspended for "willful defiance" of teachers in school, because, well, blacks can't be expected to respect teachers in schools. It's just asking for too much.

Impulse control? Can't expect that of black people.

NYC has a nutcase of a schools chancellor who says:

Carranza says that he’s combating a “white-supremacy culture,” characterized by such concepts as “individualism,” “objectivity” and “worship of the written word.” It’s hard to imagine any educator disparaging the written word, but Carranza has crossed that Rubicon.
This is not new. I wrote about this back in 2016:
So lets be clear. Hackman is saying that it is white or "acting white" if one is "honest, hardworking disciplined, rigorous and successful." Therefore to be non-white is to be dishonest, lazy, undisciplined, lax and generally a failure. Moreover to be black is to be emotional ("How you're doing") and to not be able to master the language.
And prior to that:
Jane Addams thought that blacks were “unique and spontaneous” and naturally humorous and rhythmic, but she also believed that blacks were uniquely inferior to other groups in their lack of social control and family stability. ... Addams spoke of the “lack of inherited control” by blacks. ... [Social worker] Frederick Bushee, for instance, described the typical Boston black as “low and coarse, revealing much more of the animal qualities than the spiritual.” (1)
So here we have the head of NYC schools speaking of non-white students as being inferior. Don't be fooled by the "white supremacy culture", a term he picked up via The Isis Papers (and properly termed there as the White Supremacy SYSTEM and Culture). He apparently doesn't understand that in the modern world, things like objectivity and a written word are what keep planes in the sky, computers running and medical science advancing.

Black parents should be alarmed that people like Carranza are using their children as pawns in a game that will leave them miss-educated and unprepared for jobs requiring high mental skills. But if black parents are OK with the language used by Carranza and others then they should not complain when they AND their children are treated as inferiors.

Can You See The Left Crow Now?

I have discussed the rise of what I call The Left Crow in American society. It actually goes further than America but we'll keep it here at the moment. So in a past post I discussed the plight of Christian bakers:
In stark contrast, Sarah Sanders was seated in a restaurant and was told flat out to leave. She was declined any and all service, in what should be regarded as a blatant violation of her civil rights. The owner has allegedly claimed that her [gay and supposedly immigrant] wait staff and cooks were bothered (read: being total drama queens), by the prospect of serving niggers, sorry, Sanders. Sanders hadn't asked the restaurant to do anything special for her. She did not ask for a special "immigrant" meal. She did not ask for a special "fuck the gays" meal. She did not enter the premises without a shirt. She did not enter the premises without shoes. She was not being loud and obnoxious (like repeatedly using the word "nigga" in public like so many black people do). No, She was denied any and every service because of who she was and for behavior that the restaurant was not a, nor asked to be a party to.
Yesterday YouTube decided to do a purge of users. While it is arguable that YouTube as a private entity can decline service to whomever it chooses. One cannot square the actions with Civil Rights law. And YouTube is not the only issue here. PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, Banks such as JP Morgan Chase and Bank Of America have decided to not provide services to people whom they deem ideologically problematic as opposed to people breaking the law with their services. Even software companies like Salesforce has gotten in on the act by banning companies who do legal firearms business from using its software.

There are undoubtedly a number of black folks who think all this is great. The whip hand has been changed and it's time. Sure. OK.

Imagine if you will that the internet age occurred prior to 1960. Imagine the NAACP trying to fundraise and PayPal decided that it cannot take recurring donations because the NAACP is, in their opinion a Communist organization. Say that after going to a sit-in or boycott rally. Black folks went to their jobs to find out that they have been fired for "anti-American" activities. Imagine these black folks being unable to use any banking services whatsoever because again they are involved in "anti-American" activities. Imagine individual activists not only being unable to work but cannot receive or spend money donated to them unless it came in the form of cash.

The Civil Rights movement as we know it would have collapsed if the actions being taken by private companies today were in effect back then. In effect Regressives today are burning the very bridges that allowed black folks to get to where they are today. And those claiming there isn't anything different have NO CLUE.

And for those who think that they are "safe" because they don't have offending views; go look at the link I provided yesterday in the Who Were These Progressives? Your time will come unless you're a sheep and just follow wherever you're lead to.

One Reason I Stopped Regularly Reading The NYT

When I was in school it was required that I read the weekly NYT Science Times. I had to select an article and summarize it. The NYT was THE authority newspaper. If you were bright you read it and perhaps the Wall Street Journal. However; The Times has lost its way as it became "woke". It started burying inconvenient information faaaaar into articles it wrote often misleading its readers. I won't even get into the nonsense that passes for its opinion columns. You know what they say about opinions and assholes. Well, The Times has a lot of assholes.

Below is a video of one example of how low the NYT has fallen. I've caught the NYT writing articles that were completely contradicted by articles it posted months earlier so I'm unsurprised at the video below.

Wednesday, June 05, 2019

Who Were These Progressives?

The blogger at Those Who Can See has a [re-]post where he discusses the attitudes of various progressives over time. Sample:
During Reconstruction, the Reverend Lyman Abbott favored black suffrage and integrated schools and proclaimed that the progress blacks had made since the Civil War had refuted “slavery’s accusations of idleness and incapacity.”

By the 1890s, though,... He characterized blacks as a dependent and inferior people who could rise slowly, if at all, through hard work, improved morality, and industrial education. Nothing alarmed Abbott more than the specter of race-mixing. “For my part,” he announced, “I thoroughly and heartily sympathize with the passionate resolve of the Southern people that this intermarriage shall not go on in their borders. …” (1)

One of Boston’s finest citizens was Charles Francis Adams, Jr. a railroad executive in the Gilded Age, the grandson of the antislavery advocate John Quincy Adams. Adams viewed the Civil War as a humanitarian crusade. A colonel in the United States Army, Charles Francis Adams, Jr., led black cavalry troops into Richmond in 1865.

By 1900, however, the Boston Brahmin’s view of blacks had been transformed. After a trip to Africa, he expressed his complete disillusionment with African Americans in a 1906 article in the Century Magazine. In it, he expressed his regret that Reconstruction had been carried out “in utter ignorance of ethnological law and total disregard of unalterable fact.” At the sight of Africa, he declared, “the scales fell from my eyes.” (1)

Read the rest there.

Alan Dershowitz Speaks on The Need For The Center

No. I don't agree with everything he says. I agree with enough of it to warrant a post. It may surprise some readers but The Ghost consistently tests "moderate" when doing political orientation questionnaires. I regularly expose myself to people and ideas that are to my left and to my right. If you are not regularly exposing yourself to those who do not share your opinions, or to those who have spent more time studying an issue you are interested in, you are living in a bubble. If the election of Trump surprised you, then you are living in a bubble. If your go-to answer to issues consists of "racism", "sexism" and other things, you likely live in a bubble. The good news is that the brain is a natural needle that can pop the bubble.

It's 33 minutes. Listen during your drive if watching is inconvenient.

"All I'm asking you to do is free...your...mind."
Morpheus -The Matrix

Friday, May 31, 2019

Jussie's Colorism

Unsealed CPD documents reveal:
When Jussie Smollett was told his Nigerian trainer and his brother had been arrested for the 'homophobic, racist' attack he said he was the victim of, he reacted with: 'It can't be them, they'e[sic] black as sin.'
Black as what?

Monday, May 06, 2019

Biden brings up Jim Crow. We Are Not Surprised

Every time a Democrat runs for office, they go to black communities and never, ever fail to bring up slavery, Jim Crow, MLK and the Civil Rights movement. Most times it's all at one speech but sometimes one or two are left out. Though not for long. It's pretty telling about what Democrats think of black folks that the go to thought they have upon seeing one of us is:


Gosh it feels so nice to know that when people want something from me, particularly my vote, they think:


Makes my heart warm. Sho' nuff.

Yass boss. Slabery sho' was bad. SHo nuff don't want that coming back. Where I sign boss?

As you can see from the subhead of this blog, I keep a running count of days since Trump has been in office. Tavis Smiley said, straight up that Trump would make slavery come back. I kid you the fuck not. So I decided that I'd keep a count of how long it took Trump to put we folk back on plantations (getting rid of expensive Mexican day labourers in the process). As of this writing it is 836 days. Any day now. Any day.

They must be busy making the shackles.

Anyway, here's ol Joe:

“Folks,” the former vice president told an audience gathered inside a hot community center gymnasium, “last year, 24 states introduced or enacted at least 70 bills to curtail the right the vote. And guess what — mostly directed at people of color. You see it. We have Jim Crow sneaking back in.”
Yas boss. You see it is racist to ask people to:

1) Be actual citizens of the US to vote.

During her 2018 campaign for governor of Georgia, Abrams told supporters there would be a "blue wave" of Democratic victories fueled by many people, including "those who are documented and undocumented." At the time, the Washington Free Beacon contacted her campaign for comment and did not hear back.
"Didn't hear back".

See this silly woman, with nary a peep from the DNC bigwigs said that illegal aliens should be able to vote. Say black folks why should your vote be nullified by the vote of someone who shouldn't even be in the country? Explain to me how getting our asses beat on the Edmund Pettus bridge was so that someone who shouldn't be here should be able to nullify our vote.

2) Get an ID to vote:

Let me give you an example of how assinine this one is. I missed a package delivery on Friday. They left a notice saying it would be delivered to a center that has "cubbies" where I could pick it up. However, in order to get the package not only did I need the delivery notice, I needed government issued ID. That ID had to have the same address as the location they had on file. Apparently, THIS is not racist. Clearly if expecting a person to have ID violated civil rights laws, then the delivery company could not requre it. Yet it is perfectly legal. This is important. To have the same requirement so that people don't do things like vote more than once. Vote where they are not residents. Vote when they are not eligible to vote because they are NOT citizens, is considered racist. Why? Because someone at the ACLU thinks that it is a racist burden to require a citizen to get a government issued ID. Not only that. Black people are apparently waaaaaaaaaay too busy in their lives to get this ID even for elections they know happens every 4 years. Talk about lead time. Lastly in regards to this comment from Biden:

And a few minutes after the Jim Crow remark, when talking about the need to “uplift” communities trapped in poverty and to end “the legacy of systemic racism,” Biden offered an allusion to an old Obama lament: “When two equally qualified people, one Jamal and one John, both apply for a job and John gets the job.”
Depends on the job, in many cases, both Jamal and John will be told that they will hear back soon and Juan will be picked up at the local Home Depot parking lot.

Here's an example I wrote about in 2013:

“I’ve been turned down from McDonald’s because I was told I was too articulate,” she says. “I got denied a job scrubbing toilets because I didn’t speak Spanish and turned away from a laundromat because I was ‘too pretty.’ I’ve also been told point-blank to my face, ‘We don’t hire the unemployed.’ And the two times I got real interest from a prospective employer, the credit check ended it immediately.” [my underlines]
Or as the people in Lordstown OH found out: Jamal and John will have the factory shut down and their job moved to Mexico so Juan and Maria can get a job at lower wages.

But don't you worry Jamal. At least you won't have to worry about slavery and Jim Crow coming back....any day now.

Friday, May 03, 2019

Sen Klobuchar Is A Bad Lawyer

Imagine if you will:

You have been accused of selling drugs. You have hired Amy Klobuchar as your legal representative. After looking at the totality of the evidence against you, none of which includes any actual evidence of selling drugs your court day arrives. The judge asks how you plead and Amy says that you will plead guilty.

Shocking. I know.

Amy continues to tell the court that although there is absolutely no definitive or direct evidence supporting the charge that her client has sold drugs, since there is evidence that her client knew drug users and sellers and had "friendly relations" with said persons including telling one drug seller that "I guess you have to do what you have to do", the "totality of the evidence" shows guilt and thus her client is guilty as charged.

Preposterous right? What lawyer in their right mind would do such a thing? Well this is exactly what Sen Klobuchar proposed when questioning AG Barr.

Here are some important points:

And Barr is right. How do we know this? We know this because the report shows the many times Trump asked people to do things and they refused to do them. Hence since we know people have refused to do what Trump wants, then it is not a clear cut (as in beyond resonable doubt) case of obstruction.

Hanging that hat on Cohen is probably not the best strategy. Aside from that, offering support to a witness is not seeking to tamper with testimony. If that was the case then any witness called by the defense at a trial would be corrupt. Duh. I do wonder what the senator actually learned in law school. So Barr has to re-educate the senator:

Thursday, May 02, 2019

It's Not A Crime But Is It OK?

Here is an example of the assinine questions lobbed at Barr yesterday.

It is not the job of the AG to opine on whether something is "OK" if it is not criminal. It is the job of the AG to determine whether a crime (or civil infraction) has occurred. If one has not occurred the AG has nothing to do.

And to answer Hirono's assinine question: Yes it is OK because it is the power of the executive to fire those he can appoint.

Note on the Barr Testimony

This morning I watched a "report", more properly considered propaganda, on Barr's testimony to the Senate committee. In that report was a clip of Barr flatly stating "That isn't a crime". The tone of voice and look on his face underscored his weariness of having to explain to these "representatives" what does and does not constitute criminal behavior under the law. For far too many people, particularly on the left, that which they dislike is "criminal" for which "something has to be done".

On this same report was a guest who opined, incorrectly, that Trump, in seeking to remove Mueller was committing obstruction of justice. Why? Because Trump was trying to remove "the accuser". which if she had her law correct would indeed be obstruction of justice by means of witness intimidation or tampering. The problem is that is not what happened. Let me explain.

In the American system of law, a person is considered innocent of any criminal charge until proven guilty after the consideration of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. In this system, a person (sometimes a group) may inform the authorities of some crime. Let's say murder for this example. Person A may say that person X killed person B. The authorities cannot simply go and arrest person X just because person A said so. The authorities conduct an investigation. The probable cause being the initial statement on person A. The authorities may, for example, try to locate the body of person B. Say that the body of person B has been found dead. The police have reasonable grounds to say a crime has occurred. They also have reason to question person X. Why? because evidence of an actual crime has been found and there is testimony that person x may be involved. Here's the thing though, person X doesn't have to cooperate. The US Constitution's 5th Amendment allows that a citizen cannot be compelled to testify against himself (pleading the fifth). In other words, non-cooperation is specifically allowed for by US law and is not grounds for criminal prosecution. It is the burden of the state to prove it's case against any target.

Lets say that the case goes to trial. If the accused attorneys feel that the judge (or any jury member) has a conflict of interest or bias against the accused, he may ask that the judge be recused or jury member dismissed. Hence it is known that it is the right of the accused to not be subject to biased proceedings. It is not "obstruction of justice" to request these things. So let's return to Trump.

Unlike Nixon's Watergate, there was no crime being investigated by authorities. Nor was there a substantiated crime to investigate to base an investigation of. So the very first problem is that the authorities were set upon a citizen with no legal grounds to do so. But surely the Russian Meddling(tm) was "the crime".

If "meddling" in US elections by foreign actors was the actual concern of the authorities then Podesta would be in jail right now. Also a number of Mexican officials would be in jail (or expelled from the country) right now. The Clinton campaign would be in the dock for having collaborated with a foreign agent, Christopher Steele, to influence the 2016 election. However; none of these things, which have been established by evidence, resulted in the targetted investigation or prosecution of individuals and groups.

The Russian meddling "crime" consisted of:

1) Fake Twitter and Facebook profiles that supported and were against both candidates.
2) Supposed "fancy bear" hacking of DNC officials. You'll note that none of the media discuss how the Russian Meddling supported Black Lives matter[2]: Furthermore, it was clear that Mueller's team was composed of persons who were biased against Trump:

The president is ignoring one important fact: Robert S. Mueller III, who heads the team, is a longtime registered Republican. He was appointed by another Republican, Rod J. Rosenstein, whom Trump nominated as deputy attorney general. But publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found...

Mueller's critics, too, already had ammunition to criticize the investigators as biased, after messages were released showing two top FBI officials involved in the case — agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page — exchanged texts disparaging Trump.

Over 2/3 of the investigators were persons predisposed to be against the "target" of the investigation. 1/2 of whom put their money where their mouths were and donated to the Clinton campaign. And two individuals carrying on an affair and discussing "insurance plans" regarding the election. And yet with this clearly biased team, they could not come up with an actual criminal charge against the president. All the charges that came out of the investigation were either process crimes (People lying or whatever due to the investigation) or financial crimes that preceded the Trump campaign and had nothing to do with it.

Going back to the murder hypothetical, there is no way a competent lawyer would see people with such conflicts of interest seated on a jury or being a judge and NOT move to have all of those persons removed. But the president has an ace up his sleeve that a lawyer in a court does not. The president of the United States has the constitutionally granted power to fire justice department officials.

Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the president is given the authority to appoint – with the approval of the Senate – “Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.”

Congress is also allowed, by law, to “vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

And in 1926, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Howard Taft said in Myers v. United States that “the President has the exclusive authority to remove executive branch officials.” Subsequent court decisions narrowed this power somewhat for certain officials outside of the Cabinet. But few people doubt today that a President can remove a Cabinet officer.
Hence that Trump asked Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane to "get rid of" Mueller is not obstruction of justice because he has the lawful power to make such requests. Furthermore had he intended to do so he could have called Mueller into his office and fired him on the spot and broken no laws whatsoever. Now it would have looked bad but not all things that "look bad" are criminal. Which brings us to Barr's comment: "That isn't a crime".

To support the Democrats push to criminalize legal behavior or to punish legal behavior because it is done by someone they do not like is a return to lynch law.

Barr ought to be applauded for standing on the law and the law alone. What Democrats want is for Barr to make up law like the Supreme Court and lower courts have been doing. But since Democrats are so concerned with people who attempt to "obstruct", Barr should start going after the persons who lied to the Senate during Kavanaugh's confirmation. He should find out who supplied the Steele dossier and prosecute all involved for their abuse of the FISA courts for political gain.

Wednesday, May 01, 2019

Plainly Unconstitutional

From the Sun-Sentinel:
Abill prohibiting anti-Semitism in Florida's public schools and universities is going to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
And what pray tell are they calling "anti-semitism"?
The anti-Semitism definition also includes expressing hatred for Jews, calling for the killing or harming of a Jewish person, criticizing the collective power of the Jewish community, or accusing Jewish people or Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Apparently the 1st Amendment is unknown in the sunshine state as this shit
The Senate unanimously passed the bill Monday
Because if the 1st Amendment was known to these traitors and they could read they would know it says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And yeah, "Congress" includes state legislatures. since the 14th Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You can see the text of the current bill here: Of note:
2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective, especially, but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
In essence you're not allowed to comment on facts. And it encodes into law that such facts, like Jews are hugely disproportionately owners and other operators of "American" media, are "myths". The fact that Jews are responsible for a huge proportion of monies raised by the DNC, as reported by Jewish media outlets is considered "myth" under the proposed law. In essence the law outlaws the telling of facts. And somehow they think this will "help".

Now they try to protect themselves against 1st Amendment claims by putting in the following:

(c) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or the State Constitution. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to conflict with federal or state discrimination laws.
But the law as written diminishes and infringes on 1st amendment rights. Period.

They don't want people thinking that jews are more loyal to their own people (and Israel) but they'll pass laws in America to criminalize Americans exercising their rights in order to protect Jews from having to hear people say "hurty" things.

Now about that Measles outbreak...

How The Media Lies

Exhibit A:

This is why I saw to always find the sources of quotes. If a "report" fails to provide the reference for the quote you should immediately be suspicious of it.

In reference to this incident, it is interesting that it was a member of the UKIP party itself that apparently did this smear.

Monday, April 29, 2019

He Used To Be Trans

As "World War T" heats up:

A great lesson here about enabling behavior.

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Is AG Barr What Sessions Was Expected to Be?

It seems that AG Barr is perhaps what we thought Sessions was supposed to be. Currently the DC types are stuck on the Mueller report. While Mueller was allowed to drag out his investigation under Sessions, Bar let Mueller know that he had to put up or shut up. Barr saw the investigation for what it was and wasn't going to let that continue under his watch. But this is not what really separates him from Sessions. The recent action in Mass, is:
BOSTON – Federal prosecutors charged a Massachusetts judge with obstruction of justice and perjury on Thursday, saying she prevented immigration agents from arresting an undocumented immigrant after a state court hearing by allowing him to leave the courthouse through a back door.
I'm not entirely clear why the action taken by a judge in Cal. wasn't pursued but it is welcome that an example is being made of.
Prosecutors alleged that during an April 2018 court hearing in Newtown, Mass., Joseph and MacGregor allowed the Dominican national, detained on drug and outstanding warrant charges, to leave the courthouse from a downstairs back door after the judge instructed an immigration agent to wait in the hallway outside her courtroom...

n court documents, federal prosecutors offered up a partial transcript of the court proceeding in which the judge, defense attorney and court clerk refer to the migrant's status and the risk that he would be detained by immigration officials following the hearing.

"ICE is gonna get him?" Joseph asks the migrant's defense attorney.

"Yeah," the attorney responds.

Soon after the exchange, prosecutors allege, Joseph directed the courtroom recorder to be "turned off" for 52 seconds while the discussion continued.

The defense attorney later asked that Medina-Perez be allowed to retrieve his property from a downstairs lockup.

Reminded that the ICE agent was waiting outside the courtroom, the judge allegedly said: "That's fine. I'm not gonna allow them to come in here. But (the migrant) has been released on this."

When he was escorted downstairs, prosecutors asserted that MacGregor used his security access card to release Medina-Perez "out the back door."

I believe this to be a shot across the bow for other jurisdictions. While Sessions asked if/how the judge in Oakland could be prosecuted, Barr has taken action.

Expect to not hear much about this case unless the judge gets off. Even then. Here's the other thing: I've long thought that any family of citizens killed by illegal aliens who are walking free in the US due to local government action, should be able to sue said governments and the specific individuals for wrongful death. If the prosecution of this judge succeeds I think that such families will be able to pursue these claims since they will be able to show that the actions of the government agents are criminal.

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Mayor Pete Has a Problem With His Bible

One of the things I have "enjoyed" since the election of Trump and the reaction from "The Left" is how so much hypocrisy and treason has been laid bare to the public. Among these things is how Christians are starting to see what is in store for them once the Democrats (with the assist of some Republicans, to be fair) get ahold of the courts and other levers of power. Which brings us to Pete Buttigieg.

Mayor Pete has been picking on Vice President Pence, saying:

"Yes, Mr. Vice President ... it has moved me closer to God. ... That's the thing I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand: That if you have a problem with who I am, your quarrel is not with me. ...Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator."
In other words Pete asserts that God made him the way he is and since we [must] approve of that which God as made, we must accept his homosexuality and his homosexual behavior, including his "marriage". His is a very wrong understanding of scripture. It's hard to blame him on this because there are so many so-called Christian denominations that are teaching [and allowing] things that are not Christian.

Now it would be easy to understand if Pete declared himself not a Christian. Then he could assert whatever he wanted. However; when he blatantly misrepresents the faith it should not go uncorrected. So here it is.

First for Mayor Pete is Genesis:

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

So here we have established that God made [hu]mans as male and female pairs and meant for them "to be fruitful" (have sex) and multiply (make babies).

Since two males and two females cannot "multiply" that kind of coupling was not the purpose of creation.

In case that wasn't clear, Genesis 2 goes into details:

18And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
So man was originally "alone".
19And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.gave: Heb. called

So out of everything out there none was satisfactory.
22And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Two points here. I think the science conflicts with the "woman from man" thing, but that's not the point here. Point being that if you are a Bible believing Christian, the above is what you hold to. The important points being:

Eve was female.
Eve was the wife [help meet] of Adam
God declares that a man leaves his mother and father (at which point there was no mother and father for Adam to leave) and "cleave" (meaning join) to his wife.
So if it wasn't clear from Gen 1 that it's man and woman. Then Gen 2 further underlines the point. Since Mayor Pete is supposed to be highly intelligent, with his Harvard degrees and language skills, he ought to know this.

Which brings us to God's creation. Genesis 3 discusses the fall of man. Eve eats the forbidden fruit of knowledge (why didn't she get at that tree of life?) Adam eats because Eve gave him a piece to eat. They "discover" they are naked (among other things) and [hu]mankind starts the slow decline in life expectancy as the "original sin" takes it's toll.

Again this runs counter to what we know from science where human life expectancy has gone UP since we've arrived rather than down but again this is about what a Christian claims to believe. If you are a Bible believing Christian, Genesis is what Genesis is. And homosexuality comes after the fall of man and is *NOT* the creation of God but a consequence of sin . In this case the original sin was *rebellion* against God's instructions.


But in case it still wasn't clear as to what was intended as human coupling we find Exodus:

12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Not "your parents". Not your "fathers". Not your "mothers". Thy father and thy mother.

17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,
Neighbor's wife. One of the reasons why "husband" is not mentioned is because a wife was something bought. Just keeping it real. What do you think "Bride price" means? I'm not suggesting chattel but wives, or better said, their parents don't pay for husbands.

Lastly from Exodus:

3If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

This is a discussion of servants, AKA slaves. But notice "he were married, then his wife..." Didn't say his "spouse", "partner", husband" or any of the other things. A man has a wife. Period. Wife is female. Period.

There are those who like to do the whole "New Testament supersedes the Old Testament" thing. Well not on this point it doesn't. Mathew 19:

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So this is supposed to be Jesus speaking. A man...shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Nope, no husband here. Wife = female. Period.

Mark 10

5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

So it is evidently clear as to what the Biblical scriptures have to say on the subject of marriage and sex. So Mayor Pete is deceiving the public when he makes his statements that God created him the way he is and thus condones his behavior. This brings us to what knowledgable Christians should be aware of:

2 Timothy:

1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

As Pence said: Pete knows better. So did the serpent in the garden.

Tuesday, April 09, 2019

They're Rapists...Murderers....

A bedrock principle of U.S. and international law known as nonrefoulement prohibits the United States from returning individuals to countries where they are more likely than not to face persecution, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
-ACLU (sic)
They fled their homes in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to escape extreme violence, including rape and death threats.
-ACLU (sic)
Yet Defendants returned the Individual Plaintiffs to Mexico where they had already experienced physical and verbal assaults, are living in fear of future violence, and are struggling to survive.
-ACLU (sic)
The individual plaintiffs present uncontested evidence that they fled their homes in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to escape extreme violence, including rape and death threats. One plaintiff alleges she was forced to flee Honduras after her life was threatened for being a lesbian. Another contends he suffered beatings and death threats by a “death squad” in Guatemala that targeted him for his indigenous identity. Plaintiffs contend they have continued to experience physical and verbal assaults, and live in fear of future violence, in Mexico.
-"Judge" (sic) SeeBorg
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people. It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America,
-Trump Only one of these comments is "racist". Guess which one.

Tuesday, April 02, 2019

Science knowledge varies by race and ethnicity in U.S

By Pew Research

Given the recent rehash of the issue of blacks being given earning only 7 seats at Stuyvesant HS, I figured this would be a good piece to add to the [largely unneccessary] discussion.

I would like to bring the reader's attention to the lower third of the chart starting with "The main components in Antacids are bases". These kinds of questions reflect the kind of knowledge required to do STEM work. If Blacks make up 13% of the population and only 1/3 (Just grabbing one of the question about hypothesis about a computer slowing down) of that group has basic science understanding, then only 4.3% of the population has enough basic science understanding to even start in a STEM field. Since the average was 9% then you're talking about 1.17% of the population with what Pew refers to as "high on science knowledge scale". So hypothetically, out of 37 million black people in America only 432,900 would score "high on science knowledge scale". That's less than a million.

Another note:

Whites with less than a college degree did better than black college grads.

So does it surprise anyone that only 7 black kids earned a seat at a HS that requires a high grade on standardized tests? Is it surprising there are so few black people at the upper reaches of STEM? It can only come to as a surprise to those unfamiliar with the data.

Monday, April 01, 2019

Examining the NZ Shooter Manifesto

You can find the complete transcript here:

First: A big fuck you to the NZ government and the companies cooperating with them to censor the manifesto. It is 100% intolerable for any government to tell citizens what they can and cannot read. If you are an adult you should be able to read whatever you like. Reading does not equal endorsement of what is read. That some people may read the material and decide to do something criminal is part and parcel of living in a free society. And now onto the show. The shooter opens with a poem that I first became familiar with when I watched Interstellar. I'm going to guess the shooter also learned of it there. I suppose we should be banning Interstellar, right?

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
He quotes the entire poem (I believe). It's actually quite good.
If there is one thing I want you to remember from these writings, its that the birthrates must change. Even if we were to deport all Non-Europeans from our lands tomorrow, the European people would still be spiraling into decay and eventual death.
This is actually something The Ghost has pointed out for years. While many white people of a certain bent go on and on about white genocide, the truth of the matter is that white people are simply not breeding. Now there are indeed arguments for how a declining population can be beneficial to the environment, which the author does discuss. If one's society runs on a system that requires a stable, if not increasing population in order to stay afloat, then declining births is a mortal danger. The author goes at length about this issue and how mass immigration accelerates the demographic replacement of whites/Europeans in their own homelands. As a Garveyite who believes in Africa for the African, I cannot oppose a man who desires Europe for Europeans. It's only fair. What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine. What we agree to trade is fair.
1. In general Who are you?

Just a ordinary White man,28 years old. Born in Australia to a working class,low income family.
I'm not entirely surprised by this demographic. Under the current social environment such a man is at the bottom of the social heap. While SJWs claim to be "fighting the patriarchy" and "sticking it to the man", they are actually actively disenfranching the average and poor white male. They *think* that all white men have privilege and whatnot, but fail to understand that the elites who are running shit are rich and disproportionately NOT WHITE and generally unaffected by the shenanigans of ANTIFA, BLM, etc.
To agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to cause them to overextend their own hand and experience the eventual and inevitable backlash as a result.
And of course the "political enemies" did just that. Gun bans? Check. Censorship? Check.
Was there a particular event or reason you decided to commit to a violent attack?
Honestly the answer he gave for this was surprising to me. I think it bodes ill for the future and is probably why the censorship hammer was dropped (and the event dropped from the news).
Ebba was walking to meet her mother after school, when she was murdered by an Islamic attacker, driving a stolen vehicle through the shopping promenade on which she was walking. Ebba was partially deaf, unable to hear the attacker coming. Ebba death at the hands of the invaders, the indignity of her violent demise and my inability to stop it broke through my own jaded cynicism like a sledgehammer.
I consider this The Catalyst. Perhaps a better term would be event horizon. The one killing that makes one go "woah, wait."
The second event was the 2017 French General election. The candidates were an obvious sign of our times: a globalist, capitalist, egalitarian, an ex-investment banker was no national beliefs other than the pursuit of profit versus a milquetoast,feckless, civic nationalist, an uncontroversial figure who’s most brave and inspired idea resolved to the possible deportation of illegal immigrants. Despite this ridiculous match up, the possibility of a victory by the quasi- nationalist was at least, to myself, a sign that maybe a political solution was still possible.The internationalist, globalist, anti-white, ex-banker won. It wasn’t even close. The truth of the political situation in Europe was suddenly impossible to accept.My despair set in.My belief in a democratic solution vanished.
I had almost named this post The Ballot Or The Bullet New Zealand because I instantly understood what was at stake here. Do not take the above paragraph lightly. Once people come to think that they cannot resolve their differences peacefully and at the ballot box, then there is only violence left. The American Left is treading very hard on this thin ice with their Trump derangement.
Simple, white, wooden crosses stretching from the fields beside the roadway, seemingly without end, into the horizon. Their number uncountable, the representation of their loss unfathomable. I pulled my rental car over, and sat, staring at these crosses and contemplating how it was that despite these men and womens sacrifice, despite their bravery, we had still fallen so far.I broke into tears, sobbing alone in the car, staring at the crosses, at the forgotten dead. Why were we allowing these soldiers deaths to be in vain? Why were we allowing the invaders to conquer us? Overcome us? Without a single shot fired in response?
I had a similar thought when I watched the following movies:

Hacksaw Ridge

After seeing what those soldiers went through and what they were fighting for. I too had to ask what the entire FUCK is wrong with Europeans? Look, I'm glad they got out of Africa. I'm glad they stopped with the Jim Crow and other forms of discrimination. But the wholesale destruction of their own soctieties so that they cannot be called "racist" is the most self-destructive thing they've embarked upon. And the thing is that most black folk have not taken heed of Fanon's warning about the "false middle class" that aims to take over.

Did the groups you support/are aligned with order or promote your attack?

No.No group ordered my attack, I make the decision myself. Though I did contact the reborn Knights Templar for a blessing in support of the attack, which was given

I suppose this Knights Templar group is in hiding now.
Do these groups hold power/who are the people in these groups? The total number of people in these organizations is in the millions, the total number of groups in the thousands. People from every walk of life, in every place of employment and field but disproportionately employed in military services and law enforcement. Unsurprisingly ethno- nationalists and nationalists seek employment in areas that serve their nations and community. I would estimate the number of soldiers in European armed forces that also belong to nationalist groups to number in the hundreds of thousands, with just as many employed in law enforcement positions.
I believe him and you should too.
Why did you choose to use firearms? I could have chosen any weapons or means.A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source.A ballpeen hammer and a wooden shield.Gas,fire,vehicular attacks,plane attacks, any means were available. I had the will and I had the resources. I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines. With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines.
He's an accelerationist. "Heighten the contradiction". I wonder if he knows that repeal of the 2nd requires a 2/3 approval of the states. That's not happening...anytime soon. What will happen is that an increased number of unconstitutional laws will be passed and upheld by courts long politicized that proscribe the rights of the citizens to bear arms. In the name of public safety of course.
Was there any reason you attacked that(those) mosque(s) in particular? Originally the mosque in Dunedin was the main target,particularly after watching the video on their facebook page named “Otago muslim association” 206778229358786/ The video war entitled “ Very interesting video. Only for Muslims. Please do not redistribute ” that proved their knowledge of their actions, and their guilt. But after visiting the mosques in Christchurch and Linwood and seeing the desecration of the church that had been converted to a mosque in Ashburton, my plans changed
I do not have a FB account and cannot reach the video. If anyone has a copy of the video in question, please forward. Since I cannot view the video I cannot comment on whether/how inflamatory it was or what may have gotten the shooters specific attention.
Did/do you personally hate muslims? A muslim man or woman living in their homelands?No. A muslim man or woman choosing to invade our lands live on our soil and replace our people? Yes, I dislike them. The only muslim I truly hate is the convert, those from our own people that turn their backs on their heritage, turn their backs on their cultures, turn their back on their traditions and became blood traitors to their own race. These I hate.
This "I like them in their own lands" is a common refrain I hear from right types. I see this along the lines of good fences make good neighbors. His hatred of converts gives him common ground with his enemies.
Did/do you personally hate foreigners/other cultures? No, I spent many years travelling through many, many nations. Everywhere I travelled, barring a few small exceptions, I was treated wonderfully, often as a guest and even as a friend. The varied cultures of the world greeted me with warmth and compassion, and I very much enjoyed nearly every moment I spent with them. I wish the different peoples of their world all the best regardless of their ethnicity, race, culture of faith and that they live in peace and prosperity, amongst their own people, practicing their own traditions, in their own nations. But, if those same people seek to come to my peoples lands, replace my people, subjugate my people, make war upon on my people, ,hen I shall be forced to fight them, and hold nothing in reserve.
I cannot even oppose what he said. How can you be in opposition to this? Isn't this what the great resistance struggles in Africa were about? Self-determination for all peoples in their own lands with malice to none?
Do you believe those you attacked were innocent? They are no innocents in an invasion, all those who colonize other peoples lands share guilt.
Hmmmm..."colonize other peoples lands"...
Was the attack anti-diversity in origin? No, the attack was not an attack on diversity, but an attack in the name of diversity. To ensure diverse peoples remain diverse, separate, unique,undiluted in unrestrained in cultural or ethnic expression and autonomy. To ensure that the peoples of the world remain true to their traditions and faiths and do not become watered down and corrupted by the influence of outsiders. The attack was to ensure a preservation of beauty, art and tradition. In my mind a rainbow is only beautiful to due its variety of colours, mix the colours together and you destroy them all and they are gone forever and the end result is far from anything beautiful.
I'll let that stand and point to his latter statement:
Why is it that what gives Western nations strength(diversity)is not what gives Eastern nations(China, Japan, Taiwan,South Korea)their strength? How are they so strong, China set to be the worlds most dominant nation in this century, whilst lacking diversity? Why is that their non diverse nations do so much better than our own, and on so many different metrics?
I have made the same observation. All the companies that were wildly successful and world changing were NOT diverse in the least bit. Go ahead and disprove his statement.
Why do you believe you will be released from prison? I do not just expected to be released, but I also expect an eventual Nobel Peace prize.As was awarded to the Terrorist Nelson Mandela once his own people achieved victory and took power. I expect to be freed in 27 years from my incarceration, the same number of years as Mandela, for the same crime.
I find the reference to Mandela odd. Mandela killed no one (to my knowledge) and definitely did not go on a killing spree. I'm NOT surprised he called him a terrorist since the shooter described himself the same way.
Democracy is the only solution, why are you committing to force? Democracy is mob rule and the mob itself is ruled by our enemies. The global and corporate run press controls them, the education system(long since fallen to the long march through the institutions carried out by the marxists)controls them, the state(long since heavily lost to its corporate backers)controls them and the anti-white media machine controls them. Do not suffer under the delusion of an effortless, riskless democratic victory. Prepare for war, prepare for violence and prepare for risk, loss, struggle, death. Force is the only path to power and the only path to true victory.
As I said earlier. All this censorship and "unpersoning" of large segments of the population has only one ending. I've been warning people of this for years. Ballot or Bullet. True when Malcolm said it. True now.
To Conservatives Ask yourself, truly, what has modern conservatism managed to conserve? What does it seek to conserve? The natural environment?Western Culture? Ethnic autonomy? Religion? The nation? The race?
This is a very common theme on the dissident right. Conservatism is seen as Conservativsm Inc. The right wing of the left global political system. It has conserved nothing. If the Republicans were actually conservative there would, for example, be no homosexual marriage in America (or anywhere else in so called Christendom) and Trump would *not* be president of the United States. Conservatives are essentially whatever liberals were 10 years prior. All are deathly afraid of being called sexist or racist and everyone knows it. That's why every leftist in America loves George Bush and John McCain now. And since there is no effective representation of those who are not left I bring you back to the discussion of democracy. Ballot or bullet.
The Rape of European Women Invaders
I actually thought this part would have played a larger part in the "why did you do it?" part. However; in retrospect, I think his weeping at the cemetery had much to do with what follows.
Many of you may already know about the rape of British women by the invading forces, Rotherham of course being the most well known case. But what few know is that Rotherham is just one of an ongoing trend of rape and molestation perpetrated by these non-white scum. A list of wikipedia entries from the most well known British rape cases follows: dal
I had no idea that there were that many. I follow Tommy Robinson on YouTube and I still had no idea. When I first heard about Rotherham I was in utter disbelief. The British had fallen so low that in order to not be called racist they would *allow* their children to be raped and pimped out? These are the same people whose empire the sun never set on?
The failure of Assimilation Expecting immigrants to assimilate to a dying, decadent culture is laughable. Who would willing leave their own strong, dominant and rising culture to join an elderly, decaying, degenerate culture? What culture would entice a man, one of traditions, beauty, architecture, art and prosperity, or a culture of decay, self-hatred, childlessness, disorder and nihilism? More immigrants are choosing to retain their own healthy culture, year by year, and even more telling, our own people are beginning to join them, looking outside their own watered down and deteriorating culture to look for purpose and guidance from outside sources. The weaker we become the more immigrants will refuse to join us, refuse to partake in the cultural suicide that we extol. That should surprise no one.
I think this analysis is spot on. I actually have read and heard this very comment from immigrants. The West is seen as a dying entity to be exploited in it's death throes. I remember a discussion with someone who "reverted" to Islam. They made very similar arguments as the NZ shooter.
Green nationalism is the only true nationalism There is no Conservatism without nature, there is no nationalism without environmentalism, the natural environment of our lands shaped us just as we shaped it. We were born from our lands and our own culture was molded by these same lands .The protection and preservation of these lands is of the same importance as the protection and preservation of our own ideals and beliefs.
I bet a lot of people didn't see that coming.
Emotions rule over facts Stop trying to persuade the general population with statistics, charts, tablets and figures. A a one-point-seven percentage point difference may mean something to a few, but a ingeniously worded expression or brilliantly crafted poster will convince the many.
Unfortunately he is correct on this point. Personally I'm not much moved by emotion based "arguments". In fact I'm highly suspicious of those who make those kinds of appeals. Even here on the blog I go to great lengths to provide facts and figures and tell the reader where they can find information. As the shooter said though, emotions rule. It's unfortunate.
Accept Death, Embrace Infamy Death is certain, you may die in service to some grand crusade or pass away in a hospice, either way you will die. What matters is your actions during the brief time between birth and death. The worth of your life is not measured by the length of your life, but your actions during it.
I would think this has it's parallel in "radical Islam". I also think this may be one of the things the authorities may not want young men to consider. "Grand crusade or hospice, either way you die" is a pretty compelling argument...emotional and all.
There is no democratic Solution Understand here and now, there is no democratic solution, any attempt to vote your way out of Ethnic replacement will be met with at first with derision, then contempt and finally by force.

Democracy is mob rule and the mob itself is ruled by our own enemies. The global and corporate ran press controls them,...

This goes back to my ballot or bullet observation. Current events only prove this man's point. The censorship, deplatforming from public spheres, financial spheres, etc. is proof positive of his points. I had to think of the Joe Rogan program with Jack and the Indian legal person. I'm certain a large percentage of people saw her and said to themsleves "why is an Indian telling me what I can and cannot say on the internet?"
When anyone can be a German, a Brit, a Frenchmen, then being European has truly lost all meaning Make no mistake, the erosion of local and national identity has no come about by accident, it is a concerted and targeted effort against the European people.

The idea that a Frenchmen need not speak the language, share the culture, believe in the same god or even more importantly be ethnically French is ludicrous in the extreme. This is an attack on the very french people themselves and is a strategy designed to destroy national, cultural, linguistic and ethnic unity

I have long argued that the export of the American idea of "citizen" is bad. While America is indeed a non-blood and soil insomuch that those who created the *nation* were not indigenous to the land and that it was made of a varied ethnic mix, Europe is the blood and soil home of Europeans. An African from Cameroon who speaks French is NOT French. A Black from Jamaica is NOT an Englishman. Don't care how many generations he's been there. Similarly, I'll never refer to a white person born in Africa as an African much less an Igbo or Yoruba. Mind you the Chinese and Japanese think the same way. Oh and they are very successful and "strong".
Incite conflict.Place posters near public parks calling for sharia law, then in the next week place posters over such posters calling for the expulsion of all immigrants, repeat in every area of public life until the crisis arises.
Funny he should write this as we are observing Jussie. This tactic is being played out by the left for their own ends. This is why you should ALWAYS question news reports about signs and the like found in public places. There are people looking to make conflict in order to "heighten the contradiction". Don't fall for it.
The shooter was anti-slavery.
After an election cycle or two with certain Democratic victory, those remaining, non democratic voting, non brainwashed whites will see the future clear before them, and with this knowledge realize the impossibility of a diplomatic or political victory.
While I cannot say I agree with the time frame I can say that the general idea is sound. You only have to look at the late stages of Obamas presidency. If anything got Trump elected, it was the last two years of Obamas presidency and his embrace of BLM and trannyism.

I skipped over a lot of where he was calling for the assassination of various leaders. I don't agree with it. I understand why he thinks it's the way out but I think the ballot can be effective. For one reason only: large percentage of the population do not vote (particularly in the US). All across Europe there are nationalist parties winning elections. If they get enough power and don't do a Trump (talk shit but do nothing) many of the changes the shooter desires (much of which is common sense) would come to pass *without the murder*. Remembering that in a democracy you don't get everything you want.