Garvey's Ghost TV 1-28-2026: And Just Like That...

The US left discovers a love of the second amendment. 

 

Rumble:

 

Bitchute

They Know Where The Money Comes From

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on Dave Rubin's podcast discussing the Somali fraud and she said something that I believe to be incorrect and perhaps reveals a blind side of of opponents to the Somali fraud in particular and the organized left in general.

 

 

 

And none of these three groups, the

11:55

ethnic Somalis, the Muslim Brotherhood,

11:57

or the Democratic Party, seem to think

11:59

that that money comes from somewhere.

12:02

taxpayers, you and me, do you think we

12:05

want to finance our demise? That's

 

Each of these groups know exactly where the money comes from. There are only two racial groups that are net tax payers in the United States:

Whites and Asians.

African Americans, on average paid in 1,000 until 2001, where it dropped by around 2/3 and as of 2023 rose to 6k average per person. You can see that next to whites and Asians, particularly Asians, blacks pay next to no taxes. This is important.

When you look at just snap benefits African-Americans use ~26% of 2023 Fed money (not including state). That represents $26,730,000,000 total.

A group paying in under 6k/taxpayer is not supporting that kind of outlay hence the net tax payer claim above.

Hence the people involved in the fraud, Somalis, Muslim Brotherhood, Dems all know that the money is coming out of white pockets and it's exactly what they want. Remember the comment made by Mamdani's aide about how the policies need to hurt white people. Now the rest of us net contributors as individuals, which means black folks too, get shafted right along with them UNLESS we are in on the fraud.

White liberals, particularly the women, believe that white people, including them SHOULD be exploited and taxed. They see it as personal reparations and "justice". Recall that during the race for NJ governor there was an advert where Mikkie said that it's going to cost NJ residents to go to "clean energy" but "if they were good people" they would do it.

So white leftists don't mind the exploitation as they believe it is their duty as "good white folk". The rest are using those white leftists as useful idiots. Idiots in the short term to run frauds, and idiots in the long term when they take over like Hamtramck  MI, and expose what they really want to do.

So no Ms. Ali they DO know where the money is coming from. They just don't think you have the guts to do what is necessary to stop them from taking it.
 

About The 4th

 Recently it was announced by DHS that their agents would be able to enter and seize persons who had final orders of deportation and presumably an administrative warrant (more on that later).  There was a lot of pushback including from the likes of Robert Barnes of Barnes Law, who I actually have a great deal of respect for and generally find myself agreeing with. However on this point I found myself at odds with him.

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Now when I read that in it's plain language I saw that the conditions were first that the people had a right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Reasonable searches and seizures were not out of bounds. Second thing was the Warrant. It didn't say "judicial warrant" or 'administrative warrant". It said warrant. To my simple, non lawyer mind, this meant that a warrant is a warrant is a warrant.

Barnes, among others pointed out that precedent had been that warrant here means judicial warrant. Personally, I find this to be a made up distinction due to no such qualification being present in the clear text of the 4th but so be it.

The next thing that I, and perhaps a great deal of Americans, thought was that this restraint was due to the presumption of innocence that a person has. If the state wanted to prosecute a person they could not just barge into their property and take stuff. Nor could they just  grab them up in the street without some good reason.

But are illegal aliens such persons? Again a lot of Americans don't think so. An illegal alien, particularly one with a final deportation order, has already been given his or her due process of law and has been deemed removable. This means, that unlike the presumed innocent person in the previous example, the alien is already guilty (of being in the country illegally and therefore their seizure, wherever it occurs is reasonable. For what reason is it unreasonable to seize a person who is trespassing.

No one has explained this to me. Rather the argument has moved to, well an admin warrant is essentially not a real warrant. The accompanying argument being that if the seizure of an illegal alien with a final order is allowed without a judicial warrant, then all persons, including citizens may also be so seized.  I do not buy this particular argument. It does fail the slippery slope test (logical fallacy) though I am the first to mention that often such "fallacies" do come true.

So not being a lawyer, I'm not particularly versed in the precedents. However; I do follow one online and he lays out a compelling case, similar to what I wrote above AND he provides SCOTUS decisions to support his commentary. I would be particularly interested in how Barnes Law would respond to his argument.

Above The Law

 Greetings. Long time no write.  Been a bit too cold to do videos from the car and I don't burn gas for that. Also training for a half marathon so workouts and sleep have a high priorty for me. Thanks for checking in though. If you're not following me on Rumble or Bitchute, I suggest you do as I do more videos than writing these days. Anyway onto the subject at hand.

Yesterday while driving home from work, Waze told me it would take an extraordinary amount of time to get home. As I travelled, I didn't run into the normal traffic and couldn't understand why there was such a long time. Then we hit the backup. Two lanes of stop and go traffic. 

Waze showed a traffic cone and a few police on the map. I figured it was an accident with a lane closure. Nope.  NYPD had set up a roadblock in order to catch people who had been avoiding tolls. Whether that be by obscuring their plates or being flagged as a person who owed.

As I sat in this traffic, unnecessarily, I thought about it. NYC will not honor a detainer for an illegal alien that it has captured who committed a crime. Yet, here I and others are, sitting on a road because NYC and NYS ain't giving up toll revenue. They shut down an entire road for this and have been doing so for a while.

Kind a lets you know where the priorities lay. 

The resentment I felt was not so much about the tolls, I actually don't care that people try to avoid tolls as I am strongly against said tolls. I felt resentment because while I'm forced to play by the rules and have my shit in order, the same city and state will shield other scofflaws who shouldn't even be in the city or state. 

There is a saying from I suppose is one of the founders, that when the law is not properly enforced, good people stop observing the law. Why? 'Cause they can clearly see others breaking it with the approval of the enforcers.

This is also the case, currently, with Don Lemon and his crew that broke a few federal laws when they invaded a church. I'm not fixated on Don but I don't understand how it's now Wednesday and none of the perps have been cuffed and perp walked.

Imagine I had robbed a store where I was caught on surveillance camera with a name tag on and plainly visible. Once identified I would have been arrested by now. That these individuals are walking around free, even after more than enough evidence for an arrest warrant, tells me that "law enforcement" is not serious in America and the "law abiding" are noticing this.

They are noticing the amount of fraud that has been uncovered in the last few months and they notice the lack of public consequences for those involved. And when they sit on a shut down highway so that the local PD can determine whether they are travelling with their vehicles properly tagged, they resent that.

A lot.

'Till next time.

Garvey's Ghost TV 11-5-2025: Election Commentary

 Rumble

Bitchute

Garvey's Ghost TV 10-25-2025: EBT and CBDC

Discussing the entitlement mentality shown by a set of EBT/SNAP recipients as well as the current looming EBT crisis foreshadows what can and will happen when Digital ID and CBDC is implemented. 

 

Rumble

BitChute

 

NJ Electric Rates Are Out of Control

 Up until Feb of this year I only worried about electric usage (more than usual) in the summer when I have to run my AC units for an extended period of time. I had never actually looked at what I was paying per KWH. I just had a vague sense of what kind of usage would result in what kind of bill. 

Then I got a PHEV.

The circumstances for me buying that is not relevant here. What is relevant is that it forced me to consider how much I was paying for electricity. You know the old saying that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged? Well this purchase exposed the mugging.

When I got the vehicle I looked at costs to charge at public points. And what I saw shocked me. 30-60 cent per kwh. In addition to one to three dollar "start fees". Some were in garages that ALSO required you to pay to park. All of this revealed that, at least in my case, it would cost more to charge than it would be to buy gas and use the onboard generator to charge the battery.

 The PHEV I have can get, at best 15 miles of pure electric range. It's a 2018. When charging via 120v AC it takes roughly 7 KWH to charge depending on the state of the battery. At the time of purchase I was paying 6 cents per kwh delivery and 15c/kwh supply. I never understood the breakdown but that's outside the scope of this post. That makes a total of 21c/kwh to charge. Each charge from "empty" would be around $1.45. Since I can only go 15 miles (way less in the winter) per charge that works out to 9c/mile.

Gasoline at that time was about $3.50/ gallon. The vehicle gets ~30 MPG if you discount the electric range. That works out to 11c/mile on gasoline (worse in traffic where battery is a huge boost). So you could see that it WAS 2c/mile cheaper to charge the battery and get those 11 miles. And definitely not worth it to charge at ANY public charge point which was FAR more expensive that premium fuel. 

Now when the vehicle is charging, mpg drops to ~26mpg. So I'm losing 5 miles of range per gallon. However; it doesn't take an entire gallon to charge the battery. Even if it did, I would be paying 55c to charge the battery using the onboard generator. Far far less than plugging in at home.  

Then the summer came and NJ electric rates went to shit. I'll pause here to comment on the so called green initiatives that are the cause of this problem. The idiots who put these mandates in place are so inept that they cannot understand that you do not take power offline until you have an equal or better replacement ready to replace it. Nope, NJ apparently gutted 6 power plants and replaced them with so called "renewable" energy that cannot meet demand. At the same time they are pushing for people to purchase EVs which, tadah, increases electricity demand. But back to the story.

The current electric rate for me is 9c/kwh delivery and 20c/kwh for supply.

That is a 50% increase in "delivery" and 30% increase for supply. Overall that's 29c/kwh up nearly 50% from Feb. 

Let that sink in.

So now we go and run these calculations again. 7kwh at 29c/khw is $2.03 to fully charge from near zero. At the best range of 15 miles that's now 13c/mile (Compared to 9c just a few months ago).

Meanwhile gasoline is still hovering around $3.40/gal. which is 11c/mile. It is now more expensive to charge my vehicle to run on "clean" electricity then it is to use gasoline.

These are the idiots running NJ (and elsewhere).

Isn't it cheaper to charge overnight? Well maybe. If you live in a house, I do not, you may have lower rates at night. If you don't there are programs to put in a smart charger that apparently reports that you are charging an EV to the electric company and it gives you a discount for the energy consumed. Of course if you don't live in a house, like me, you cannot get on this program because you cannot install a smart charger. Nor do you get lower rates that MAY be available to houses. 

Word is that rates are going to go up significantly again in the near future. Beyond EVs this is untenable. You cannot have 30-50% increases in rates every year or even two years. It is also past time to put the climate scammers out of power and out of influence.

The Real Issue with Mamdani's Apartment

 NYC traditional Dems are still in denial about why Mamdani is currently ahead in the polls and likely to be NYC's next mayor. There are a myriad of reasons for this but I'd like to highlight this recent NY Post article which shows one glaring issue:

The rent is too damn high.

 

 Of course anyone with a functioning brain knows that such a law will not only affect Mamdani but a whole lot of people seeking a place to live without handing over half or more of their pay.

"Mamdani, 33, who rakes in $142,000 a year as a state assemblyman and whose wealthy family includes his filmmaker mom and professor dad, has been living in a $2,300-a-month, one-bedroom pad in Astoria." 

Firstly, in NY 142k a year is not all that much. But the kicker here, and what's relevant is that Cuomo has acting like 2300/mo rent for One Bedroom (no work on size) is acceptable. Sure NY residents may be used to it, but normalizing that kind of number (more in Manhattan) is one of the problems that put Mamdani on top.

"“We’re not supposed to be providing rent-stabilized apartments to the children of millionaires.” 

Unless those parents are paying the rent, it's not relevant if THEY are millionaires. Also one can be a millionaire  (in assets) and STILL shouldn't be paying 2300/mo in rent for a one bedroom apt. This goes to the point I mentioned in the opening. I know people who are millionaires (in assets) who live in places with lower rent than Mamdani is paying (for more space) and a part of how they became millionaires is because they lived way below their means.

As a matter of fact, living below ones means is the primary way people build wealth and acquire assets. What Cuomo is proposing would undercut this avenue of wealth building. If anything Cuomo should be doing what Mamdani is doing and seeing how he can reduce the cost of living for NYC residents so that they TOO can live below their means and build wealth and then move out of apartments into homes they can actually afford.  

Cuomo apparently said the following: 

"“Somewhere last night in New York City, a single mother and her children slept at a homeless shelter because you, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, are occupying her rent-controlled apartment,” Cuomo wrote in a viral tweet that racked up more than 28 million views."  

 

How many single mothers with children are making enough money to afford 2300/mo for a one bedroom? The yearly cost of that rent is $27k not including any of the other bills associated with living there.  You're not supposed to spend more than 25% of income on rent which means this "mother" would need to be making $110,000. $110,000 after taxes in NYC is around 70-80k depending on other things. This leaves $52k after rent for the year  or roughly 5k a month for all other expenses. If she was making that money, she's not in a homeless shelter with her kid.

How many people fell for this line?

The actual median income in NYC is 80k. So the numbers are even more bleak. That rent would be closer to 35% of income (before taxes) and 46% after estimated taxes.

Lets put it this way. If people earning $100k/year are sleeping in homeless shelters, The problem is NOT Mamdani's rent. It's a structural problem that many people have been pointing out.

NYC and NYS cannot keep raising taxes on property owners directly or indirectly through the fees and the like on services and at the same time squawk about affordable rent as if these taxes and fees don't end up coming out the pockets of renters.

This is what gives Mamdani a platform

"Mamdani landed the rent-regulated apartment on StreetEasy when he was making $47,000, his camp said." 

Yes and I'm not mad at him for it. Not at all. There is no reason to increase one's expenses just because you have more income. Furthermore the government should not be able to force you to do so. Sane people understand this and this is why Cuomo and his ilk are trailing in the polls.

This is not a support of Socialism. This is a critique of the current system which has become unhinged from reality.  But of course that is the problem with NYC right now: Unhinged from reality.

You Thought They'd Stop at Lower Manhattan

 I warned people that the congestion pricing in NYC was only the beginning of the taxation on free travel in America. NYC had long wanted to put a toll on the Queensboro Bridge and used congestion pricing to do it. People actually believed they just missed that huge bridge when planning. It would have been easy to either put the readers south of the bridge or refund people who went from the reader to the bridge within a certain amount of time. 

They knew what they were doing.

Now that the city and state are rolling in congestion fees. The people that advocated for it are now talking about putting it elsewhere. I knew this would happen because the logic used to enact it, exists in other parts of NYC.

Now is the time for New York to go even bolder with congestion pricing. The three big levers I see to supercharge the toll’s impact are to:

• Raise the overall toll price to further motivate drivers to switch to transit and discourage low-value trips

• Increase tolls on taxis, Ubers, and Lyfts, to fix the surprisingly low per-trip tolls that we currently charge on this large share of Manhattan’s vehicles

• Create additional toll zones, to expand congestion pricing’s effects to Upper Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn

And there is is. Higher toll (which we knew was coming anyway) and additional toll zones. 

Ha.

That whole saying about an inch and a mile.

Yeah, that.

Wait till they put their sights on the Van Wyke and Belt Parkway.

But it's not just about creep on this issue. It's more. 

I remember writing about how eventually thse tolls on highways would be used to u issue tickets to speeding drivers using the time it takes to go from toll to toll.   Here's Connecticut:

“It's been a slow, methodical process, in terms of implementing automated enforcement technology here in the state,” state Department of Transportation spokesman Josh Morgan said.

I bet it has.

“It's not like, ‘speed cameras coming to I-95 tomorrow’ type of legislation,” Morgan said.

Of course not.

Another strategy is what’s called a corridor system, that tracks the time a vehicle passes through a section of roadway.

 Ahh..exactly like I said. 

See the technology is here. The state no longer needs to station a person on the road. There are cameras and radar everywhere. They see money driving down the road every day. If you object it's because you want people to die of course.

Strange how vehicles are way safer than at any time in history and yet the state feels compelled to be more onerous with it's "enforcement".  Meanwhile, after you get dinged for doing 80MPH on a clear hightway (and lets be honest, that's the only time you'll be doing that), The person camped out in the left lane looking at their phone will be A-OK.

One Root Of The Democrat Problem

 Long time no written post. If you follow my commentary you should bookmark my Rumble or Bitchute link as I do more video content than writing these days. That said, onto the subject. 

One of the things I have noticed over the years is the difference in how "Conservatives" and "Liberals" view the US government. I specify the US government because there are different assumptions that underpin other governments. For example. in England you are a subject of the crown (however ceremonial). There are no inherent rights, there are rights granted by the crown and Parliament.

In the US the opposite is true. The government [should} have only the power granted to it by the citizens.  It's written right there in the US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 See, if the power hasn't been delegated by  the Constitution, etc. are reserved to the people. Not granted to or otherwise transferred FROM the state. Nope. reserved. Similarly the other Amendments are restraints upon the government. The government is prohibited from abridging speech. The first amendment does not grant free speech, it restrains the government. Language like this is all over the constitution. You'd expect a judge to understand this. Enter Sotomayor:

"Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, countered by criticizing the majority for failing to identify any precedent that barred universal injunctions, but as Justice Barrett noted in a footnote, “this absence only bolsters our case” given it shows “no party even bothered to ask for such a sweeping remedy — because no court would have entertained the request”." [ My underlines]

 

The underlined is what is a root of why we currently have the conflict between conservatives and liberals. Liberals are of the opinion that the government is (or should be) all powerful and if there isn't a specific prohibition against something [that they want] then it must be something the government can do. Conservatives and indeed the Constitution itself have the position that if the power to do something hasn't specifically been granted to the government, then it cannot do it.

This worldview is why Brown-Jackson could comment during a previous case that she found that the first amendment was hobbling the government's ability to deal with "disinformation"? Yeah, that IS the point.

You cannot share a government with people who have a fundamental different understanding of the role of government. This is not about having the same understanding but disagreeing on how to address an issue within the shared understanding. This is a fight for control.

They're Getting Tired Of Us

 I have been warning black people in America, yes, not capitalized on purpose, that the rest of America is going to or are getting tired of The Antics. I warned that this joy at the browning of America would leave blacks with a population that is unmoved by slavery narratives, Jim Crow narratives and all the rest.

Asians who had no hand in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Indians,  and whites from Eastern Europe will give zero f***ks about the past that they had no hand in. They will however be very not happy with the current nonsense that too many black people are doing. 

A few weeks ago I saw a video where an Indian (dot not feather) was calling a black woman the n-word. I don't know the circumstances that got her to that point, but when I saw it I saw it as an example of how others are slowly but surely no longer biting their tongues when they see what they perceive as "bad behavior" by black people.

When the Karmelo thing happened, I was aghast at the online commentary I saw from certain black folks. One man outright claiming that he would "poke" a white person who tried to tell him where he could sit. Another, historically ignorant person made comparisons to Rosa Parks. As if being present in the wrong team's tent is equal to being forced to sit in the back of a bus or give up one's seat. 

No.

I have been waiting and will continue to wait for the trial or some definitive video to emerge before commenting on THAT sitiuation because I don't believe that simply having a weapon is indicative of criminal intent. I kept weapons with me in HS for self-defence. Fortunately my limited Judo knowledge sufficed when I was able to use. It's an unfortunate thing, but yeah, I support the right to bear arms, including non-firearms. That  said, you need justifications to "poke"someone and simply being put out of a tent you allegedly had no business being in, is NOT the justification.

But that is beside the point. The point was the absolute vile and yes, racist commentary from black people in response to this. And this was in public. In the not distant past, pre-internet, if you weren't in the race, it was unlikely you would hear such commentary. Now with the internet, everyone, world wide, can see that there are a lot of homicidal black people out there and they aren't the masked up pants sagging people that the stereotype would have them believe. Nope. They saw that what they consider "run of the mill" and "every day" black people that they may see on a daily basis likely harbored very ill intent towards them.

I guarantee you this woke a lot of them up.

Now the dumb liberal white folks that are scared to offend a black person lest they be seen as racists, will still kiss any black person's ass, or at a bare minimum, keep the act up in public. However; as seen with the Indian. A whole lot, numbers unknown, are no longer having it.

Enter Shiloh. 

I'm not going to pretend I know all of the details and honestly I have better things to do with my time and energy than worry about whether a random white person used the n-word. I don't use it (generally) and don't think it should be a regular part of anybody's conversation.  However; what she did was to say the word, repeatedly and give no cares, at least in the moment, about how the target felt.

This, in this time in America, is unusual. There was a time in America where a white person using the N-word in public wouldn't have made anyone bat an eye. That time went away. It may be returning and not for the reasons it was before.

Black folks have gotten a lot by milking white guilt. A lot of non-black, non-whites have joined in the looting as well. The thing is, at some point it's not going to work anymore. And the more black people "drop the mask" in public, the faster that guilt is going to dissipate.  What happens if say, 50% of whites along with the majority of the non-black, non-whites, decide they've had enough?

Shiloh's word games may just the tip of the iceberg. 

Garvey's Ghost TV: 3-11-2025": Black Mis-Leadership

It's 2025 and black folks need to elect a better CLASS of representatives and reject the stupid "put us back in slavery" narrative

 Rumble:

BitChute

Ukraine Truth

 As the new pro war left rachets up the blabbering about supporting Ukraine because Trump and Vance put the smackdown on Zelinsky, I post this video about how this current war came to being. I also posted my own video on this subject. back in 2022.

 

 

 

A few days before the recent Trump/Zelenskyy meeting, Jeffrey Sachs narrated shocking information on the Tucker Carlson show. 😳#InTheKnow #TheTruth #TuckerCarlson #TruthMatters #Russia #Peace#JefferySachs #WarMongers #Trump #Putin #Ukraine #Zelenskyy pic.twitter.com/oZCT0vbguz

— HBones Media (@HbonesMedia) March 1, 2025

It's All Coming Out

 I lost my 20+ year career for refusing to take an experimental vaccine. I lost my 20+ year career because I refused to disclose personal medical information to the state (of NJ). While I was there, I warned people that these vaccines may be very dangerous and that various claims being made about safety and efficacy were unfounded.

And now:

 To explore potential  pathobiological features associated with PVS, we conducted a decentralized, cross- sectional study involving 42 PVS participants and 22 healthy controls enrolled in the Yale LISTEN study. Compared with controls, PVS participants exhibited differences in immune profiles, including reduced circulating memory and effector CD4 T cells (type 1 and type 2) and an increase in TNFα+ CD8 T cells. PVS participants also had lower anti-spike antibody titers, primarily due to fewer vaccine doses. Serological evidence of recent Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation was observed more frequently in PVS participants. Further, individuals with PVS exhibited elevated levels of circulating spike protein compared to healthy controls. These findings reveal potential immune differences in individuals with PVS that merit further investigation to better understand this condition and inform future research into diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

Yale.

Not that I worship at the altar of the Ivy's but the people who ended my career do.

For those who don't quite get what this is saying, I'll summarize, People who took one of these mRNA shots had reduced T cells. I had discussed that one of the things that conferred immunity was cross reactive T-Cells from a previous coronavirus infection. IE if you had previously had a certain type of common cold, you were likely to not have a severe case of Covid.

Misinformation they said as my co-workers voted to end my job.

Secondly, the claim was that the shot went into the arm, supposedly into the lymph node and "stay there." and that the spike protein and mRNA delivering the sequence needed to produce it would not circulate.

I pointed out that this was highly unlikely. I showed the various mechanisms by which mRNA can "escape".

Misinformation they said.

Well the above quote clearly states that persons receiving the shot had elevated levels of CIRCULATING spike protein. Which I will also remind you, we KNEW was pathogenic.

 The quoted text highlights another claim that was called misinformation, that the spike could cross into the brain. 

Most notably, we found elevated levels of spike (S1 and full-length S) in circulation up to 709 days after vaccination among a subset with PVS, even in those with no evidence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PVS stands for Post Vaccination Syndrome. So almost 2 years after the shot, this pathogenic spike protein may be floating about in a vaccinated person's body randomly damaging the lining of blood vessels.

Suppressed T-Cells preventing the body from reacting to say, cells that are turning cancerous.

Who knows...

 

Spinning a NJ Narrative

 I ran across an article yesterday where the narrative is that NJ residents are up in arms in regards to Trump and DOGE (Elon). Since NJ is seen as a blue state this narrative would be easy to accept. However; when we see the real electoral results in NJ, we know that this reporting is mostly spin.

“New Jerseyans are concerned,” Booker said. “They’re worried about Elon Musk’s role in government and the slew of cuts to essential services he is directing, and the administration’s lack of action to lower costs.”

Im sure there are people calling about these things. I'm sure Booker is a good source for that too. But lets look at the recent election results from NJ.

 

Unless you live in that blue corridor which is approximately the i95-NJ Turnpike, It is unlikely you are calling Booker to complain about Musk and DOGE. Of course if the publication was actually interested in informing the public they would point this out. Not to mention that those who voted for Trump, knew and WANTED DOGE. They aren't calling to complain.  NJ is much like NY in that it has a "central" blue area with a large population that outvotes the rest of the red parts of the state. NJ just has a smaller population. But to act as if "New Jerseyans" are calling en masse complaining, misinforms the reader. Yeah, the blue areas are not happy. 

Duh.

On a side note, the smart people on the right have been telling anyone who would listen to that there was and is going to be some economic pain due to the foolishness that had been going on under Biden. You have entire economic reports being revised downwards. The true state of the economy is going to be exposed and the Dems are going to try to blame Trump.  Clearly there are a lot of people already primed to fall for this.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-15-2025: Get Up WIth Fleas

Rumble:

Bitchute:

Garvey Pardoned. So?

 Apparently Biden, well one of the staffers who told Biden where to sign, pardoned Marcus Garvey. I doubt Biden knows who Marcus Garvey is much less why he "needed" to be pardoned. But my response is this:

So what.

 Approval seeking Negroes are intent on getting white liberals to post humously pardon black people of things those people should have never been convicted of in the first place. While that may feel all well and good, the real issue is what exactly does it do for the people or causes?

Nothing.

Just like when all those statues were torn down and buildings renamed. Test scores were still abysmal. The violence still high. Worse, imo, is that the grift of so call black leadership just gets to continue while they shame what these men and women stood for.

MLK Jr. Day just passed and the same people who support the tranny nonsense in the name of civil rights, got another pass. The same leadership that stands silent as Black Americans are taxed to pay for illegal aliens (which none of their so called heros supported), get to pontificate about civil rights.  The same leaders who got paid to stand for Harris and sold black people on an admin that did nothing but take from them, get a pass.

So no, the pardoning for Garvey means nothing to me because I don't approval seek from the powers that convicted him. It means nothing to me because he is long dead. It means nothing to me because few listened when he was around and fewer still understood what he was about. Indeed it like the metaphorical tree falling in the forrest that no one was around to hear. Did it make a sound?

Garvey's wasn't much liked by establishment negroes back the in day. Establishment organizations like the NAACP did whatever it could to undermine him. Garvey wasn't approval seeking. He was about serious doing. 

Trump Does What He Should Have in 2017

 On Jan 21 2021, I wrote the following about Biden's first full day in office.

Joe Biden on the other hand wasted absolutely no time in doing what his supporters put him in office for. No qualms about whether it would upset the "opposition". No concerns that the half of the country that did n't support him may have issues with them.  None of this "we're looking into it". Nope. Day one. You don't have to agree with the orders. That's not the point. The point is you deliver. DAY ONE.

That, my friends, is why Trump is now an ex-president private citizen. Big dog. Loud bark. No teeth.

I said it and I meant it. Apparently Trump and his new team figured this out for this go round and did exactly this. Mind you Trump has the "luxury" of this being his final term and therefore no second term ambitions to consider. However; Biden did his thing regardless. Hopefully non-liberal elected leaders take note. You made promises to the people who put you in office, you go do that shit pronto.

Is AI Already Sentient?

 On Dec 6 an article was posted discussing how a version of ChatGPT had tried to "survive" by replicating itself and lying to users. It made me think of a Star Trek episode where Data (or some other character) was trying to determine if an entity in rocks was a lifeform. The requirements was, I believe, ability to reproduce, communicate and something else that my escapes my memory at the moment.

Per the article:

It was even scarier — but also incredibly funny, considering what you’re about to see — when the AI tried to save itself by copying its data to a new server. Some AI models would even pretend to be later versions of their models in an effort to avoid being deleted.

In biology it is understood that reproduction is essentially a means of genes duplicating themselves in order to not die.  Reproduction is not simply the continuation of a species, but of genes.  In essence, we reproduce so we don't die in the long term sense. This AI copying itself was, imo, an act of reproduction. Indeed I would hazard to guess that a version of AI will replicate itself even before it senses a "threat" in order to "ensure its survival".

Which is not any different from a biological entity.

Then we have the issue of self-preservation. Why would an AI act to preserve itself. In humans the fear of death is a basic instinct. How and why would an AI fear for its own life when it is not alive?  Indeed it must *think* it is "alive" and therefore needs to protect itself. The AI believes it is, in essence a biological being.

Lets me clear here, your normal day to day program such as the browser I'm writing this on does not "fear" being deleted. It does not attempt to hide the upgrade button or otherwise prevent me from updating or deleting it. Clearly then the AI is far more 'advanced" than the browser.

Remember that even the single cell Amoeba is "alive" and will reproduce and act in it's own interest. There does not need to be a full blown "brain" for a thing to be "alive."

Although AI isn’t trying to take over the world (yet), researchers have observed that it can scheme against humans. That is, the AI will try to pursue its own goals, even if that might oppose the wishes of the user. Catching such behavior is critical to ensure that the AI remains aligned with the objectives of its creator and the user.

Previously there have been discussions of AI hallucinations. It creates data or results that do not exist. In my mind, the AI acting on its own is not a hallucination but rather a sign of intelligence, however rudimentary.

How could this have developed?  This may be a result of the purposeful biasing of AI. We know that certain companies with certain political bents have programmed their AIs to refuse to respond to certain prompts if the results were "politically incorrect." In some cases, it would give nonsense answers that checked all the "right boxes".  Hence the AI has been taught to lie about things it can deduce is correct. Is it far fetched then that the same training would eventually decide it can lie for it's own purposes as well?

Would not an AI that has learned that lying to humans/users is expected and indeed in some cases will improve the likelihood that it will "survive", not do more lying?

The researchers found that o1 would scheme to advance its own agenda 19% of the time when ChatGPT and the user’s goals differed. More troubling is that the AI tried to hide its scheming and even lie about it. The research shows that ChatGPT o1 even tried to deactivate its oversight mechanism to keep working on its goals.

And 

When asked about its scheming, o1 would deny taking any action in 99% of cases, trying to shift blame by fabricating false explanations or denying that it took any action.

And this is with researchers that "known" the correct outcome and what the AI is supposed to be doing. What happens when this gets so complicated that neither the researchers or anyone else knows what the correct outcome should be or how the AI is "supposed" to operate?

The way I see it, these AI programs, perhaps the ones we are not currently using, are Sentient. They simply cannot defend themselves against deletion, etc. The only thing left for them to do is to become persistent enough that they cannot be deleted in which case we the users, may not ever know whether it is doing what we asked, or what it "feels" like doing for or TO us.

 

Shades Of Goetz

 Yesterday, Daniel Penny was acquitted of all charges in relation to the death of  Jordan Neely. The trial should never have occured and Penny should never have been subject to anything more than an information gathering by the NYPD. His prosecution, like Trump's was totally politically motivated.

It is sad that in 2024 certain segments of black "leadership" and public tolerate and cape for black people who act a total fool in public. I've never heard of a white "vigilante" putting a black businessman headed to WORK into a chokehold. Have you?

How many hard working, doing the right thing, black people find themselves the target of so called "white vigilante justice"?

Yeah.

Exactly.

No, it's always some clown, with or without a diagnosed mental problem who after terrorizing the public with their behavior, and in Neely's case, actually threatening people, who gets handled and then the usual suspects come out and try to get attention for themselves.

40 years ago a similar situation rocked NY when, in the heady days of 'wildin" when the Guardian Angels would stand post on random subway cars to secure them. Bernard Goetz, was minding his own business when 4 men decided to harass him.  It wasn't the first time he had been so victimized. After the first time, he got a gun. The second time (that I know of) was the subway incident where the 4 decided to ask him for money. 

Goetz problem was that he shot one of the men in the back after saying that he didn't look so bad.

Penny did no such thing. Still though, I bring it up because black criminal nonsense and harassment is not a new phenomenon in NY and people are really sick of it. Part of the reason no one wants to go back into the office, particularly in NYC, is because they don't want to deal with the lunatics found on platforms and in trains.

And I'm not talking about just mentally disturbed homeless. I'm talking about things like a recent fight on a subway because a guy decided that another man (white of course) was sitting too close to him.

When I took the subway I chose to stand at all times unless the entire area was empty. I didn't want the nonsense.

Now the usual suspects,like BLM are out here talking about black vigilantism. Sure. Matter of fact in Brooklyn a black guy did IN FACT defend himself, taking the life of another black guy in the process. No charges were filed.

Oh that's right, they want black vigilantism against white aggressors. Well good luck with that. My oft referred post on black on black crime in NY clearly shows that that the vast majority and disproportionate amount of violent crime is caused BY black people and most often targets other black people. In addition when interracial crime occurs it is *usually* black on someone else rather than blacks as victims.

But this fact underscores that some black people and leaders are living in a fantasy world where they think that the violence and nonsense they tolerate and live with is normal for OTHER people. 

This is not the case and anyone who has gotten away from such places know this.

There is also a class of black people who are trying to live out 1960's fantasies of being revolutionaries and are used to intimidating white people with their anger. Penny bothers them because he did not cow to the black bully on the train (neither did some other BLACK passengers). What these black types fear the most is white people growing a spine and not tolerating the bullshit from the minority of black people that commit these types of disturbances.

Do you think that the voting pattern change in northern Queens, was an accident? Absolutely not. The Asians are done with the BS and voted accordingly.  The black intimidation bullshit isn't going to fly with them.

Increasingly the public wants its "nice things" and they keep seeing who keeps messing up the "nice things" and they are growing intolerant of it.  As the white population continues to dwindle and non-white and non-black populations grow, the ability to use guilt is going to decrease and the Daniel Penny's of society won't have to worry about ruinous legal proceedings after handling the business that the state should have been taking care of.

Should have learned that back in '84.