A little under a week ago, I wrote a response post to an article published by the Huffington Post, in which the author, a self described feminist, called for the “temporary” disenfranchisement of white males , supposedly in the name of “equality” and “progress”.
The article attracted a massive backlash online, to the point were the Huffington Post deleted the original article (archived here), and used the original link to the article to re-direct to this response.
Huffington Post SA has removed the blog “Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?” published on our Voices section on April 13, 2017.
We have done this because the blog submission from an individual who called herself Shelley Garland, who claimed to be an MA student at UCT, cannot be traced and appears not to exist.
We have immediately bolstered and strengthened our blogging procedures that, until now, have operated on the basis of open communication and good faith. From now on, bloggers will have to verify themselves.
We will hold discussions on putting in place even better quality controls.
In addition, we note the commentary on the content of the blog post and will submit it to the South African Press Ombudsman Joe Thloloe for his analysis of the opinion we carried.
Huffington Post SA stands aligned to the Constitutional values of South Africa, particularly the Preamble of our Constitution which states that: “We the people of South Africa believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.”
We further understand that universal enfranchisement followed a long struggle and we fully support this.
In addition, Huffington Post South Africa is a signatory to and supporter of the South Africa Press Code. We support free expression as limited by the following value as set out in that code.
5. Discrimination and Hate Speech
5.1. Except where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported and it is in the public interest to do so, the media shall avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth or other status, nor shall it refer to people’s status in a prejudicial or pejorative context.
5.2. The media has the right and indeed the duty to report and comment on all matters of legitimate public interest. This right and duty must, however, be balanced against the obligation not to publish material that amounts to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
The thing is, I don’t think they were actually sorry at all. This was purely done as a matter of self-preservation. At one point in my response to the article, I made this comment about it.
The more I read on, and see how ridiculous it is, the more I start to think it’s a satirical article, just to annoy people like me. Then again, the Huffington Post really has been terrible in the past, so it probably is real. At the very best, the article might have been submitted by a troll, and isn’t intended seriously, but the Huffington Post still published it, so at the very least, they approve of its message, serious or not.
And it turns out, the article really was satirical in nature. It was actually written by a South African, White man, with the express purpose of proving a point. The idiots at the Huffington Post, so blinded by their hatred of white men, were happy to publish an article that fit their narrative, without any regard for fact checking, discrimination laws, or even if the article was written by a real person. The details behind his motivation for doing what he did can be read here.
Some relevant extracts:
“I just thought you can say almost anything you want . . . not necessarily attacking white men. I think there is a lack of fact-checking in South African journalism. I thought, would it work?
Roodt explained he didn’t target HuffPost specifically and that his main motivation was “the lack of fact-checking in journalism”. He also identified a few stories published by South African media which he believes are inaccurate and which served as his motivation.
He says his blog – which promoted the idea that white men are the cause of a lot of societal malaise and should therefore be denied voting rights – might have been too aggressive or angry. Roodt, however, argues both white and black South Africans tend to generalise about other groups and that these generalisations often go unchecked.
Roodt says he believes the resultant furore might lead to a debate in society about race relations and journalistic ethics. This, he added, was a good thing.
So there you have it. A white South African man creates a fake profile, submits a satirical article to it that is highly discriminatory in its message towards white men, and the Huffington Post happily publishes it, without any regard for the accuracy of the information contained, or the highly offensive nature of it. To think, that there are actually people out there who think this a real news source. It’s nothing more than Buzzfeed tier, garbage of the highest degree.
Anyone who thinks this organisation is trustworthy needs help.
OMG, I’m actually laughing so hard right now. As I’m sure people have seen, the media has been flooded with stories about an apparent increase in hate crimes, ever since Trump became president. Just check out some of the headlines below that show up in Google searches for the term “increase hate crimes Trump”.
Most of these alleged hate crimes usually end up getting debunked very quickly and appearing on fakehatecrimes.org, a few days later. The media never gives as much attention to the debunking of course, as that doesn’t fit the narrative. Therefore, even after they do get debunked, most people still continue to believe that there is some massive epidemic of Neo-Nazi, white supremacists, committing acts of evil against minorities, in the name of Trump.
Anyway, one group that has claimed to be getting targeted a lot as of late, has been the Jews. First of all, there was the story about one of their graveyards getting vandalised. Then there was the stories about how there were dozens of bomb threats being sent to Jewish institutions. The media went into a frenzy over these “antisemitic hate crimes” and started screeching for something to be done to protect the poor innocent Jews, from all the hate they were experiencing (for absolutely no reason of course). Well, the graveyard vandalism, turned out to not be vandalism at all. But sure, the bomb threats were still real, right?
The typical “anti-semitic” hate crime, follows a very predictable trajectory. Usually, a crudely drawn swastika and hate filled message (often poorly spelled for extra effect) are found on the wall of a Jewish business or home. The media goes crazy and starts demanding something be done and there is a big moral panic over the “alarming increase in racial hatred”. A few days pass by and people start asking questions. Suddenly, holes start turning up in the original story, and this causes suspicion. Then the Jew who faked the hate crime is exposed
Israeli police say a 19-year-old man with American and Israeli citizenship is suspected of making threats against Jewish institutions worldwide.
Everyone with any understanding of these situations, predicted this would be the case. Lets just look at it logically. There were dozens of bomb threats being called in against these Jewish institutions, and there was never any actual bomb, not even once. A real antisemite wouldn’t waste time with dozens of hoaxes, because they’d know damn well that the only people who would benefit from it, are the Jews themselves, because of the victimhood points it would give them, and the fact that it could potentially have been used as an excuse to crack down on antisemites.
Police arrested the suspect in the south of Israel on Thursday morning over threats against Jewish communities in the US, New Zealand and Australia.
He was detained by Israeli cyber-fraud police, after an inquiry with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.
Last month an ex-US journalist was arrested for several of the threats.
Yeah, that was some black guy who probably had real mental health problems (not the fake kind the media talk about every single time there’s a Muslim attack), who was more than likely just doing a copy-cat crime, after seeing all the attention the previous bomb threats got.
In fact, that was almost certainly the point in the first place. Make bomb threats against their own people, give these fake threats massive coverage in the media, and hope for some attention seeking lunatic to copy them, then blame it all on Trump and white supremacy. Too bad it was a black guy who copied it instead.
But Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said on Thursday the latest suspect’s motives are unclear.
^See above. I think I figured out the motive very easily. This is pretty common behaviour for Jews. They seem to have a natural inclination towards paranoia, and are constantly expecting the next persecution to occur, at any time. If they aren’t being persecuted, they invent persecution against themselves instead, either to justify their paranoia, and demand some kind of compensation from the rest of society, or to use it as a weapon against their enemies (Trump in this case).
In one of the threats made against a Jewish Community Center (JCC) on 18 January, a caller is heard saying: “In a short time, a large number of Jews are going to be slaughtered.
“There’s going to be a bloodbath that’s going to take place in a short time.”
I wish I could find the video again. I remember listening to it at the time, and it was blatantly obvious it was a Jew making the threat. The voice was a bit distorted, but even so, you could easily make out the stereotypical, nasally, New York Jew accent.
Imagine this voice, but distorted and making threats.
Doron Krakow, president of the JCC Association of North America, said he was “troubled” to hear the suspect is Jewish, adding that he is “hopeful” that the threats have come to an end.
We’ll just have to see. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other Jews who were involved as well.
Investigators say the Israeli teen used camouflage technologies to disguise the origin of the dozens of calls.
“He didn’t use regular phone lines. He used different computer systems so he couldn’t be backtracked,” Mr Rosenfeld said.
Very clever. Just not clever enough, it seems.
In the US, more than 120 hoax bomb threats have been made against Jewish schools, synagogues and cultural centres since earlier January, according to the Anti-Defamation League.
And the media was having a frenzy, blaming Trump and Trump supporters for it.
There have also been at least three vandalism attacks made against US cemeteries in recent months.
At least one of which we know was caused by mother nature. I wouldn’t be surprised if the other two were vandalised for real though… but by Jews.
The teen is also suspected of making threats against Delta Air Lines, forcing a plane to make an emergency landing in 2015 in order to be searched for explosives.
Israeli’s minister of public safety Gilad Erdan congratulated the police for the arrest.
“We hope that this investigation will help shed light on some of the recent threats against Jewish institutions, which have caused great concern both among Jewish communities and the Israeli government,” he said in a statement.
There is a court order in place preventing the media from reporting the man’s name.
But not his ethnicity ^_^
He will be held under arrest until 30 March, the court ruled.
According to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the army had refused to draft him on personal grounds, after determining that he was unfit for service.
Probably mentally unfit from the sounds of it.
A reported spike in anti-Jewish incidents led to criticism of the Trump administration, with some saying they did not react quickly or forcefully enough to the hate threats.
Which was the whole point. Fake hate crimes against themselves, then use it as an excuse to criticise Trump. It was so predictable. As soon as I heard about bomb threats being sent to Jewish institutions, I knew a Jew was behind it, just from previous cases.
Last month, the White House denounced the threats and rejected “anti-Semitic and hateful threats in the strongest terms”.
But that damn antisemite, Trump, didn’t denounce them quickly enough. Sure, didn’t you hear that Trump is apparently a Holocaust Denier , just because he didn’t specifically mention the Jews by name, in his speech commemorating the suffering of Holocaust victims? He still acknowledged that it happened of course, but just talked about all “the people” who had suffered, rather than “the Jews”. What a horrible monster he is.
It pledged to provide “support to groups affected by these incidents to enhance public safety”.
And of course, in order to provide this support, they need more funds from tax-payers, and draconian hate speech laws implemented against people who dare criticise the Jews in any way. If they don’t get this money, and these laws, we might see more fake hate crimes being committed.
There’s an old Vladimir Lenin quote that rings true even today. And that quote, is this:
A few days ago, in my post about George W. Bush condemning Trump’s “racism”, I briefly mentioned the point that the reason why he’s coming out to condemn Trump, but stayed silent on Obama, is because the establishment Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin, and only exist as controlled opposition to one another, in order to give people the illusion of choice. The same can be said in pretty much any two-party dominated political system that exists in the world. One party gets voted into power, and makes decisions that benefit a small handful of elites in power, at the expense of everyone else. The people get pissed off and then vote for the other major party in the next election. This other major party gets into power and makes the same decisions (with maybe a few superficial differences in issues of minor importance), once again for the benefit of a small minority of elites, at the expense of everyone else.
Then, instead of voting for any true opposition, the public goes back to voting for the other major party who have seemingly “changed their ways” or “brought in fresh blood with new ways of thinking” or whatever. Any genuine opposition parties are pushed to the fringe, and the controlled media will either ignore them completely, or will slander them as radicals, who can’t be trusted with power. The fact that the two major parties have already proven themselves untrustworthy multiple times already, whereas these “radicals” have never even been given a chance, is never actually addressed of course. The media exists solely to maintain the status quo for the elites, by feeding the ordinary people information that is part of the approved narrative. It doesn’t exist to actually inform people of the truth. God forbid, if the people were actually well informed on what’s going on and were inclined to support policies that go against those that are approved.
However, it stands to reason that eventually, a lot of people will lose faith in this controlled media as time goes by, as they start to lose credibility for constantly pushing unpopular narratives, or for exposing themselves as liars. This discontent from the public, allows a market niche to develop for alternative media from the mainstream, media which will tell people things that the mainstream media won’t. The establishment have been able to foresee this eventuality, and have taken preemptive strikes to control this opposition, by setting up their own controlled “alternative media”.
These controlled alternatives then try to direct the energy of the opposition away from important issues, by instead focusing their attention on low hanging fruit such as radical feminism, or mass Muslim immigration. While focusing on these easy targets, they tend to ignore, or in some cases (as the video I’m about to post shows) dismiss the real issues that are of concern to us as a people, and which the powers that be want to cover up. Those real issues being, that white people are being targeted for genocide on a global scale, and that the masterminds behind this genocide, are overwhelmingly Jews.
Lets take a look at this video. This video was produced by “Rebel Media”, an organisation owned and run by the Jew, Ezra Levant, which tries to portray itself as edgy and cool, all while arguing within the established limitations that are approved for controlled opposition to discuss. The video claims that white people who think they have a right to live in an ethno-state are stupid for thinking this way. Meanwhile, Ezra Levant is a supporter of the Jew ethno-state, Israel. Of course for anyone in the know, this is hardly surprising. The double standards and hypocrisy of the self-proclaimed “God’s chosen people” is well documented at this point.
So the black dude from the so called “Rebel” media makes a video sneering at “alt-right white nationalists” for wanting to pursue policies that will stop us from going extinct. He also denies the very concept of “white genocide” even existing, and suggests that people who believe in these things are just as bad as “Black Lives Matter” protesters. Of course, this comparison is completely idiotic because:
Alt-Right white nationalists aren’t rioting in the streets, burning cars, or attacking innocent people of different races, unlike BLM.
White genocide is actually a real thing, unlike the idiotic hoaxes that BLM’s entire premise is based upon (a topic I’ve addressed before).
The video is getting absolutely hammered in the comments section, and in the “like to dislike” ratio.
So lets take a look at some of the comments, just in case they get deleted, or the comments section gets closed down later. Believe me, the people are really pissed off about this video. Rebel Media obviously underestimated just how much of their audience is made up of the “Alt-Right White Nationalist” crowd that they’re trying to direct people away from.
It’s nice to see that the video got this (deserved) reaction. I must admit that overall, I’ve generally enjoyed Rebel Media’s content, because they do at least talk about some issues that I think matter. However, when the whole concept of the “Alt-Right” first appeared, they tried to brand themselves as such, and redirect it away from the most important issues of all. This tactic failed miserably, because the true Alt-Right were too stubborn to give an inch in regards to their ideology and didn’t give a damn how controversial they were. Not wanting to be associated with the more taboo elements of the ideology, Rebel Media, much like the rest of the controlled opposition to the mainstream media, has instead tried distancing themselves ever since, and videos like this are a desperate attempt to feign respectability in comparison.
Unfortunately for them, that leaves them in an awkward position. Both sides of the ideological divide are getting more and more extreme, and the center is starting to disappear. Those who are left in the middle are pretty much being forced to take a side or get left behind. To the Antifa, anti-Trump, SJW crowd, organisations like Rebel Media are just as bad as actual Nazis. To the Alt-Right crowd (which yes, does include genuine Nazis), Rebel Media is nothing more than a “bunch of leftist cucks”. In a sense, Rebel Media is going to be left in a position where they appeal to nobody, and are hated by everybody. They’re too hardcore for the mainstream, but they’re too soft for the rapidly growing counter-culture.
It will be interesting to see what the future holds for the likes of Rebel Media and other controlled opposition to the mainstream. Will they move further to the mainstream, eventually settling into a more “Fox News for a younger audience” like position? Or, will they try to keep appealing to the audience they were set up to appeal to in the first place? Honestly, I can’t see them pulling off either of these positions. I think the most likely thing is that they’ll see their audience shrink and either cease to exist in a few years time, or hit a certain level that they’ll never be able to grow beyond again.
The New York Times is widely considered to be one of the most reliable and trusted new sources in the Western World, and has been considered arguably, the gold standard of journalism for more than a century. The New York Times has also been one of the most vocal critics in the media’s current ongoing war against Trump. With the possible exceptions of CNN (which has seen its credibility collapse at this point) or the likes of the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed (neither of which really qualify as news anyway), no organisation has been more vicious in its attacks against Trump, than the New York Times. With all the credibility that the NYT has built up over the past century, it’s perfectly understandable that people will be inclined to trust them. When you have an organisation like the NYT opposing you, and have the likes of Fox News supporting you, it really doesn’t do much to help your own credibility. However, I believe that there’s a major conflict of interest for the NYT in regards to Donald Trump, and I believe this conflict of interest can potentially bias their reporting on him.
Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim has taken a financial hammering since Trump rose to political prominence. In dollar terms, at least, nobody has lost more, Bloomberg reports.
By Bloomberg’s reckoning, the telecom magnate’s personal fortune fell from just below $67 billion on June 15, 2015—the eve of Trump’s presidential bid commencement—to about $51 billion this Wednesday. Where he’d once held pole-position on the Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index, he’s now in sixth.
A drop of $16 Billion in the space of a year and a half, is an awful lot. If such a loss really could be attributed to the actions of one man (Trump), you could probably expect him to hold a grudge against him.
Asset losses are a multi-factored affair and Slim’s personal value actually peaked in October 2014 when he was worth $81 billion—but Trump’s Mexico-bashing has apparently hacked away at the value of his asset base. In 2015, Forbes listed him as the year’s biggest billionaire loser. Although the Peso has rallied in recent weeks, it plummeted through 2016, forcing Mexico to raise interest rates. And when the Peso slumps, so does Slim.
Or so the thinking goes.
Just wait until the Glorious Leader actually builds the wall. If the Peso (and by extension, Slim’s fortune) is taking this much of a beating already, can you imagine how bad it will get for him when the wall is finished?
But a surprising flip-side to the 77-year-old telecoms tycoon’s monetary losses has been his gain in popularity. When Slim met Trump in Mar-a-Lago for, what the latter described as “a lovely dinner with a wonderful man” last December, many Mexicans were impressed. A poll conducted by El Universal the following month reportedly showed Slim pipping populist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as the Mexican considered best-suited to face Trump.
Yeah, but I’m sure if given the choice he’d prefer to have the 16 Billion Dollars though.
“16 Billion Dollars in exchange for greater popularity? Hmm, I’d be happier with the 16 Billion Dollars.”
According to Bloomberg, it’s not only Slim’s defiance of Trump but his calls for greater economic self-reliance that have appealed to Mexicans. A price war and regulatory crackdown pushing down cell phone bills might have helped too.
Anyway, you may be wondering how this article about a billionaire losing 16 Billion Dollars because of Trump has anything to do with the NYT. Well, it’s very simple. Look at who the biggest single shareholder in the NYT is.
Now lets be realistic here. A newspaper is just like any other business. Its main purpose is to work towards the interests of its shareholders. A successful Trump presidency, in which he manages to accomplish the goals he has set out to accomplish, will damage the financial interests of the NYT’s largest shareholder of all. Therefore, is it really a stretch to say that it is in the interest of the NYT to undermine the Trump presidency as much as possible, in order to prevent him from accomplishing his goals, and thus in the process, protect the financial interests of their largest shareholder?
I fully support the concept of an uncontrolled and independent press, who are free to report on things, without fear of government suppression for doing so. However, ordinary people seem to forget that journalists are ultimately just employees who have employers to answer to, and these employers are human beings with interests of their own. There is no such thing as a truly unbiased source for news. Every news source is run by a human being, not an emotionless robot, and so it stands to reason that every news source has the potential to reflect the interests and biases of the person in control. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re automatically going to be wrong when discussing certain topics because of it, but it does mean that people should consider these potential biases and conflicts of interest, instead of automatically taking whatever they say on board. Sure, this blog is also completely biased, but at least I’m upfront and honest about it.
I want you to cast your mind back to about a year and a half ago. It was at that time, that the world was introduced to one of the most iconic photos of recent years. I am of course referring to…
When this image hit, there was outrage all across the Western world. Suddenly, social media was flooded with people who had probably never even heard of Syria (let alone, the war that had been taking place there for about four years at that point), virtue signalling about how we needed to open up our borders and allow infinity people into our countries to live among us, so that something like this would never happen again. It didn’t seem to matter to these people that the child and his family were already safe and settled in Turkey, and the only reason they got on the boat in the first place, was because his father wanted to come to Europe to get dental work done, thus putting the child in this dangerous situation unnecessarily. No, we can’t blame the child’s selfish father for his death. It’s all Europe’s fault for having the audacity to control our borders, and not allowing infinity people to flood and overrun us from perfectly safe countries.
The dental work story was confirmed by the child’s aunt, in an interview with Sky News, as we can see in this video here.
Anyway, the Aunt made a media appearance again recently, and she had some pretty interesting comments to make, comments which more or less line up with things that I’ve already been saying.
The Western countries have done nothing to resolve the Syrian crisis, pursuing their false narrative instead, while the real situation in Syria stays underreported, the aunt of a Syrian refugee toddler who drowned in 2015 on his way to Europe told RT.
But…but… that’s impossible. The Western mainstream media is a bastion of integrity. Well except for all those lies they always seem to tell, such as the ones listed in this video for example.
“Our country is being destroyed by outsiders,” said Tima Kurdi – a Syrian-born Canadian lawyer and the aunt of Aylan Kurdi, a three-year-old Syrian boy who died in September 2015 en route to the Greek island of Kos from Turkey – adding that “Western countries are not doing anything” about that.
She said the death of her nephew became “a wake-up call to the world, a message from God, who told us [that] enough is enough,” adding that the Syrian people “were suffering for four years [at that time] and Syria was crying out to the world for help but nobody was hearing” to these pleas, as “there was not enough media coverage until” the picture of the body of her nephew washed ashore in Turkish resort city of Bodrum made global headlines.
That image prompted politicians in many Western countries to open their borders and take in refugees. However, “months later, they started to forget that image and just got back to their everyday business, but the suffering [of the Syrian people] continued,” Kurdi said.
Yeah, they opened up their borders alright. The problem though, is that they weren’t just opened to Syrians fleeing the war. They were opened up to pretty much the entirety of the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, and this has caused all kinds of chaos in Europe.
She went on to say that the West not only did “nothing to end this terrible war,” but also conducted a “terrible” regime change policy in Syria that actually only made the situation even worse. The Western funding of the so-called moderate rebels only prolongs the suffering of the Syrian people, Kurdi stressed, adding that “there are no moderate rebels in Syria.”
There was no “also” about the attempted regime change. Getting rid of Assad was the sole reason that the US and its allies, had any interest in interfering in the war. They wanted to do this because Assad is one of Iran’s closest allies in the region, and thus, one of the greatest threats to Israel.
“When [Western governments] fund the ‘moderate’ rebels, their [aid] somehow eventually ends up in the hands of the most powerful groups on the ground, which are Al-Nusra Front and Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL],” she said.
It’s just an unlucky chance occurrence that “somehow”, the weapons intended for the non-existent “moderate rebels” always seems to end up in the hands of the terrorist groups that Assad and Russia are fighting against, and which the US also claims to be against (yet won’t cooperate with Russia and the Syrian government against them).
The military solution would never work in Syria, Kurdi said, and “we will just see more suffering and more people will die.” She added that she does not take any side in this conflict and supports neither Syrian President Bashar Assad nor the opposition, but she had talked to many Syrians who live in refugee camps in Turkey, and believes that the Western media coverage of the Syrian conflict is biased.
The Western media report that “only President Bashar [Assad] kills his own people,” she said, adding that this sounds absurd to the Syrians. “I want people to understand one thing: if President Assad wants to stay in power in his country, he has to fight for his country but he would not kill his own people as he needs their support.”
But…but… he’s clearly insane. Sure, he needs their support to maintain power, but clearly, he’s just brutally murdering his own citizens, because he’s an unfeeling monster, who takes a sadistic pleasure in murdering his own people for absolutely no reason.
Also, it doesn’t seem to matter if he’s killing them, because the Syrian people are all clearly stupid, seeing as they chose to re-elect him anyway. That narrative makes perfect sense, right?
The reports in the West on Syria “do not make sense,”
as “there is more than just the [Syrian] government and Russia there, there are many rebels, who are fighting and killing my people,” she said, adding that “nobody [in the West] reports about rape” committed by the rebels and stressing that those stories are “terrible.”
If I didn’t know better, I would start thinking that maybe the West has a biased agenda here, and are trying to demonise only one side in this conflict, while ignoring the atrocities committed by the other.
Tima Kurdi admitted that Assad’s forces “did hurt the Syrian people,” but did so unintentionally. She also stressed that Syria was “peaceful and safe” before the war.
EXCEPT FOR ALL THOSE TIMES THE BRUTAL MADMAN ASSAD WOULD BARREL BOMB HIS OWN PEOPLE FOR NO REASON!!!!
“Most Syrian people were just living their lives before the war and did not get involved in any politics,” she said, adding that “all kinds of religions” co-existed peacefully in Syria. “Sunni, Shia, Druze, Alawites, Christians – we all lived together and respected each other,” Kurdi, who was born and initially lived in Damascus, told RT, adding that “most Syrian people did not want to leave their homes” when the war came.
She then addressed the issue of the refugee crisis and said that the only way to stop it is to put an end to the war in Syria.
Ideally, that would be the case, but as I’ve said before, helping the Syrian people, was never the real motivation behind this push for “refugees” to enter Europe. It was just a convenient excuse to justify it to the public. As soon as the Syrian war ends, the powers that be, will just try to find some other excuse to justify the fact that millions of people from countries other than Syria are entering Europe, allegedly to escape the Syrian civil war.
“I encourage the governments of each country to help find a political solution and [to stop violence] in my country. Bring peace to Syria so that you won’t need to see those refugees anymore,” she told RT.
I can think of one political solution that might solve this problem.
Now of course, RT is funded by the Russian government, so it’s understandable that people might be hesitant to take any information they provide at face value (if only people were equally skeptical towards the likes of CNN, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, etc.). So rather than just taking the text at face value, here’s a video of the woman actually saying these things.
I’m sure we’re all well aware at this point of the epidemic of violence that Muslim migrants have been committing against native European women. We’re also aware at this point that Germany, the country which is hosting the largest overall number of them (though in proportion to population size, Sweden still has them beat), has been one of the most badly affected countries of all. Needless to say, this sort of thing has a tendency to make people angry, and really, why shouldn’t they be angry? It’s perfectly understandable that the people would be starting to get a little restless, watching these almost constant attacks being committed against them by outsiders whom they’ve welcomed with open arms into their country.
So what’s Germany to do in order to quell this anger? Well, arresting people for “hate speech” for simply criticisingthe government’spolicies was a nice start. As we all know, when your government invites millions of hostile invaders to settle in your country, and these invaders start murdering and raping your people en masse, the real dangerous criminals that need to be stopped, are ordinary citizens who might say mean, hurtful truths on the internet, about these invaders. Unfortunately, sending the modern day equivalent of the Stasi to “disappear” thought criminals in the middle of the night, while effective at intimidating people, does not necessarily convince them that you have the moral highground.
And that brings us to the main point of this post. If the German people are starting to get angry about all the attacks on their women, then what they need is to see that the reverse could happen as well, in order to make them understand that all people are exactly the same, and they shouldn’t be noticing certain patterns that seem to be occurring and allowing it to anger them so much. So, some enterprising German crime TV show, broadcast a scene of three ethnic German men ganging up and attacking a Muslim woman who was walking alone at night… something which I don’t think has ever actually happened at all, and even if it has, happens at such a low rate as to be statistically insignificant in comparison to the countless numbers of attacks perpetuated by Muslim men on ethnic German women. Let’s take a look.
Now obviously, this isn’t the kind of footage that is being passed off as “real”. However, just the image of ethnic German men attacking a Muslim woman, fictional or not, is enough to stick in a person’s mind. Kind of like how if you were to imagine an interracial relationship (in America particularly because that’s where most of our popular culture comes from), what do you think the most common interracial relationship is, in which one partner is white, and the other is of a different race? If I was to guess what you were thinking, it would probably be a black man with a white (usually blonde) woman. In reality, a white woman with a Hispanic man, or a white man with a Hispanic or Asian woman, are all more likely than a black man/white woman relationship.
However, despite how uncommon the aforementioned black man/white woman relationship is in comparison, it’s usually the first one people imagine, because that is the one that is most often portrayed on TV and in movies.
That is the power that the media has. They can take an image of something that isn’t really that common, but give it extra exposure that is disproportionate to it’s frequency in real life, and convince people that it’s more common than it really is. It’s like with the current promotion of transgender people by the media these days. We see a lot more trans celebrities, we see a lot more protests from trans activists, and we see more attempts by lawmakers to appease their demands with regards to toilets, showers, changing rooms, pronouns, etc. With how much time and attention they have been getting the last few years, you would think there would be a really large amount of them, at least 2% of the population or so. In reality, the best estimates available currently suggests that it’s only about 0.3% of the population, but such is the attention that they are receiving these days, that it’s easy to believe that there are a lot more than there really are.
This is the same kind of logic that applies to this video of German men attacking a Muslim woman. The whole point behind it, is to use this effect to trick people into thinking that this sort of thing actually happens, in order to undermine the rightful anger that the German people are feeling right now about the actual attacks that are happening against them. This sort of distortion of reality is right out of the Orwellian playbook, and really illustrates the contempt that the German state and the controlled media, has towards its people. I only hope that Merkel is defeated in the election this year, and that the German media ends up in a similar dire position in regards to their level of public trust, as the American media is now.
Just listen to the sad music. Doesn’t it just tug on your heartstrings? You should probably be lobbying your governments to declare war on Russia, in order to stop this carnage.
The past few days, social media has been flooded with countless uninformed normies virtue signalling about all the terrible atrocities apparently being committed in Aleppo right now by Russia and the Syrian government. None of these people gave a damn about this conflict before (in fact, I’m sure many didn’t even know it was even taking place), but now that the media is flooding us with stories about what is allegedly happening, everyone is tripping over themselves trying to portray themselves as good caring people who are concerned about the “poor innocent civilians experiencing a genocide at the hands of the butchers, Putin and Assad”. Gotta get that attention and supply of Facebook likes somehow, no matter how desperate it makes you look. Too bad the whole narrative is based on nothing but lies.
So lets take a look at what has actually been happening. I’ll probably be repeating a lot of points that I’ve already made in previous posts, but it’s necessary in order to really explain this situation properly. So here it goes.
-The US trains and arms a bunch of terrorists allegedly to fight ISIS. Yet despite the fact that these people supposedly exist to fight ISIS, the US instead seems more concerned with toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad, the secular ruler of Syria who is also fighting against ISIS in the ongoing Syrian civil war. Of course this doesn’t make any sense, but it relies on the fact that the general public are too uninformed to realise that Assad and his allies are opposed to ISIS.
-The official reason America gives for wanting to see the Syrian government go is to “bring democracy”. This is a lie seeing as Assad is democratically elected in an election that has international observers from 30 countries who claim it was fair and transparent.
-America claims that Assad (a London educated medical doctor) is violating human rights somehow. Of course they never provide any evidence for these claims, nor do they explain why the Syrian people would democratically re-elect him in a landslide victory, if he’s really such a monster.
-Meanwhile, America is allied with Saudi Arabia who are arguably the worst human rights abusing regime on the planet, proving that they don’t give a damn about human rights and obviously have ulterior motives in toppling the Assad regime. Mainstream Western media is complicit in this by not pointing out the hypocrisy.
-It later comes out in Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are aiding ISIS, one of the main opposition forces that the Syrian government are fighting against, and America is fully aware of this.
-Despite supposedly being against ISIS, America do nothing about this and continue to be more concerned with toppling Assad than stopping the opposition, of which ISIS and Al Nusra are the main groups and which are a far greater threat to the world than Assad.
-It also comes out in Wikileaks that the real reason America wants to topple Assad is to strengthen Israel’s position in the region.
-Assad, the democratically elected, legal Syrian ruler, asks for help from his Russian allies to stop the terrorists. Russia agrees.
-Russia makes more progress in a few months pushing back terrorists than the West managed in the previous 4 years of allegedly trying to do the same thing.
-In violation of international law (as neither the recognised Syrian government or the UN security council signed off on it), America sends special forces into Syria where terrorists are operating, AFTER Russia starts pushing the terrorists back. Russia believes they are doing this in order to use their own people as human shields to protect the terrorists from Russian bombs.
-US general admits that this plan would start a war between Russia and America.
*Again, I’d like to reiterate that America has no right under international law to even be operating in Syria because they haven’t been given permission by either the legal Syrian government, or the UN security council to be there. Russia on the other hand was invited by the Syrian government, meaning they do have the right to be there. Therefore, if Russia threatens America over their actions in Syria, it is justified. American threats against Russia aren’t.*
-Trump gets elected and makes it clear he wants to work with Russia rather than against them. This causes problems for the original plan which was for Hillary Clinton to win the election and continue working against Russia in the region, possibly to the point of starting a nuclear war with them.
-Mainstream media starts putting out propaganda videos like the one at the top of this post, to tug on the heartstrings of ordinary, uninformed western citizens, hoping somehow that the shift in public opinion will be strong enough to push for support of the original plan of declaring war on Russia.
-This is the exact opposite of what most people want, which is for this war to end, and Assad and Russia liberating Aleppo is a necessary step in order to bring this end closer.
-It also would never have gotten this far if the West, which claims to care about human rights, hadn’t supported the terrorists in the first place. It could have been ended years ago otherwise.
-Aleppo has been under the control of ISIS and other terrorist groups the past few years btw. Would we really rather see Syria and Russia pull back on the offensive and leave groups like that in control of the city? Or, would we rather see Assad and Russia crush them, and liberate the city from their control?
-Assad himself even calls out the mainstream media on their bullshit between timestamps 15:22 and 17:32 in the following video.
This is the alleged monster who who is supposedly committing a genocide right now.
So we have three possible narratives here and only one can be true.
1-The Syrian people democratically re-elected a brutal monster who butchers them for no reason in a free election, in a landslide, because they’re stupid, and now need their human rights protected by countries which are allied with the likes of Saudi Arabia.
2-The international observers who say the election was free and transparent, are all liars and the elections weren’t actually free at all.
3- The US government ,which has lied in the past multiple times, for example, regarding their reasons behind invading Iraq and Afghanistan, and has a history of toppling regimes they don’t approve of, are the ones who are lying this time as well when they claim Assad is a brutal tyrant who needs to removed, and they have ulterior motives for wanting to get rid of him, something which Wikileaks backs up.
I know which narrative makes most sense to me. And I hope others can see it now too.
Holy shit, what an eventful few days it has been. I’m not a superstitious man myself, but from looking at everything that has happened recently, I can only come to one conclusion. Some force more powerful than ourselves (the universe itself perhaps), seems to be causing certain events to unfold right now, for the sole purpose of reinforcing everything that Trump has said, has been right, and that people should vote for him in November and change course, while it is still possible to do so. I mean, lets take a look at some things that have happened recently.
Remember when Trump “Generalised all Mexican people as rapists”?
No, me neither, because he never did that. Although that didn’t stop the biased media claiming falsely that he did.
What he did say (in reference to Mexicans crossing the border illegally) was that many of these people who were making this illegal crossing were not Mexico’s best people, and that among them were rapists. Don’t believe me, listen to his own words.
Notice how he said that Mexico wasn’t sending its best people? And notice how he said that some who were coming are probably good people? In other words, he didn’t refer to all Mexicans as rapists. He just said that many of those who were coming illegally are, while the majority of good Mexican people (who he didn’t refer to as rapists) stay in Mexico.
And keep in mind as well, that he wasn’t just calling these illegal Mexican immigrants, rapists, for no reason whatsoever. He was simply stating something which the media already knew to be true. About 9 months before he even made this speech, The Huffington Post (one of the most blatantly anti-Trump newspapers out there) posted an article which stated that 80% of women who crossed the Mexican border, were raped along the way.
So 80% of women making the journey were raped along the way, and the men who raped them were making the same journey. Therefore it’s simply a fact to say that there are rapists who are crossing the border from Mexico into the US. Unfortunately, we live in a world were the truth doesn’t matter. Stating the simple fact that there are rapists from Mexico coming to America illegally, can cause offence to other Mexican people, just because they happen to be the same race as these rapists. Therefore, in our insane, politically correct world, the feelings of these people is more important than the safety and wellbeing of American women. We should sooner allow American women to be raped than say mean but truthful things about Mexican rapists, because it might hurt the feelings of non-rapist Mexicans if this is said.
In fact, it isn’t even just Mexicans specifically that might find these truthful things that Trump said to be offensive. Latino people in general are likely to be offended because in their minds, “Mexican” is just a codeword for “Latinos” in general. Such was the case with a Latino activist by the name of Tony Yapias, who despite being from Peru himself, felt that Trump’s comments about illegal Mexican’s being rapists, was offensive to all Latino people.
But in a hilarious twist of incredible irony, Yapias himself is now being charged with rape. Can you really imagine how that must make Trump’s detractors look? Here’s a prominent Latino man protesting against Trump for generalising all Latinos as rapists (something Trump never even did to begin with), and then he himself gets charged with rape. This is something that is simply beyond satire and it really plays into Trump’s hands. Despite the fact that Trump never even made such a generalisation, to the ordinary uninformed American voter who sees something like this happening, it’s just going to look as if it proves his point about them, even though it was a media lie, rather than a point he ever actually made.
But this isn’t all that has happened. There have been other incidents as well. Remember how Trump managed to offend a lot of people with his proposal to ban Muslim immigration to America if he was elected? One of the points he made was that Muslims don’t tend to integrate and assimilate into their host societies well. Well now we have the Muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan outright telling immigrants NOT TO INTEGRATE.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan, while on a trip to the northern U.S. city of Chicago Thursday, argued that new immigrants in America should not have to assimilate into American culture, but the government should instead do more to help them build “cohesive communities.”
“It’s not the immigrant’s job to integrate into their host society. The host society needs to do more to accommodate them instead.”
“One of the lessons from around the world is that a laissez faire or hands-off approach to social integration doesn’t work. We need rules, institutions and support to enable people to integrate into cohesive communities and for the avoidance of doubt, I don’t mean assimilation, I mean integration, and there’s a difference,” Khan said. “People shouldn’t have to drop their cultures and traditions when they arrive in our cities and countries.”
And why shouldn’t they give them up? Many cultural practices and traditions from Islamic countries such as the way they treat women and gay people, Sharia Law, polygny, female genital mutialtion, halal slaughter of animals, sexual exploitation of little boys, etc., are completely incompatible with our own Western values. Why should we allow you to keep up cultures and traditions, which are incompatible with our own in the countries that we built? If you want to maintain your primitive and barbaric practices then do so in your home countries rather than inflicting it upon us. You want to live in our superior countries, you play by our rules. Otherwise, fuck off back to the failed country that you crawled out of.
In the past, Trump called for a total ban on Muslim immigration into the U.S., but has since softened his position and said he would only ban immigration from countries with a “proven history of terrorism.”
Which pretty much disqualifies every Muslim majority country anyway so it doesn’t make much of a difference.
“We play straight into the hands of those who seek to divide us, of extremists and terrorists around the world, when we imply that it’s not possible to hold Western values dear and to be a Muslim,” Khan said.
And yet there’s not a single Muslim majority country on the planet with a value system that is in line with western ones. Maybe individuals who consider themselves Muslim can appreciate Western values, but as the information from Muslim Statistics shows, many do not. And I would have to ask in all honesty, is it really worth importing these alleged good Muslims, when in doing so, we run the risk of also importing the bad ones? Has anyone done a cost/benefits analysis of this policy? Do the good Muslims really bring enough benefits to outweigh the negatives of the bad ones? Because honestly, I don’t think they do.
Anyway, beyond the issue of assimilation and integration, Trump also favoured a ban on Muslim immigration due to the associated risk of an increase in terrorist attacks. And, would you just look at what’s after happening yesterday.
An explosion in a crowded Manhattan neighborhood on Saturday night left 29 people injured, and authorities said a second nearby site was also being investigated. At a news conference on Sunday, Mayor Bill de Blasio said the incident was caused by a bomb and that all 29 injured people have now been released from the hospital.
“We know there was a bombing. That much we do know. We know it was a very serious incident, but we have a lot more work to do to be able to say what kind of motivation was behind this. Was it a political motivation? A personal motivation? We do not now that yet,” said de Blasio.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said at a news conference Sunday, “a bomb exploding in New York is obviously an act of terrorism, but it’s not linked to international terrorism. In other words, we find no ISIS connection etc. A bomb going off is generically a terrorist activity. That’s how we’re going to consider it and that’s how we’re going to prosecute it also.”
But how exactly can they be sure already that ISIS isn’t connected? I’m not necessarily saying that they’re definitely wrong. They may very well be right, but there’s no way they can be sure yet before they’ve had a chance to properly investigate what happened. They don’t have any suspects in custody, nor do they know what the motive was, so how can they automatically dismiss ISIS, when they don’t actually know anything yet? To me, it seems as if they just made a point of downplaying a possible ISIS connection because with the election coming up, they don’t want it to look as if Trump was right about his proposal to ban Muslim immigration, and possibly seeing more voters defect to his side.
The FBI is investigating the Crossroads Center knife attacks on Saturday as “a potential act of terrorism.”
Nine people were injured by an attacker who was killed inside the Macy’s store by an off-duty Avon police officer.
St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis identified that officer as Jason Falconer during a press conference Sunday.
A short time earlier, St. Cloud Somali-American community members identified the deceased suspect as Dahir Adan.
Leaders of the Somali-American community in St. Cloud gathered Sunday with his family and issued a statement of sympathy for the family and the nine victims of the attack.
Community leader Abdul Kulane said as far as the family and community know, the suspect did not have any history of violence. He was known as a smart, accomplished student at Apollo High School. He was a junior at St. Cloud State University, Kulane said. Adan was also working part-time as a private security officer, leaders said.
The last time he was seen by family was about 6 or 6:30 p.m. Saturday when he said he was going to the mall to buy an iPhone 7. They don’t know what happened after that.
So a Somali man (99.8% chance he was Muslim) went on a stabbing spree in a shopping mall for seemingly no reason. Perhaps he was just yet another victim of the great mental health crisis of 2016, which seems to only effect Muslims, and causes them to murder non-Muslim people at random for no reason whatsoever.
The man who stabbed nine people at a Minnesota mall Saturday before being shot dead by an off-duty police officer was a “soldier of the Islamic state,” according to an ISIS-linked news agency.
Now obviously, ISIS claims responsibility for every single act of terrorism committed by Muslims in the Western world, so this might not be true. However this does again play into Trump’s hands perfectly. In just one day we have two terrorist attacks which may very well have been committed by Muslims, and a third which definitely was, and suddenly less than two months before the election, his proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US is looking like simple common sense, rather than the hate filled racism and bigotry, that the media tries to claim it to be.
So we have Trump proposing a wall to keep out Mexican rapists, and a ban on Muslim immigration because of their inability to assimilate, and the risk of an increase in terrorist attacks because of their immigration. The media crucifies Trump for saying these things as apparently being “false” and “racist”. Then after being constantly told that Trump was lying, we suddenly have a Latino activist who protested Trump’s comments about Mexican rapists getting arrested for rape himself, a Muslim leader outright telling Muslims not to integrate into their host nations, three terrorists attacks in one day (one of which we’re sure was done by a Muslim, and the other two likely were as well), backing up the points Trump has made, and this all happens within the space of a few days, less than two months before the election. It really is as if the universe itself is outright telling us that Trump is the right choice. And yet despite all this, rather than accepting the fact that Trump was right, the media still acts as if Trump is the real threat to America, simply because he says mean words, and he and his son have re-tweeted images of a “Nazi frog”.
How can anybody take any of this insanity seriously? We’re literally seeing Trump’s statements being backed up by objective reality, but the media would rather be outraged over his son posting images of a “Nazi frog” on twitter, than on people getting murdered or raped, because of a flawed immigration system, something which Trump simply pointed out was happening and wants to fix. Keep in mind, that he never proposed stopping immigration entirely. He just wants an immigration policy that works to the benefit, rather than the detriment of the American people, and yet the media acts as if his proposals are a greater evil than the consequences we’re seeing unfold because of this flawed system. I literally cannot comprehend what is happening, it’s so completely nonsensical to me. And I hope that at this point, it should seem just as nonsensical to the American voters. If they can’t see at this point, I don’t think they ever will.
Based on the lies that these idiots have been led to believe because of the media’s biased reporting, they have been riled up enough to riot all over the country, and have even murdered cops. Despite all this, the media has continued to lie over and over, both to the black community, by painting them as innocent victims of a white supremacist police force who wants to murder them, simply because they hate the colour of their skin, and to the white community, by portraying them as the real aggressors, and by trying to cover up how bad these BLM protesters really are.
Oh how nice. She was calling for peace. She doesn’t want her fellow black people to riot as evident by her words. I hope they weren’t taken out of context.
Oh wait. She wasn’t actually calling for peace. She was just telling them to go riot in the suburbs, where all the white people live instead. Why would the media cut off this important part of her speech, unless they were trying to push a false narrative on the gullible white community?
So anyway, some white people made up their own answer to BLM, which they call “White Lives Matter”. Unlike the BLM groups, WLM actually have facts and statistics to back up the assertion that it is in fact white people, rather than black people, who are suffering the most in terms of interracial murders. WLM are also a genuinely peaceful group, who don’t riot or murder cops (or anyone for that matter really). Yet despite all this, the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organisation that allegedly exists to combat “hate groups” has declared WLM to be a hate group. Why exactly? Well, lets take a read.
A white nationalist group called White Lives Matter, which calls itself an opponent of the Black Lives Matter movement, has been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that tracks extremist groups in the United States.
“The White Lives Matter website says their movement is dedicated to the preservation of the white race. That tells you all you need to know,” said Heidi Beirich, the director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala. “They’re against integration, immigration. This is standard white supremacist stuff.”
How dare these white people think they have a right to preserve their race? Don’t they understand that only blacks, Asians, Arabs, Mestizos, and every other race except for whites, has the right to preserve themselves? Whites have a duty to go extinct in order to make amends for slavery, colonialism, genocide, and other historical crimes that were committed by other white people hundreds of years ago. The fact that every other race has also engaged in these same historical crimes doesn’t matter. Because whites were the most successful at it in the past, they’re the only ones who should get any blame, and their current living descendants must be made to pay for it.
The group, which grew out of a social media meme, argues that white Americans are victims of a genocide caused by factors like the immigration of nonwhite people and marriage between white Christians and nonwhites or Jews, Ms. Beirich said. The law center’s designation is meant to draw attention to and increase scrutiny of the group’s activities.
“Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
While there is no literal state sponsored mass killings of white people, the state has imported hostile and incompatible racial groups in its pursuit of multiculturalism, who are killing us on an individual level. These deaths would not have happened in a monocultural society.
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Is constantly telling us that we’re evil, or that we have undeserved privilege, just because of the skin colour we were born with, not a form of mental harm? There are college courses teaching students about “the problem of whiteness“. Just a few days ago, a teenage girl in Britain committed suicide a teenage girl in Britain committed suicide, because she was so scared that people might think she was racist. There is even a famous exercise for teaching schoolkids about the harmful effects of racism, which involves humiliating and degrading the students with blue eyes (who are of course all going to be white) and encouraging kids with brown eyes (who are mostly non-white) to take part in humiliating them. If none of this counts as “mental harm”, I don’t know what does.
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
I lump these two together, because I think they can be linked. By encouraging mass immigration from the third world to the first world, it increases competition for employment and living space. This has the effect of driving down wages (as there is less demand for each individuals labour) and driving up the cost of buying or renting a home (as there is increased demand for the small amount of homes available). This means that the native group are less able to afford to start a family, which results in them having less children, or even no children at all, when they would have been more able to get a decent paying job, and to afford a decent sized home, if not for the effects of mass immigration. I only have to look at my own generation, and how few of them have children, compared to what things were like for previous generations when they were my age, to see this in action. There are of course other factors which contribute to the decrease in family sizes, but I think financial reasons, exasperated by the knock on effect of mass immigration is the biggest reason. People didn’t suddenly lose interest in having families. It’s just not financially viable, and immigration policies only make it worse.
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Last week, its members held a protest outside the Houston office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to demand that it denounce Black Lives Matter, according to video posted online by the group. The Houston Chronicle reported that some of the protesters carried assault rifles and Confederate flags.
Researchers with the law center said White Lives Matter had been promoted by the Aryan Renaissance Society, a group in Texas that is a member of the United Aryan Front, a white nationalist coalition.
Ms. Beirich said the center’s designation focused on one chapter of the group based in Nashville that is led by Rebecca Barnette, a leader of the Aryan Strikeforce, a skinhead group, and the National Socialist Movement, America’s largest neo-Nazi group.
Ms. Barnette did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday, but White Lives Matter posted several videos criticizing the Southern Poverty Law Center to its YouTube channel in the past two days. One video described White Lives Matter’s members as “just the guy next door.”
I just watched the video myself. The comments are universally opposed to the narrative that the SPLC is trying to promote. People can see the truth. They are just a bunch of normal, everyday, white people, who simply think they have a right to pursue their own ethnic interests.
Ms. Beirich said the number of white supremacist groups in the United States had grown in the past year and attributed that to the racially charged rhetoric of the presidential campaign. There are 892 active hate groups in the country, the law center said.
“Certainly we’ve got people who are much more energized in a way that didn’t exist before, and that’s all because of the presidential campaign,” Ms. Beirich said before specifying Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee “Trump has given these people hope they didn’t have before that they could influence politics or that they would at least be listened to.”
They just had to get the dig in on Trump. Everything is always his fault, as far as they are concerned.
Ms. Barnette described herself as White Lives Matter’s co-founder in her profile on Vk.com, a Russian social networking site preferred by white nationalists for its lenient approach to posts that contain racist content. She said the group’s name had “been picked up by several other groups who are doing their own things with it.”
I’m sure by “racist content” what they mean is “inconvenient truths that the SPLC doesn’t want the people to be exposed to”.
Mark Pitcavage, a researcher at the Anti-Defamation League, agreed that the phrase had spread beyond the group.
“White Lives Matter is a concept around which you can organize an event without necessarily being a formal organization,” he said. “It is essentially the sum of the number of people who have done actions in the name of White Lives Matter.”
“For white supremacists, ‘White Lives Matter’ is an obvious meme, so they will use it,” he said.
If you think white lives matter, you’re a white supremacist.
On Vk.com, Ms. Barnette defended the group, writing that its members were unfairly labeled “domestic terrorists.”
And really, why shouldn’t she feel this is unfair? What acts of domestic terrorism have these people committed exactly? If anything, BLM are the real terrorist organisation, because they literally use violence and intimidation tactics to promote themselves. I’ve not heard of a single example of violence committed by this WLM crowd.
In other posts she argued that white women represent “the elite of the human species.” She also shared Nazi memes and frequently used racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic slurs.
“We do not live by the code of the nonwhites,” she wrote in one post calling for her followers to take action against the federal government, Jews and African-Americans. “Our forefathers built the nation that is being allowed to be destroyed.” Later she added, “I wish Hitler were here alive and well today.”
Fair enough, you might not agree with any of these parts, but it doesn’t take away from any other point that has been made. What exactly is wrong with white people wanting to preserve themselves? And why is the SPLC and Anti-Defamation League so opposed to them?
Of the twenty-two(22) Southern Poverty Law Center senior program staff members, fifteen(15) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 68%. Of the thirteen(13) Southern Poverty Law Center directors, eight(8) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 62%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Southern Poverty Law Center senior program staff members by a factor of 34 times(3,400 percent), and over-represented on the Southern Poverty Law Center board of directors by a factor of 31 times(3,100 percent).
And the Anti-Defamation League is literally a Jewish organisation. This is not a coincidence of course. It’s pretty standard affair for Jews to play up racial tension against white people, under the guise of being white themselves because of how they look, but at the same time, shielding themselves behind their Jewishness, so they themselves can claim minority status, and avoid the consequences of any backlash against white people, that happens because of their race-baiting lies. They are the ultimate hypocrites.
I could go into depth as to why exactly they do this, but experience tells me that people are better off figuring why out for themselves from their own research and conclusions. Unlike the Muslim immigration problem (which plenty of people are quite comfortable to hear about), most people feel a natural discomfort hearing criticism of Jews and their behaviour. This obviously goes back to WW2 and the images it conjures up in people’s minds. Most people will automatically associate pointing out awkward and uncomfortable truths about the Jews with Nazism, which we’ve been programmed to think of as the ultimate example of pure evil. Even now, I must admit that I find it uncomfortable talking about it, because I too have been a victim of this same programming. At the same time, I have a commitment to try and tell the truth exactly as I see it, so that’s what I’m doing. By providing videos and screenshots of things that Jews themselves have said, I can’t exactly be accused of making anything up. All I did was collect existing evidence and piece it together in order to show a pattern that exists. I won’t go into detail as to why they do what they do. I just wanted to show that they do it. The rest, you can figure out from your own research.
So like everyone else, I have been unable to avoid the omnipresent media circus surrounding the deaths of two more “innocent, unarmed” black men at the hands of “evil white supremacist, white cops” (one of whom happened to be Asian). These racist cops, we’re told, gunned them down for no good reason, simply because they hated them for the colour of their skin.
This is literally the narrative that we’re being fed by the media right now.
And there are many people out there who actually seem to be buying into this bullshit narrative. Just think about it for a second. Most white people are against racism. Obviously genuine white racists do still exist, but they seem to be an extreme minority these days. Racism is just not socially acceptable these days, especially if you’re a white person. Cops are people like anyone else. Yet we’re supposed to believe that despite genuinely racist people being the minority, that somehow there’s a big racist conspiracy among American cops to murder innocent black people for absolutely no reason, despite the fact that doing so could potentially destroy their careers, and even their lives. We’re literally expected to believe that a large number of cops are so filled with hatred towards the skin colour of black people, that they’re willing to risk everything in order to kill them.
This is one of the stupidest conspiracy theories that I’ve ever heard of.
For those of us who actually bother to research things properly, it’s easy to prove just how flawed this narrative is. And that, is exactly what I’m going to do right now. So first, lets take a look at the estimated percentages of racial demographics in the US currently.
So by looking at both 2010 and 2015 demographics, and the small changes that have occurred in that time, the combined White and Latino population is roughly 80%. The reason that I’m counting the two together is because in crime statistics, Hispanics are counted as white (and this skews the crime rate numbers committed by “white” people somewhat). Arabs are counted as white too. This is important to remember, as I’ll explain later in this article. The black population, according to 2015 statistics, is roughly 13% of the population.
So next, lets take a look at an article which discusses the demographics killed by cops. According to this article, in the year following the death of Michael Brown (one of the first notable examples of this alleged racist conspiracy, and a topic which Icovered in the past), 1083 Americans were killed by cops. The racial breakdown of the dead can be seen in the screenshot below.
So out of 1083 people, 273 of whom (or 25.2%) were black. The combined White/Hispanic death count (again let me remind you that I’m counting them as one group because they’re treated as one group in crime statistics) is at least 660, or could be as high as 781, depending on how many of the “unknown” category are from one of those groups. I think it’s pretty obvious when someone is black, but a mixed white/Hispanic, or a darker skinned white person (for example of Greek or Spanish descent) person’s race might not be so obvious, and therefore would be more likely to fall into the unknown category than a black person. This works out as a percentage of between 60.9 and 72.1%, depending on how much or how little of these unknowns were actually white or Hispanic.
So on the surface, this looks as if there might be merit to the claims of “Black Lives Matter” advocates that black people are killed disproportionately. A group making up 13% of the population has 25.2% of police deaths, versus a group making up 80% of the population, having only between 60.9 and 72.1% of deaths. However, this doesn’t tell the whole story.
When you look at FBI crime statistics on arrests for the three most recent years available, 2014, 2013, and 2012, we can see that blacks are arrested in disproportionate numbers to their population size. The figures show that they make up roughly 28% of arrests per year, as opposed to roughly 69% per year for Whites/Hispanics/Arabs.
So the narrative we’re originally presented is that an encounter with cops is much more likely to end fatally for a black person than a “white” person. But if a group which makes up 28% of all arrests has 25.2% of all deaths by cops, and a group which makes up 69% of all arrests results in somewhere between 60.9 and 72.1% of all deaths by cops, then can that really be true? If anything, it looks as if based on encounter rate with cops, the likelihood of death is roughly equal for all races.
So the next point that people will try and make is that the disproportionately high arrest rate for black people is where the racism really is. That for some reason, cops are going around and harassing innocent black people and then arresting them for no reason. Again, this is a ridiculous narrative, with no evidence to support it. There is however evidence to suggest that black people simply commit crime at a much higher rate than other races, and this leads to them getting arrested a lot more. This can be seen from reading the 2016 Revised Edition of The Colour of Crime , which records crime statistics based on race. I won’t summarise the findings here, because there’s too much to cover, but I would suggest reading it for yourselves. These disproportionately high crime rates from blacks are perfectly illustrated from looking at a list of the 30 cities in America with the highest number of homicides.
Just look up the black population percentages for each city on the list. To save you time, I’ll do it for you and put the results in a table. Figures are taken from the Wikipedia articles for each city and are based on results from the 2010 census. Any city where black people are the largest demographic will be typed out in bold. In addition, any city in which black people make up the overall majority (more than 50%) will have the word “MAJORITY” written beside the percentage. Any city where black people aren’t the largest demographic will be left in normal text.
Out of a list of the top 30 most dangerous cities in America, 20 have an overall majority black population, 4 more have black people being the largest demographic overall, another 4 have black people being a close second, and only 2 (Desert Hot Springs and Myrtle Beach) have a relatively low black population. The number one worst city of all, East St. Louis has a near 100% black population. Therefore I think it’s safe to say that when looking at this list of the most dangerous cities in America, cross referencing it with its population demographics, and when reading “The Colour of Crime”, that it’s pretty safe to say that no, the disproportionately high arrest rates for blacks aren’t just some racist conspiracy. They really do commit crime at a far higher rate than their population size, and the arrest rates reflect that.
So next up we gotta address the excuses that will be made. One of my personal favourites that I’ve heard is that they commit more crime because they’re profiled more. The sheer stupidity of this logic speaks for itself. They’re literally saying that “people act more suspicious that they’ll engage in criminal behaviour, that it causes them to engage in criminal behaviour”. This kind of logic is on par with “If Donald Trump bans Muslim immigration to the US, it will cause more of them to join ISIS”. The implication in both of these situations is that these people are emotionally unstable ticking time bombs who aren’t capable of controlling their own behaviour.
Again let me repeat myself, the sheer stupidity of this logic speaks for itself. The next excuse that I’ve heard is that many black people in America come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds at a rate far higher than other races, and this causes them to turn to crime more. While it is true that black people in America are more likely to live in poverty than other races, it’s untrue to blame poverty alone for their crime rates. There was a study conducted which compared the homicide rates of white majority and black majority neighbourhoods, based on the average family income of each neighbourhood. The table from the study which shows the relationship between race, income, and number of homicides can be seen below.
While it is true that on average, the poorer neighbourhoods tended to have the most homicides, when race was factored in as well, the black neighbourhoods had a much higher homicide rate than the white neighbourhoods with the same average income. Therefore, if poverty is what causes an increase in crime, then why aren’t poor white people committing as much crime as poor black people? These results were backed up by another similar study (which is now unfortunately behind a paywall, but I remembered to save the results first) which found that 2.7% of poorest white males end up in jail at some point, as opposed to 10.47% of poorest black males and 7.16% of the poorest Hispanic males. In fact, only the wealthiest black group (with an income between 91 and 100,000 dollars) have a lower rate of incarceration than the poorest whites with a 2.43% incarceration rate. Every other income group for black males has a higher incarceration rate than the poorest white group, thus proving that the poverty excuse is absolute nonsense.
So again, all they’re left with is that some ridiculous invisible white racist conspiracy is causing black people to commit a disproportionate amount of crime, which results in more encounters with police, which results in a higher incarceration rate or a higher fatality rate from resisting arrest (white racism must also cause them not to cooperate when being arrested either). Again, this a completely stupid argument with absolutely no evidence to support it. As I’ve already pointed out (and as should be completely obvious) but being a racist is not only socially stigmatising if you’re a white person, but most people are genuinely opposed to it. So if most white people are opposed to racism, then where exactly is this invisible, and unquantifiable white racist conspiracy, which nobody can actually explain how it works, or give specific examples of it in action, come from?
The reality is that there is no racist white conspiracy at all, but people aren’t allowed to make that claim, because doing so would mean that we would have to admit the forbidden truth. White people aren’t the ones who are at fault for the problems affecting the black community in America…. black people are. Again, let me go back to the most dangerous cities in America again. In the number one worst city for homicides, East St. Louis, with a 97.74% black population, in which you can be sure that the majority of the cops and city officials are black, how can white people possibly be to blame? It makes absolutely no sense, but because we’ve made it forbidden to acknowledge any uncomfortable truths that may be politically incorrect to discuss, we have to ignore the obvious and reach further and further for excuses.
It’s easy to find out information about Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray, Alton Sterling, or any of the other black victims. When these people die, it’s an international news story for weeks at a time. However, how often do we hear names like Dylan Noble, Abraham Smith, William Tracy Patterson, Blake Peacock, or any other white names to have died at the hands of cops? Honestly, it’s very rare. These deaths are never as a big a story as when the person is black so this creates a false perception in the public that almost all victims (or at least a disproportionately high amount) are black. While this is true in terms of population size, when arrest rates are considered, this evens out. And when crime rates (which are also not a racist conspiracy) are considered, these disproportionately high arrest rates make perfect sense.
There is a race problem in America right now. But white people aren’t the ones to blame.