Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta black. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta black. Mostrar todas las entradas

jueves, 1 de diciembre de 2022

Overcrowding or overreacting III: observing oncoming oneirodynia...


...we've been here before. Do [Are] my visions of future nightmares akin to The Camp of the Saints [PDF book link] overegging the pudding? Well, is anyone surprised about the newly released ONS data on ethic groups in England and Wales? Bear in mind this is the actual divulged information given to census representatives or filled out on the forms/online; I am sure it is all 100% accurate and the reality, no extras hiding, no unknowns** {sarc off}.
Census 2021 info is finally coming out...yes, 'finally': in case you hadn't noticed we are 30 days from 2023...why the delay? One snippet [in London] "36.8% of people identified as “White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British” in 2021 – down from 44.9% in 2011."...under 37%, that isn't very high is it, even for a 'metropolis'? 

More: "As part of the 'White' ethnic group, 74.4% of the population in England and Wales identified their ethnic group as 'English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British'".


  • 87.5% in 2001
  • 80.5% in 2011
  • 74.4% in 2021


This isn't prejudice; it isn't racist and now it isn't a conspiracy theory either. Yet another one becoming fact; think that's 25-nil now. 

** And we also know that anything up to a million or more are unknown, that is confirmed by government personnel, and the current polemic of the English Channel taxi/RN/RNLI people-trafficking service is a trickle in comparison. Hence weak politicians cries for an amnesty etc (to stop/hide the headache).

lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022

Offensive Oscar outrage or odious objicients II...


Indeed, the II in the blog-post title is because this is the second time. The second time on this particular subject but far from only the second time Oscar organisation is in the news. In 2019 I wrote "Another 'backlash', another hoo-ha; would anyone - apart from from those taking part and their guests - actually remember the Oscars was on if there wasn't this annual pre-event outrage at something?". Well, did you know/remember? Do you care? *

In 2016: the first time, I wrote "Once again the natives are getting restless. Oops, can I say that? Another whitewash; another blackout..." but not literally this time because two of my favourite actors are nominated. Not my favourite black actors, just favourite actors (by the way, they're not white). But like then, I again say look at the graph in the image (as always, click to enlarge); admittedly this is a few years ago now but it shows black actors (you know I mean male AND female when I say that, right?) are OVER represented in the winners**. 

What say YOU to that Mr. Frederick Gooding Jr. and Dr. Ronald E. Moore?  'The Oscars Are Still So White' [FFS]. And lucky the Latino, Asian and 'Other' ethnicities aren't so weak and paranoid as to want 'equality'. You'd hope so BUT the further we go down the woke rabbit hole the more you know the winners will probably not be there on merit. So sad, so stupid, so racist!

Bearing in mind that since 2020 The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is bending over backwards (no word of a lie I read that linked site as 'Virtue' the first time I read it) to make sure it ticks as many boxes as possible. What happens with hot [update: ***] star talent like Ariana DeBose, do they get to tick three boxes? 

* Sadly, and the first time I can recall it being this bad, of the 12 films represented in the four 'bill-topping' categories (best actor, best supporting, best actress, best supporting) I have only heard of TWO of them!
**  Heaven forbid - maybe they deserved it! 

domingo, 6 de septiembre de 2020

Onward obsidian obitual...


"I remember when Christians used to actually believe in Christianity. Those were the days. (Some still do, but their numbers are shrinking.)"..the words of Tal Bachman on the The Bachman Beat, itself hosted on the blog of [the mighty] Mark Steyn. Tal writes of the overt and accelerating downfall of the Christian Church in the USA - the same is as true in most of the West (in the UK we know all about it, I think 'embarrassing' covers it, Protestant and Catholic, Orthodox not so much) - "has been going on for decades, of course, but its most striking manifestation of late has been the near-total failure of the Christian church to expose and reject the destructive fraud that is Black Lives Matter." 

Aha, you say, the point of the post...yep.More snippets below and with links intact. 

"That kind of failure requires extraordinary ignorance, extraordinary
cowardice, or both. After all, it's not like the veil hasn't come off
Black Lives Matter, if it was ever there in the first place. Its
founders openly profess their allegiance to Marxism, history's most genocidal ideology. Its members repeatedly encourage violence, destruction, and even murder. Its website
calls for the "disruption of the Western-prescribed nuclear family
structure", the end of accepting heterosexuality as normal, and the
avoidance of "environments in which men are centered"....



The next two paragraphs are key: the whole thing is based on lies, slyly moulded to suit the race hustler agenda, including by Obama ["If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon", Obama's offspring II]... 

"In addition, the cited catalyst for the entire movement—the "murder"
of Trayvon Martin in 2012—is a lie. Trayvon Martin was not "murdered".
He violently assaulted a man named George Zimmerman by pounding his head
into the pavement. Zimmerman then shot him in self-defense. That's precisely why a jury of six women acquitted him. Yet Black Lives Matter is still calling it a "murder" on its website.


The second rationale for the movement—that a racist white cop gunned
down an innocent "gentle giant" named Michael Brown in Ferguson,
Missouri—is also a lie. After robbing a store, Brown attacked a police
officer trying to arrest him. As a result, the officer shot Brown in
self-defense. Attorney General Eric Holder himself confirmed this after
an exhaustive review.


These aren't the only Black Lives Matter lies, of course. It's a lie that there's an epidemic of racist police shootings.
It's a lie that defunding the police will help black communities (it
does just the opposite, and has already directly enabled the murder of hundreds more black people, including children).


It's even a lie that black lives matter to the members of Black Lives
Matter. In reality, the only lives that matter to the Black Lives
Matter crew are lives useful to advancing Marxism...which is why you've
never seen, and never will see, any Black Lives Matter protests over the
250,000 blacks murdered by other blacks during the past 45 years,* or
the 19 million black babies aborted since Roe vs. Wade (the combined population of Ireland, Switzerland, Costa Rica, and Fiji), or the black police officers, active or retired, killed."...

..."In short, you couldn't invent an organization which more flagrantly
violates a greater number of Biblical commandments and Christian ideals
than Black Lives Matter. You have murder, beatings, necromancy,
stealing, bearing false witness, covetousness, lying, insurrection
against duly-elected leaders, worshipping false gods, assaults on the
family, assaults on heterosexuality, and a transparently fake concern
for the black lives every real Christian is duty-bound to see as
creations of God. It's a Satanic dream."



* that's more than 15 a DAY every single day for those 45 years...

Onward obsidian obitual...


"I remember when Christians used to actually believe in Christianity. Those were the days. (Some still do, but their numbers are shrinking.)"..the words of Tal Bachman on the The Bachman Beat, itself hosted on the blog of [the mighty] Mark Steyn. Tal writes of the overt and accelerating downfall of the Christian Church in the USA - the same is as true in most of the West (in the UK we know all about it, I think 'embarrassing' covers it, Protestant and Catholic, Orthodox not so much) - "has been going on for decades, of course, but its most striking manifestation of late has been the near-total failure of the Christian church to expose and reject the destructive fraud that is Black Lives Matter." 

Aha, you say, the point of the post...yep.More snippets below and with links intact. 

"That kind of failure requires extraordinary ignorance, extraordinary cowardice, or both. After all, it's not like the veil hasn't come off Black Lives Matter, if it was ever there in the first place. Its founders openly profess their allegiance to Marxism, history's most genocidal ideology. Its members repeatedly encourage violence, destruction, and even murder. Its website calls for the "disruption of the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure", the end of accepting heterosexuality as normal, and the avoidance of "environments in which men are centered"....

The next two paragraphs are key: the whole thing is based on lies, slyly moulded to suit the race hustler agenda, including by Obama ["If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon", Obama's offspring II]... 

"In addition, the cited catalyst for the entire movement—the "murder" of Trayvon Martin in 2012—is a lie. Trayvon Martin was not "murdered". He violently assaulted a man named George Zimmerman by pounding his head into the pavement. Zimmerman then shot him in self-defense. That's precisely why a jury of six women acquitted him. Yet Black Lives Matter is still calling it a "murder" on its website.

The second rationale for the movement—that a racist white cop gunned down an innocent "gentle giant" named Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri—is also a lie. After robbing a store, Brown attacked a police officer trying to arrest him. As a result, the officer shot Brown in self-defense. Attorney General Eric Holder himself confirmed this after an exhaustive review.

These aren't the only Black Lives Matter lies, of course. It's a lie that there's an epidemic of racist police shootings. It's a lie that defunding the police will help black communities (it does just the opposite, and has already directly enabled the murder of hundreds more black people, including children).

It's even a lie that black lives matter to the members of Black Lives Matter. In reality, the only lives that matter to the Black Lives Matter crew are lives useful to advancing Marxism...which is why you've never seen, and never will see, any Black Lives Matter protests over the 250,000 blacks murdered by other blacks during the past 45 years,* or the 19 million black babies aborted since Roe vs. Wade (the combined population of Ireland, Switzerland, Costa Rica, and Fiji), or the black police officers, active or retired, killed."...

..."In short, you couldn't invent an organization which more flagrantly violates a greater number of Biblical commandments and Christian ideals than Black Lives Matter. You have murder, beatings, necromancy, stealing, bearing false witness, covetousness, lying, insurrection against duly-elected leaders, worshipping false gods, assaults on the family, assaults on heterosexuality, and a transparently fake concern for the black lives every real Christian is duty-bound to see as creations of God. It's a Satanic dream."

* that's more than 15 a DAY every single day for those 45 years...

sábado, 20 de junio de 2020

Oriel Oxford opus...







‘The Rhodes Colossus striding from Cape Town to Cairo’

Punch Magazine, 1892

"This letter is a response to Black Students attending Oxford as Rhodes Scholars wanting to remove the statue of Oxford Benefactor, Cecil Rhodes."  It was from the 2015/16 round of similar idiocy (Oriel Oxford outrage..) but frankly does the job this month too, with all the current BLM fuckwittery, then "I hope[d] this racist arsehole is on a police watch list" (named below) and remind the anti-Rhodes protestors that Cecil himself said "I could never accept the position that we should disqualify a human being on account of his colour." Anyhoo, the letter:



"Dear Scrotty Students,



Cecil Rhodes’s generous bequest has contributed greatly to the comfort and well being of many generations of Oxford students – a good many of them, dare we say it, better, brighter and more deserving than you.

This does not necessarily mean we approve of everything Rhodes did in his lifetime – but then we don’t have to. Cecil Rhodes died over a century ago. Autres temps, autres moeures.* If you don’t understand what this means – and it would not remotely surprise us if that were the case – then we really think you should ask yourself the question: “Why am I at Oxford?”



Oxford, let us remind you, is the world’s second oldest extant university. Scholars have been studying here since at least the 11th century. We’ve played a major part in the invention of Western civilisation, from the 12th century intellectual renaissance through the Enlightenment and beyond. Our alumni include William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, William Tyndale, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, Erasmus, Sir Christopher Wren, William Penn, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Samuel Johnson, Robert Hooke, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Emily Davison, Cardinal Newman, Julie Cocks. We’re a big deal. And most of the people privileged to come and study here are conscious of what a big deal we are. Oxford is their alma mater – their dear mother – and they respect and revere her accordingly.


And what were your ancestors doing in that period? Living in mud huts, mainly. Sure we’ll concede you the short lived Southern African civilisation of Great Zimbabwe. But let’s be brutally honest here. The contribution of the Bantu tribes to modern civilisation has been as near as damn it to zilch.

You’ll probably say that’s “racist”. But it’s what we here at Oxford prefer to call “true.” Perhaps the rules are different at other universities. In fact, we know things are different at other universities. We’ve watched with horror at what has been happening across the pond from the University of Missouri to the University of Virginia and even to revered institutions like Harvard and Yale: the “safe spaces”; the #‎blacklivesmatter; the creeping cultural relativism; the stifling political correctness; what Allan Bloom rightly called “the closing of the American mind”. At Oxford however, we will always prefer facts and free, open debate to petty grievance-mongering, identity politics and empty sloganeering. The day we cease to do so is the day we lose the right to call ourselves the world’s greatest university.



Of course, you are perfectly within your rights to squander your time at Oxford on silly, vexatious, single-issue political campaigns. (Though it does make us wonder how stringent the vetting procedure is these days for Rhodes scholarships and even more so, for Mandela Rhodes scholarships) We are well used to seeing undergraduates – or, in your case – postgraduates, making idiots of themselves. Just don’t expect us to indulge your idiocy, let alone genuflect before it. You may be black – “BME” as the grisly modern terminology has it – but we are colour blind.

We have been educating gifted undergraduates from our former colonies, our Empire, our Commonwealth and beyond for many generations.



We do not discriminate over sex, race, colour or creed. We do, however, discriminate according to intellect.

That means, inter alia, that when our undergrads or postgrads come up with fatuous ideas, we don’t pat them on the back, give them a red rosette and say: “Ooh, you’re black and you come from South Africa. What a clever chap you are!” No. We prefer to see the quality of those ideas tested in the crucible of public debate. That’s another key part of the Oxford intellectual tradition you see: you can argue any damn thing you like but you need to be able to justify it with facts and logic – otherwise your idea is worthless.



This ludicrous notion you have that a bronze statue of Cecil Rhodes should be removed from Oriel College, because it’s symbolic of “institutional racism” and “white slavery”. Well even if it is – which we dispute – so bloody what? Any undergraduate so feeble-minded that they can’t pass a bronze statue without having their “safe space” violated really does not deserve to be here. And besides, if we were to remove Rhodes’s statue on the premise that his life wasn’t blemish-free, where would we stop? As one of our alumni Dan Hannan has pointed out, Oriel’s other benefactors include two kings so awful – Edward II and Charles I – that their subjects had them killed. The college opposite – Christ Church – was built by a murderous, thieving bully who bumped off two of his wives. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves: does that invalidate the US Constitution?Winston Churchill had unenlightened views about Muslims and India: was he then the wrong man to lead Britain in the war?”


"Actually, we’ll go further than that. Your Rhodes Must Fall campaign is not merely fatuous but ugly, vandalistic and dangerous. We agree with Oxford historian RW Johnson that what you are trying to do here is no different from what ISIS and Al-Qaeda have been doing to artefacts in places like Mali and Syria. You are murdering history."

"And who are you, anyway, to be lecturing Oxford University on how it should order its affairs? Your #‎rhodesmustfall campaign, we understand, originates in South Africa and was initiated by a black activist who told one of his lecturers “whites have to be killed”. One of you – Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh – is the privileged son of a rich politician and a member of a party whose slogan is “Kill the Boer; Kill the Farmer”; another of you, Ntokozo Qwabe, who is only in Oxford as a beneficiary of a Rhodes scholarship, has boasted about the need for “socially conscious black students” to “dominate white universities, and do so ruthlessly and decisively!

Great. That’s just what Oxford University needs. Some cultural enrichment from the land of Winnie Mandela, burning tyre necklaces, an AIDS epidemic almost entirely the result of government indifference and ignorance, one of the world’s highest per capita murder rates, institutionalised corruption, tribal politics, anti-white racism and a collapsing economy. Please name which of the above items you think will enhance the lives of the 22,000 students studying here at Oxford.



And then please explain what it is that makes your attention grabbing campaign to remove a listed statue from an Oxford college more urgent, more deserving than the desire of probably at least 20,000 of those 22,000 students to enjoy their time here unencumbered by the irritation of spoilt, ungrateful little tossers on scholarships they clearly don’t merit using racial politics and cheap guilt-tripping to ruin the life and fabric of our beloved university"


"Understand us and understand this clearly: you have everything to learn from us; we have nothing to learn from you." 

Yours,

Oriel College, Oxford



*Autres temps, autres moeurs – Other times, other customs: in other eras people behaved differently.



[edited] Interestingly, Chris Patten (Lord Patten of Barnes), The Chancellor of Oxford University [mentioned on BBC Radio] commented on The Daily Telegraph 'Oxford will not rewrite history', "Education is not indoctrination. Our history is not a blank page on which we can write our own version of what it should have been according to our contemporary views and prejudice."

Oriel Oxford opus...


‘The Rhodes Colossus striding from Cape Town to Cairo’
Punch Magazine, 1892
"This letter is a response to Black Students attending Oxford as Rhodes Scholars wanting to remove the statue of Oxford Benefactor, Cecil Rhodes."  It was from the 2015/16 round of similar idiocy (Oriel Oxford outrage..) but frankly does the job this month too, with all the current BLM fuckwittery, then "I hope[d] this racist arsehole is on a police watch list" (named below) and remind the anti-Rhodes protestors that Cecil himself said "I could never accept the position that we should disqualify a human being on account of his colour." Anyhoo, the letter:

"Dear Scrotty Students,

Cecil Rhodes’s generous bequest has contributed greatly to the comfort and well being of many generations of Oxford students – a good many of them, dare we say it, better, brighter and more deserving than you. This does not necessarily mean we approve of everything Rhodes did in his lifetime – but then we don’t have to. Cecil Rhodes died over a century ago. Autres temps, autres moeures.* If you don’t understand what this means – and it would not remotely surprise us if that were the case – then we really think you should ask yourself the question: “Why am I at Oxford?”

Oxford, let us remind you, is the world’s second oldest extant university. Scholars have been studying here since at least the 11th century. We’ve played a major part in the invention of Western civilisation, from the 12th century intellectual renaissance through the Enlightenment and beyond. Our alumni include William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, William Tyndale, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, Erasmus, Sir Christopher Wren, William Penn, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Samuel Johnson, Robert Hooke, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Emily Davison, Cardinal Newman, Julie Cocks. We’re a big deal. And most of the people privileged to come and study here are conscious of what a big deal we are. Oxford is their alma mater – their dear mother – and they respect and revere her accordingly.
And what were your ancestors doing in that period? Living in mud huts, mainly. Sure we’ll concede you the short lived Southern African civilisation of Great Zimbabwe. But let’s be brutally honest here. The contribution of the Bantu tribes to modern civilisation has been as near as damn it to zilch.
You’ll probably say that’s “racist”. But it’s what we here at Oxford prefer to call “true.” Perhaps the rules are different at other universities. In fact, we know things are different at other universities. We’ve watched with horror at what has been happening across the pond from the University of Missouri to the University of Virginia and even to revered institutions like Harvard and Yale: the “safe spaces”; the #‎blacklivesmatter; the creeping cultural relativism; the stifling political correctness; what Allan Bloom rightly called “the closing of the American mind”. At Oxford however, we will always prefer facts and free, open debate to petty grievance-mongering, identity politics and empty sloganeering. The day we cease to do so is the day we lose the right to call ourselves the world’s greatest university.

Of course, you are perfectly within your rights to squander your time at Oxford on silly, vexatious, single-issue political campaigns. (Though it does make us wonder how stringent the vetting procedure is these days for Rhodes scholarships and even more so, for Mandela Rhodes scholarships) We are well used to seeing undergraduates – or, in your case – postgraduates, making idiots of themselves. Just don’t expect us to indulge your idiocy, let alone genuflect before it. You may be black – “BME” as the grisly modern terminology has it – but we are colour blind. We have been educating gifted undergraduates from our former colonies, our Empire, our Commonwealth and beyond for many generations.

We do not discriminate over sex, race, colour or creed. We do, however, discriminate according to intellect. That means, inter alia, that when our undergrads or postgrads come up with fatuous ideas, we don’t pat them on the back, give them a red rosette and say: “Ooh, you’re black and you come from South Africa. What a clever chap you are!” No. We prefer to see the quality of those ideas tested in the crucible of public debate. That’s another key part of the Oxford intellectual tradition you see: you can argue any damn thing you like but you need to be able to justify it with facts and logic – otherwise your idea is worthless.

This ludicrous notion you have that a bronze statue of Cecil Rhodes should be removed from Oriel College, because it’s symbolic of “institutional racism” and “white slavery”. Well even if it is – which we dispute – so bloody what? Any undergraduate so feeble-minded that they can’t pass a bronze statue without having their “safe space” violated really does not deserve to be here. And besides, if we were to remove Rhodes’s statue on the premise that his life wasn’t blemish-free, where would we stop? As one of our alumni Dan Hannan has pointed out, Oriel’s other benefactors include two kings so awful – Edward II and Charles I – that their subjects had them killed. The college opposite – Christ Church – was built by a murderous, thieving bully who bumped off two of his wives. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves: does that invalidate the US Constitution?Winston Churchill had unenlightened views about Muslims and India: was he then the wrong man to lead Britain in the war?”
"Actually, we’ll go further than that. Your Rhodes Must Fall campaign is not merely fatuous but ugly, vandalistic and dangerous. We agree with Oxford historian RW Johnson that what you are trying to do here is no different from what ISIS and Al-Qaeda have been doing to artefacts in places like Mali and Syria. You are murdering history."
"And who are you, anyway, to be lecturing Oxford University on how it should order its affairs? Your #‎rhodesmustfall campaign, we understand, originates in South Africa and was initiated by a black activist who told one of his lecturers “whites have to be killed”. One of you – Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh – is the privileged son of a rich politician and a member of a party whose slogan is “Kill the Boer; Kill the Farmer”; another of you, Ntokozo Qwabe, who is only in Oxford as a beneficiary of a Rhodes scholarship, has boasted about the need for “socially conscious black students” to “dominate white universities, and do so ruthlessly and decisively! Great. That’s just what Oxford University needs. Some cultural enrichment from the land of Winnie Mandela, burning tyre necklaces, an AIDS epidemic almost entirely the result of government indifference and ignorance, one of the world’s highest per capita murder rates, institutionalised corruption, tribal politics, anti-white racism and a collapsing economy. Please name which of the above items you think will enhance the lives of the 22,000 students studying here at Oxford.

And then please explain what it is that makes your attention grabbing campaign to remove a listed statue from an Oxford college more urgent, more deserving than the desire of probably at least 20,000 of those 22,000 students to enjoy their time here unencumbered by the irritation of spoilt, ungrateful little tossers on scholarships they clearly don’t merit using racial politics and cheap guilt-tripping to ruin the life and fabric of our beloved university"
"Understand us and understand this clearly: you have everything to learn from us; we have nothing to learn from you." 
Yours, Oriel College, Oxford

*Autres temps, autres moeurs – Other times, other customs: in other eras people behaved differently.

[edited] Interestingly, Chris Patten (Lord Patten of Barnes), The Chancellor of Oxford University [mentioned on BBC Radio] commented on The Daily Telegraph 'Oxford will not rewrite history', "Education is not indoctrination. Our history is not a blank page on which we can write our own version of what it should have been according to our contemporary views and prejudice."

jueves, 18 de junio de 2020

Obmutescent over outrageous obsequious obfuscation II...






As a quick follow up to Obmutescent over outrageous obsequious obfuscation we have loud and clear what Black Lives Matter is, in their own words, how is it possible that the English Premier League clubs and players are openly supporting this? Again my emphasis:


Black Lives Matter UK (BLMUK) is a coalition of black activists and organisers across the UK. We’ve been organising since 2016 for justice in our communities.
We’re guided by a commitment to dismantle imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people in Britain and around the world. We build deep relationships across the diaspora and strategise to challenge the rise of the authoritarian right-wing across the world, from Brazil to Britain.

There is a lot more description and explanation on their GoFundMe page HERE where they have raised approaching 1 million quid in the last week. obviously I put that link not so you donate to this travesty but so you see it is real.



I repeat, how is it possible that the English Premier League clubs and players are openly supporting this? 

Obmutescent over outrageous obsequious obfuscation II...


As a quick follow up to Obmutescent over outrageous obsequious obfuscation we have loud and clear what Black Lives Matter is, in their own words, how is it possible that the English Premier League clubs and players are openly supporting this? Again my emphasis:
Black Lives Matter UK (BLMUK) is a coalition of black activists and organisers across the UK. We’ve been organising since 2016 for justice in our communities. We’re guided by a commitment to dismantle imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people in Britain and around the world. We build deep relationships across the diaspora and strategise to challenge the rise of the authoritarian right-wing across the world, from Brazil to Britain.
There is a lot more description and explanation on their GoFundMe page HERE where they have raised approaching 1 million quid in the last week. obviously I put that link not so you donate to this travesty but so you see it is real.

I repeat, how is it possible that the English Premier League clubs and players are openly supporting this? 

Obmutescent over outrageous obsequious obfuscation...




Watched some footy last night; it was my last time for a while at least. I was, to say the least, stunned. I should have realised the other day, seeing the Liverfluke players taking a knee and other dim-witted overpaid fuckwits too: English Premier League players' names on the back of their shirts won't appear; the political divisive and sinister 'Black Lives Matter' will appear for 12 matches of the recently (yesterday) restarted season. After that, a 'Black Lives Matter' badge will be displayed for the rest of the season alongside another badge thanking NHS staff. All 20 EPL clubs are committed to "a global society of inclusion, respect, and equal opportunities for all, regardless of their colour or creed". Great, laudable, marvellous...but what does that have to do with BLM?

Premier League kneels to the BLM tyrants, writes Gary Oliver on Conservative Woman. he is not wrong.


"Nonetheless, players who kneel in solidarity with teammates cannot all be comfortable endorsing the malevolent manifesto of Black Lives Matter. Certainly many football supporters will be dismayed by their club’s shirts being used to promote a group which denigrates British history and whose benign name belies its menacing intent."

Laws of the Game and Football Rules [English Football Association] IFAB Laws of the Game 2019-20, 20/21 [International Football Association Board]

Law 4: The Players' Equipment, Section 5:


Slogans, statements, images and advertising:
Interpreting the Law

When interpreting whether a slogan, statement or image is permissible... 


... 'political' is less clear but slogans, statements or images related to the following are not permitted:

any person(s), living or dead (unless part of the official competition name)

any local, regional, national or international political party/organisation/group, etc.

any local, regional or national government or any of its departments, offices or functions

any organisation which is discriminatory

any organisation whose aims/actions are likely to offend a notable number of people

any specific political act/even





When commemorating a significant national or
international event, the sensibilities of the opposing team (including
its supporters) and the general public should be carefully considered.






Competition rules may contain further
restrictions/limitations, particularly in relation to the size, number
and position of permitted slogans, statements and images. It is
recommended that disputes relating to slogans, statements or images be
resolved prior to a match/competition taking place."



My emphasis. They can change the laws but they are currently ignoring them and in a way that is grossly and overtly political and divisive.  





BLM may have had good intentions when it began but that beginning was based on lies and race-baiters: Obama's "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon". Just one example: "While it would be naïve to suggest that there is no racism in the US
criminal justice system, victim reports don’t support the idea that this
is because of mass discrimination
" [LINK]. BLM also believe in the disruption of "the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure". FFS, when most commentators of all colours and creeds agree that the lack of a father figure is a major issue on 'wayward' youth.





Whatever the admirable wishes of the founders and many supporters, BLM is tainted and many demonstrations show clear, organised anarchic disruptors advancing a marxist-anarchist agenda. For this alone the English Premier League and FA and players etc are fools: they fought and won to be able to wear the poppy but on this BLM celebration they are well behind the curve and it will lead to MORE trouble, not less. Why not just strengthen and continue the 'Kick it out', 'No Room for Racism' campaigns? Far better than taking 'a political turn', especially after the recent riots and statue-tumbling law-breaking, criminal damage.


Obmutescent over outrageous obsequious obfuscation...


Watched some footy last night; it was my last time for a while at least. I was, to say the least, stunned. I should have realised the other day, seeing the Liverfluke players taking a knee and other dim-witted overpaid fuckwits too: English Premier League players' names on the back of their shirts won't appear; the political divisive and sinister 'Black Lives Matter' will appear for 12 matches of the recently (yesterday) restarted season. After that, a 'Black Lives Matter' badge will be displayed for the rest of the season alongside another badge thanking NHS staff. All 20 EPL clubs are committed to "a global society of inclusion, respect, and equal opportunities for all, regardless of their colour or creed". Great, laudable, marvellous...but what does that have to do with BLM? Premier League kneels to the BLM tyrants, writes Gary Oliver on Conservative Woman. he is not wrong.
"Nonetheless, players who kneel in solidarity with teammates cannot all be comfortable endorsing the malevolent manifesto of Black Lives Matter. Certainly many football supporters will be dismayed by their club’s shirts being used to promote a group which denigrates British history and whose benign name belies its menacing intent."
Laws of the Game and Football Rules [English Football Association] IFAB Laws of the Game 2019-20, 20/21 [International Football Association Board] Law 4: The Players' Equipment, Section 5:
Slogans, statements, images and advertising:Interpreting the Law When interpreting whether a slogan, statement or image is permissible... 
... 'political' is less clear but slogans, statements or images related to the following are not permitted: any person(s), living or dead (unless part of the official competition name) any local, regional, national or international political party/organisation/group, etc. any local, regional or national government or any of its departments, offices or functions any organisation which is discriminatory any organisation whose aims/actions are likely to offend a notable number of people any specific political act/even

When commemorating a significant national or international event, the sensibilities of the opposing team (including its supporters) and the general public should be carefully considered.

Competition rules may contain further restrictions/limitations, particularly in relation to the size, number and position of permitted slogans, statements and images. It is recommended that disputes relating to slogans, statements or images be resolved prior to a match/competition taking place."
My emphasis. They can change the laws but they are currently ignoring them and in a way that is grossly and overtly political and divisive.  

BLM may have had good intentions when it began but that beginning was based on lies and race-baiters: Obama's "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon". Just one example: "While it would be naïve to suggest that there is no racism in the US criminal justice system, victim reports don’t support the idea that this is because of mass discrimination" [LINK]. BLM also believe in the disruption of "the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure". FFS, when most commentators of all colours and creeds agree that the lack of a father figure is a major issue on 'wayward' youth.

Whatever the admirable wishes of the founders and many supporters, BLM is tainted and many demonstrations show clear, organised anarchic disruptors advancing a marxist-anarchist agenda. For this alone the English Premier League and FA and players etc are fools: they fought and won to be able to wear the poppy but on this BLM celebration they are well behind the curve and it will lead to MORE trouble, not less. Why not just strengthen and continue the 'Kick it out', 'No Room for Racism' campaigns? Far better than taking 'a political turn', especially after the recent riots and statue-tumbling law-breaking, criminal damage.

sábado, 13 de junio de 2020

Out of Overton opinions oppressed...




The Overton Window has been constantly moving (only 'leftwards' it seems, hehehe) and with some issues has certainly shifted off the scale e.g. racism. Noam Chomsky (yeah, I know!) "The smart way to keep people
passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable
opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even
encourage the more critical and dissident views
", anyhoo...the following is from a "person of colour" at University of California, Berkeley. A professor in the History Department there worried about what has become of his department (and colleagues) and horrified that non agreement with the 'new orthodoxy' is seen as totally unaccpetable.
I copy and paste the 'highlights' below but there's more and well worth a read. Unfortunately I bet in a day or two he is uncovered and does, as he suspects, lose his job. [Thread Reader HERE]. The letter has been comfirmed as legit.



" I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.

In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system."




"The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions."



"The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians.


"Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence."

"[the proportion of black incarcerated Americans] is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black.

I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict. 




"This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries.

If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? 


"Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history, and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position.

The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people.
There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads."



"The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them.

Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is."

"No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence. [in the Bay Area] Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions...

It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans, who incidentally have black skin."




Most troublingly...


"All donations to the official BLM website are immediately redirected to ActBlue Charities, an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates. Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign."

"This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat administrations.

The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community...[ ]...all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives."




There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called 'race hustlers': hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal political entrepreneurship.

Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically segregationist.

[The anonymous professor's university and department] has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at her pregnant stomach.

He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children, playing no part in their support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer, a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors... [you] are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his name to virtual sainthood. A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. [...] Americans are being socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist. A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.



"The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating.

No other group in America is systematically demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites."

"I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda... I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd's death and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end."

Out of Overton opinions oppressed...


The Overton Window has been constantly moving (only 'leftwards' it seems, hehehe) and with some issues has certainly shifted off the scale e.g. racism. Noam Chomsky (yeah, I know!) "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views", anyhoo...the following is from a "person of colour" at University of California, Berkeley. A professor in the History Department there worried about what has become of his department (and colleagues) and horrified that non agreement with the 'new orthodoxy' is seen as totally unaccpetable. I copy and paste the 'highlights' below but there's more and well worth a read. Unfortunately I bet in a day or two he is uncovered and does, as he suspects, lose his job. [Thread Reader HERE]. The letter has been comfirmed as legit.

" I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them. In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system."

"The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions."

"The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians.
"Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence."
"[the proportion of black incarcerated Americans] is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black. I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict. 

"This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries. If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? 
"Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history, and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people. There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads."
"The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is."
"No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence. [in the Bay Area] Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions... It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans, who incidentally have black skin."

Most troublingly...
"All donations to the official BLM website are immediately redirected to ActBlue Charities, an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates. Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign."
"This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat administrations. The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community...[ ]...all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives."

There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called 'race hustlers': hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal political entrepreneurship. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically segregationist. [The anonymous professor's university and department] has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children, playing no part in their support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer, a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors... [you] are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his name to virtual sainthood. A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. [...] Americans are being socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist. A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.
"The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating. No other group in America is systematically demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites."
"I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda... I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd's death and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end."

viernes, 30 de marzo de 2018

Opaque or obvious observations...






Reading Alasdair Palmer's article "The stop and search race myth" in The Spectator earlier this week a number of points came as no surprise (Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, wanted to look good with black voters, special advisers editing out important info, SJWs critical of the police’s racist use of stop and search, the stats showing many times more likely to be stopped and searched if you were a member of an ethnic minority etc.) but at least one point was a surprise (although obvious when considering the title of the article!): it has actually been shown that it really is a myth. Palmer names - but doesn't link to - THIS report, by P.A.J. Waddington and others: 'In Proportion: Race, and Police Stop and Search'...but this doesn't stop politicians pedalling lies.



It has long been obvious to everyone - EVERYONE - except lefty liberal dimwits, lying politicians, IYIs, guilty or blinkered BAME etc., that stop and search is always going to be bias against the profile of those committing the crime. Why stop ginger grannies when 'a big black dude' was the assailant? That said, on those grounds alone, all the innocent big black dudes would get pissed off if they kept getting stopped and searched. Looking at the image to the above, you'd think, hey, that's racist: indeed, in some years it was 6 or 7 times more likely to get stopped if you were black. That image is Fig 3 on page 8 of THIS Police Federation report from 2012; nearly a decade old data but things haven't changed that much overall.

HOWEVER, this supposed race bias is countered and proven false when one considers (a) WHEN the searches are done and (b) WHERE the searches are done e.g. from Palmer:


"[The team of Home Office researchers]... discovered that when you looked at who was available to be stopped and searched when the police were actually stopping and searching on the streets, the ethnic bias disappeared. In fact, the police stopped slightly more white people than they should have done if you looked solely at their proportion of the street population."

Oops. Somewhat supporting this IMHO is a more recent report from 2015: 'Stop and Search: Exploring Disproportionality' where in Leicestershire the perceived (by the police officers) ethnicity was of those stopped was 68% White European, 19% Asian, 10% African Caribbean etc., (Self‐reported ethnicity had high agreement with officer perceived ethnicity). i.e. represents what's there in front of them, not police racial bias.




This is reminiscent of Overt omissions, obvious outrage: the lies surrounding the stats re police killing blacks in the USA where the numbers are skewed: "These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned to minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects."

Opaque or obvious observations...


Reading Alasdair Palmer's article "The stop and search race myth" in The Spectator earlier this week a number of points came as no surprise (Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, wanted to look good with black voters, special advisers editing out important info, SJWs critical of the police’s racist use of stop and search, the stats showing many times more likely to be stopped and searched if you were a member of an ethnic minority etc.) but at least one point was a surprise (although obvious when considering the title of the article!): it has actually been shown that it really is a myth. Palmer names - but doesn't link to - THIS report, by P.A.J. Waddington and others: 'In Proportion: Race, and Police Stop and Search'...but this doesn't stop politicians pedalling lies.

It has long been obvious to everyone - EVERYONE - except lefty liberal dimwits, lying politicians, IYIs, guilty or blinkered BAME etc., that stop and search is always going to be bias against the profile of those committing the crime. Why stop ginger grannies when 'a big black dude' was the assailant? That said, on those grounds alone, all the innocent big black dudes would get pissed off if they kept getting stopped and searched. Looking at the image to the above, you'd think, hey, that's racist: indeed, in some years it was 6 or 7 times more likely to get stopped if you were black. That image is Fig 3 on page 8 of THIS Police Federation report from 2012; nearly a decade old data but things haven't changed that much overall. HOWEVER, this supposed race bias is countered and proven false when one considers (a) WHEN the searches are done and (b) WHERE the searches are done e.g. from Palmer:
"[The team of Home Office researchers]... discovered that when you looked at who was available to be stopped and searched when the police were actually stopping and searching on the streets, the ethnic bias disappeared. In fact, the police stopped slightly more white people than they should have done if you looked solely at their proportion of the street population."
Oops. Somewhat supporting this IMHO is a more recent report from 2015: 'Stop and Search: Exploring Disproportionality' where in Leicestershire the perceived (by the police officers) ethnicity was of those stopped was 68% White European, 19% Asian, 10% African Caribbean etc., (Self‐reported ethnicity had high agreement with officer perceived ethnicity). i.e. represents what's there in front of them, not police racial bias.

This is reminiscent of Overt omissions, obvious outrage: the lies surrounding the stats re police killing blacks in the USA where the numbers are skewed: "These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned to minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects."

viernes, 14 de julio de 2017

Oncoming oneirodynia osmesis...






"An extra 68,000 teachers from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds need to be recruited to reflect England's school population, figures show. Just 13% of state-funded schools' teachers are currently from a BME background..." the BBC tells us. Now you may think 13% sounds about right, you may recall the consensus/ONS [Link] saying that England & Wales ethnicity has fallen to 86% (it was 94%+ in 1991) ...sooo, 14% non white pretty much equates to the numbers within the teacher ranks: 13%. However, the BBC goes on to say (finishing the sentence) "...compared to 27% of pupils." Let that sink in, that last bit: 27% of pupils in England's state school population are from black or minority ethic backgrounds. 27%! WTF? Of course that is the average; looking at the image you'll see it can reach 90% in some areas.

Oncoming oneirodynia osmesis...


"An extra 68,000 teachers from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds need to be recruited to reflect England's school population, figures show. Just 13% of state-funded schools' teachers are currently from a BME background..." the BBC tells us. Now you may think 13% sounds about right, you may recall the consensus/ONS [Link] saying that England & Wales ethnicity has fallen to 86% (it was 94%+ in 1991) ...sooo, 14% non white pretty much equates to the numbers within the teacher ranks: 13%. However, the BBC goes on to say (finishing the sentence) "...compared to 27% of pupils." Let that sink in, that last bit: 27% of pupils in England's state school population are from black or minority ethic backgrounds. 27%! WTF? Of course that is the average; looking at the image you'll see it can reach 90% in some areas.

domingo, 10 de julio de 2016

Overt omissions, obvious outrage II...






Following on from yesterday's post about the BBC's shockingly wrong headline and article "Why do US police keep killing unarmed black men?" Alan at Biased BBC has come up with an interesting find: "At least one of the Blacks who murdered the police officers in Dallas had links to Black Power groups….by coincidence in June the BBC was promoting their agenda": the BBC did a programme on the killers and their gun club just last month: "On the ground with America's Black Power soldiers". And again the goading of blacks into killing by repeated and continual lies:


"But there’s more: if you are a black man aged 15-34 you're nine times more likely to be killed than anyone else. Yet African Americans make up just 12% of the US population. Whatever way you look at it, police are clearly killing disproportionately large numbers of African Americans - particularly young black men."

No explanation, no reasoning, none of the actual facts as to WHY... I hope the authorities are looking closely at the BBC footage and will be giving the reporters and cameramen extended questioning. 

Overt omissions, obvious outrage II...


Following on from yesterday's post about the BBC's shockingly wrong headline and article "Why do US police keep killing unarmed black men?" Alan at Biased BBC has come up with an interesting find: "At least one of the Blacks who murdered the police officers in Dallas had links to Black Power groups….by coincidence in June the BBC was promoting their agenda": the BBC did a programme on the killers and their gun club just last month: "On the ground with America's Black Power soldiers". And again the goading of blacks into killing by repeated and continual lies:
"But there’s more: if you are a black man aged 15-34 you're nine times more likely to be killed than anyone else. Yet African Americans make up just 12% of the US population. Whatever way you look at it, police are clearly killing disproportionately large numbers of African Americans - particularly young black men."
No explanation, no reasoning, none of the actual facts as to WHY... I hope the authorities are looking closely at the BBC footage and will be giving the reporters and cameramen extended questioning. 

viernes, 8 de julio de 2016

Overt omissions, obvious outrage...






The headline in that image shocked me, seriously. I have waffled on about BBC bias for over 2 decades but still they manage to amaze me with their unbelievably crass reporting. The image isn't from the news today about last night's Dallas police murders but I saw the link to it just as I was wondering why - the news of the worse police killings since 9/11 - the whole thing seem overtly anti-police (but has since been updated and toned down and now even including info about the horribly high number of police that are killed in the line of duty). However, imagine my surprise when I see the link "Why do US police keep killing unarmed black men?" [Link] I thought WTF? and followed the link to see that, indeed, I hadn't misread. The BBC did indeed have the headline "Why do US police keep killing unarmed black men?". In all their interviews they fail to get near the real issue.

Reports now from the Dallas Police Chief say that "[the now dead suspect] was upset about the recent police shootings"... "The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers." Now why would he want to do that? Maybe because he reads the BBC and much of the rest of the polemic creating media or listens to Obama or those overt racist, anti-police lefties like Black Lives Matter (yes, racist) that keep stoking the flames of the outright lie that there is some US Cop anti-black intentional killing spree. And it is lie. A big fat funded by lefty billionaires lie. The STATS speak for themselves and tell another story. Some of those five stats (previous link) are from HERE, pdf: The Danger of the 'Black Lives Matter' Movement by Heather Mac Donald. "In Los Angeles, blacks between the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean. Who is killing them? Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks." Another snippet with New York as an example:


"Standard anti-cop ideology, whether emanating from the ACLU or the academy, holds that law enforcement actions are racist if they don’t mirror population data. New York City illustrates why that expectation is so misguided. Blacks make up 23 percent of New York City’s population, but they commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime, according to victims and witnesses. Add Hispanic shootings and you account for 98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the city. Whites are 33 percent of the city’s population, but they commit fewer than two percent of all shootings, four percent of all robberies, and five percent of all violent crime. These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned to minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects."

Let me repeat that last bit: These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned to minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects.  More crime in those neighborhoods means much more police presence.  Much higher percentage of violent crime in those areas means more police presence. When you add to the mix that 'blacks of all ages commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined' it's a recipe for disaster.



This reflects the reality in the UK too with the constant railing against the UK police 'sus' then stop-and-search activities, always saying how they were racist etc...then you look at crime figures and suddenly it's clear and obvious...except to [mainly] lefty [mainly] dimwits.



In the USA police officers are being hunted and killed (dozens of incidents this year) and are being ambushed like last night (while policing an anti-police rally!) precisely because the main stream media (and many politicians) are constantly anti-police, hinting of racist cops, intentional beating, police brutality etc even when all the facts suggest the police weren't at fault. I know the police aren't always innocent but FFS, this constant false narrative shit has got to stop sometime. Something else Dallas Police Chief said was tragic: "We don't feel much support most days. Let's not make today most days". And finally, repeating a line from Daily Wire: Anti-police rhetoric has deadly consequences. And - an irony missed by BLM - not just for the Police.



Update (21:15 BST): another shooting: Bristol, Tennessee: "he was angry about police violence against African-Americans"... 

Overt omissions, obvious outrage...


The headline in that image shocked me, seriously. I have waffled on about BBC bias for over 2 decades but still they manage to amaze me with their unbelievably crass reporting. The image isn't from the news today about last night's Dallas police murders but I saw the link to it just as I was wondering why - the news of the worse police killings since 9/11 - the whole thing seem overtly anti-police (but has since been updated and toned down and now even including info about the horribly high number of police that are killed in the line of duty). However, imagine my surprise when I see the link "Why do US police keep killing unarmed black men?" [Link] I thought WTF? and followed the link to see that, indeed, I hadn't misread. The BBC did indeed have the headline "Why do US police keep killing unarmed black men?". In all their interviews they fail to get near the real issue. Reports now from the Dallas Police Chief say that "[the now dead suspect] was upset about the recent police shootings"... "The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers." Now why would he want to do that? Maybe because he reads the BBC and much of the rest of the polemic creating media or listens to Obama or those overt racist, anti-police lefties like Black Lives Matter (yes, racist) that keep stoking the flames of the outright lie that there is some US Cop anti-black intentional killing spree. And it is lie. A big fat funded by lefty billionaires lie. The STATS speak for themselves and tell another story. Some of those five stats (previous link) are from HERE, pdf: The Danger of the 'Black Lives Matter' Movement by Heather Mac Donald. "In Los Angeles, blacks between the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean. Who is killing them? Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks." Another snippet with New York as an example:
"Standard anti-cop ideology, whether emanating from the ACLU or the academy, holds that law enforcement actions are racist if they don’t mirror population data. New York City illustrates why that expectation is so misguided. Blacks make up 23 percent of New York City’s population, but they commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime, according to victims and witnesses. Add Hispanic shootings and you account for 98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the city. Whites are 33 percent of the city’s population, but they commit fewer than two percent of all shootings, four percent of all robberies, and five percent of all violent crime. These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned to minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects."
Let me repeat that last bit: These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned to minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects.  More crime in those neighborhoods means much more police presence.  Much higher percentage of violent crime in those areas means more police presence. When you add to the mix that 'blacks of all ages commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined' it's a recipe for disaster.

This reflects the reality in the UK too with the constant railing against the UK police 'sus' then stop-and-search activities, always saying how they were racist etc...then you look at crime figures and suddenly it's clear and obvious...except to [mainly] lefty [mainly] dimwits.

In the USA police officers are being hunted and killed (dozens of incidents this year) and are being ambushed like last night (while policing an anti-police rally!) precisely because the main stream media (and many politicians) are constantly anti-police, hinting of racist cops, intentional beating, police brutality etc even when all the facts suggest the police weren't at fault. I know the police aren't always innocent but FFS, this constant false narrative shit has got to stop sometime. Something else Dallas Police Chief said was tragic: "We don't feel much support most days. Let's not make today most days". And finally, repeating a line from Daily Wire: Anti-police rhetoric has deadly consequences. And - an irony missed by BLM - not just for the Police.

Update (21:15 BST): another shooting: Bristol, Tennessee: "he was angry about police violence against African-Americans"...