Monday, June 29, 2020

NANCY PELOSI'S ANARCHY IN AMERICA - WILL IT HELP HER ELECT JOE 'BRIBES' BIDEN?


Washington Post: Only 17 of 20 Most Violent Cities Are Run by Democrats, so Trump Is Wrong

A protester breaks a window with a chair during a protest in downtown Los Angeles, Friday, May 29, 2020. Protests have been erupting all over the country after George Floyd died earlier this week in police custody in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/Christian Monterrosa)
AP Photo/Christian Monterrosa
3:19
The Washington Post declared it has disproven President Donald Trump’s claim that “the 20 most dangerous cities are Democrat-run” by affirming that 17 of the 20 most violent have Democrat mayors.
Columnist Philip Bump began by quoting Trump claiming “the 20 most dangerous [cities] are Democrat-run”:
Trump has repeatedly lifted up a statistical factoid, as he did during an event at the White House on Wednesday. “You hear about certain places like Chicago and you hear about what’s going on in Detroit and other — other cities, all Democrat run,” he said. “Every one of them is Democrat run. Twenty out of 20. The 20 worst, the 20 most dangerous are Democrat run.”
Bump explained, “It’s not clear how Trump is defining ‘most dangerous’ in this context. So let’s look at two related sets of data compiled by the FBI: most violent crime and most violent crime per capita.”

BLOG EDITOR: ALL THE BELOW CITIES ARE LA RAZA 'The Race' SUPREMACY SANCTUARY CITIES WHERE ILLEGALS ARE FIRST IN LINE FOR EVERYTHING.
In his analysis, Bump pointed to an FBI list of the 20 cities with the most violent crime, the top 10 of which all have Democrat mayors:
  1. New York
  2. Los Angeles
  3. Chicago
  4. Houston
  5. Philadelphia
  6. Memphis
  7. Detroit
  8. Dallas
  9. Phoenix
  10. Baltimore
Out of the next ten cities, two (San Antonio and Las Vegas) have independent mayors, and one (Jacksonville) has a Republican. Bump goes further, listing the top 20 cities with the most violent crime “per 10,000” people. In this list, only one city lacks a Democrat mayor, and that is Springfield, Missouri.
So on the straightforward list of most violent cities, 17 of 20 have a Democrat mayor. For incidents per 10,000 people, 19 out of the top 20 have a Democrat mayor.
Bump cedes that Trump is only “slightly wrong” before launching into a discourse on why making this comparison means nothing, anyway. “in fairness, it actually doesn’t matter that four of the 32 cities listed above have non-Democratic mayors,” he writes, “because it doesn’t really matter that the other mayors are Democrats.”
“Since there’s a correlation between size and amount of crime and between size and propensity to vote Democratic, it’s problematic to draw a causal relationship between crime and Democratic leadership,” he argues — responding to an implication that Trump’s quote never makes explicit.
“It may be the case that cities with more crime are more likely to have Democratic leaders,” Bump concedes. “To a large extent, of course, Trump isn’t really trying to make a point beyond ‘cities and Democrats are scary’” — apparently for cynical electoral purposes, according to the columnist.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.


Bizarro World, coming to a neighborhood near you!


For those of us old enough to remember a time when men were men and women were women, a major source of entertainment for children back then was comic books.  And who was the most famous comic book character of all?  Why, that's easy: Superman! Faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.  You wanna talk about white privilege?  Superman was super-strong, super-fast, and invulnerable to everything except Kryptonite, all the while sporting pecs that just wouldn't quit.
Among Supe's many adventures in space, he once came upon a planet where everything was exactly the reverse of how things are on Earth: Bizarro World.  On Bizarro World, up was down, left was right, and black was white.  Decades later, us oldsters may have forgotten such silly memes until, sadly, our own country turned Bizarro.

Now, thanks to liberals, leftists, and Democrats, nothing in America really makes sense anymore.

Don't want your business to die?  Don't want to be quarantined?  Don't want to spend your life wearing a useless paper mask?  You're a terrorist!  Like throwing bricks through store windows, lighting buildings on fire, tearing down statues?  You're a warrior for social justice.
Dare to offer the opinion that everyone's life is valuable, that all lives matter?  You're a racist.  Write thousands of words in the N.Y. Times describing how whites are irredeemably racist — inherently racist as per erstwhile President Obama, meaning they don't even know they're racist — and you win a Pulitzer Prize.
When a pandemic arrives, you might think it's crucial to be with loved ones, attend religious services, and take care of everyday health needs.  But you'd be wrong.  What's most important currently, it seems, is riots, arson, abortions, and buying weed.  Play ball, no!  Buy booze, mais bien sûr!
If you think Obama, Biden, Crooked Hillary, 
and the DNC all conspired to take out Donald 
Trump, both before and after he was elected, 
why, you're a conspiracy theorist.  Tell the 
world on CNN that Donald Trump is a Russian
agent, a friend to China, and a fulminating 
racist to all the minorities who enjoyed record-
low unemployment before the Wuhan Flu 
arrived, and, well, you're a sublime sage 
speaking truth to power.
It's more than one can wrap his mind around — the mainstream media proclaiming that Republicans are all sex fiends, racists, and grandma-killers while Democrats keep getting caught schtupping the staff, wearing blackface, and sending COVID-19 patients into poor Grandma's nursing home.
Now that we're in a pandemic-induced second Great Depression, thanks to the Chinese Communist Party and the ironically named WHO, who shall lead us out of it in January?  A self-made billionaire who single-handedly conquered the real estate, entertainment, and political worlds or a 77-year-old swamp rat with dementia, fake hair, and fake teeth?  Polls overwhelmingly say: give us the senile swamp rat!
Sadly, we can't expect Superman to save us from our present upside-down discourse.  We can only hope integrity, common sense, and common decency will save the day.

Pollak: 3 Recent Signs Democrats Want a Socialist Revolution

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 08: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) joins fellow Democrats from the House and Senate, including (L-R) Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), to announce new legislation to end excessive use of force by …
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
3:32

Three events last week showed that Democrats do not want a mere transfer of power if they win the November election: they intend to revolutionize our entire system of government.
The first happened Wednesday, when Democrats blocked the Senate from considering a bill on police reform by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC).
Scott, who is African American, has been working on the issue for years. He had the full support of the rest of the Republican caucus. He also agreed to consider whatever amendments Democrats offered.
They still used the filibuster to block the bill from even being debated.
The episode showed that Democrats do not actually care about police reform. Nor do they want to unite the nation behind any sort of bipartisan compromise. They simply want to use the issue in the elections, which they hope will give them the House, the Senate, and the presidency. Then they can get rid of the filibuster and pass whatever they want.
The second episode happened later that same day, when the school board in Democrat-dominated Oakland, California voted unanimously to abolish the police force in local public schools.
With school shootings still a concern, the board bowed to the wishes of Black Lives Matter activists and removed a crucial layer of defense for the city’s children.
It is not an isolated episode: Democrats on the Minneapolis City Council voted Friday to disband their city’s police.
This is not a party that is interested in rational decisions on public policy. This is a party committed to a revolutionary course.
The third episode happened Friday, when the House of Representatives voted along party lines to make Washington, D.C., the 51st state.
It is an utterly absurd proposal. D.C. is barely even a proper city; in land area, it is smaller than Stockton, California. There is no pressing national demand to add another state and redesign of the national flag.
There is only one reason Democrats want to add another state: they want to add two Senators, who — given the partisan makeup of the Swamp — will always be Democrats. That means Republicans would have to work much harder to gain a majority. (It would also mean the majority that confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court would never have existed.)
With a permanent majority in the Senate, and the filibuster gone, Democrats will be able to redesign the country, even without passing a constitutional amendment. They will be able to expand the Supreme Court and pack it with liberals with just a simple majority. They will be able to make all eleven-million-plus illegal aliens in the country voting citizens, permanently altering the electorate in Democrats’ favor. They will pass a version of the Green New Deal. And so on.
The Democrats knew a D.C. statehood bill would not pass now; their goal is to soften opposition so that they can pass it next year with minimal opposition, if and when they sweep the November elections.
Democrats have made their intentions clear. The only way to stop their socialist revolution is to beat them in November.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, is available for pre-order. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.









By Destroying History, Liberals Make an Example of Themselves


The current mania for pulling down statues of so-called morally corrupt historical figures is a classic case of presentism: "reading modern notions of morality" onto the past.  It seems that those driven to do so may be honestly trying to rectify the "sins" of the past — whether it be colonial conquest, slavery, genocide, or whatever else.  How corrupt were these historical figures?  Were they indeed much more reprehensible than anyone in the present day?  What did these people actually think in the awful before times when our Western European ancestors discovered the "New World" and practiced conquest and slavery?  We are not able to read their minds — only to speculate upon their intent by examining historical documents: the writings, recollections, and stories of those who experienced those days.  Indeed, how many of these activists so intent on destroying these representations of the past are fully knowledgeable of these documents that underpin the respect once given to these historical figures resulting in their statuary honors?
David Wootton, in his book The Invention of Science, explores the development of modern thinking through the investigation of historical artifacts such as writings, literature, and recollections.  He notes that in the 1600s, even the notion of history itself did not exist as we understand it today.  Wootton describes the intellectual culture of a typical well educated European in the 1600s.  Such a person believed that witches could turn people into pigs, for instance, and that magic could be used to retrieve stolen goods.  Alchemists could turn base metal into gold, and murdered bodies would bleed in the presence of the murderer.  Slavery was understood to be just one way of the world. Europeans at that time were familiar with the writings of the Romans and the Greeks and how they lived.  They had no notion of progress as such — to be able to reflect on their own technologies and compare them to the capabilities of others — so the classical civilizations of Rome and Greece were seen as contemporaries rather than as ancients.  We today can marvel at their ignorance, even as we take for granted the modern world that exists as a result of their imagination and curiosity.
How these Europeans of the 15th and 16th centuries, few of whom managed to cross the oceans to discover the North American continent and return to tell the tale, viewed the non-literate stone-age peoples they encountered there may not be acceptable to our modern notions of cultural respect and "cultural equivalency."  We may say the European explorers and settlers exhibited hubris, "an overestimation of one's own competence, accomplishments or capabilities," in their dealings with the indigenous populations when humility would have served them better.  And although any rationale for why they responded the way they did toward these peoples does not excuse the violence they perpetrated, their accomplishments, and those of their contemporaries, drove the growth of science, technology, philosophy, and the evolution of the modern world that we enjoy today.
Throughout history, there is much can be learned from both the accomplishments and the mistakes made by those that came before us.  Erasing history serves only to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We are supposedly morally evolved for the better now — against slavery, racism and bigotry, conquest and war — yet one open-eyed observation across our planet today would reveal that human beings are practicing these "awful" behaviors almost everywhere in some form or another.
The statue-destroying activists are unwittingly displaying themselves as arrogant in the highest degree, for instead of acknowledging history and the lessons that could be learned therefrom to build a more compassionate and understanding present and future, they practice the same destructive behaviors that they are purportedly erasing from the past.  Actually, it is the worst best case of hubris, for the activists claim to stand on the highest moral ground to support their judgments and display no self-reflective understanding of the past, themselves, or their current behavior.  Most of the recent cases of destruction, if not all, demonstrate a woeful ignorance of history by the perpetrators.  So although presentism may have launched this destruction, the lack of historical understanding and self-reflection renders the movement hollow, corrupt, and devoid of any humility and compassion.  Instead of being able to say "we've come a long way, chaps," it appears that human behavior has not evolved one bit for the better in the centuries that have passed.  How dare we disparage our historical forebears?
It raises the question — is the current violence and outrage simply a case of hubris and ignorance, or is there another purpose driving this need to erase the past?  Should our historical figures be seen not as good examples at all, but as horrible warnings?  Even if so, we are still charged to learn from the past to both appreciate the benefits that have sprung from their effort and forge a better future by avoiding their mistakes.
In any case, the destructive so-called activists — i.e., vandals — definitely fall into the category of being not good examples, but horrible warnings to a civil society.  Woe to a human experience with no history, no memory of either joy or pain.  Without memory, we have no understanding.  It is better to add to the history we think we know — to unveil the hidden, to recognize and honor the forgotten, in order to make the record more honest and complete.  Doing so can inform our work to build a better future's past.  History demands our humble understanding, not our hubristic outrage.
Rosamina Lowi is an e-learning developer, writer, and editor.  Contact her at rlowi@yahoo.com.



Anarchists and left-wing extremists have sought to advance a fringe ideology that paints the United States of America as fundamentally unjust and have sought to impose that ideology on Americans through violence and mob intimidation.  They have led riots in the streets, burned police vehicles, killed and assaulted government officers as well as business owners defending their property, and even seized an area within one city where law and order gave way to anarchy. During the unrest, innocent citizens also have been harmed and killed.


The War for Free Speech Is Here



While most of us were busy surviving pandemic-fueled civil confinement and Democratic Party–led riots in the street, the shots over Fort Sumter were fired, and the war for freedom of speech began in earnest.  Just as the mob outside seeks to control how we think and what we may say, Google, Twitter, and Facebook seek to do the same thing by targeting and discriminating against conservatives for their ideas.  That there is now such a strong army of "Americans in name only" who have taken it upon themselves to tell others what they may learn and believe and write without being tormented or threatened by black-clad shock troops breaking windows and fire-bombing businesses or financially ruined by Democrat-aligned corporate oligarchs targeting conservative Americans' livelihoods only serves as jarring proof that we have tolerated these attacks on our freedom and woefully appeased our attackers for entirely too long.  
It's not the rise of a charismatic leader in Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here that is hard to imagine.  We've read about Julius Caesar and the fall of the Roman Republic, about the French Revolution's Robespierre and Napoleon Bonaparte, about the post-WWI rise to power of Russia's Lenin and Italy's Mussolini.  We've seen the film reels of Adolf Hitler gesticulating before crowds of thousands and Hugo Chávez using the power of television to seduce his countrymen with socialist dreams.
What has always seemed difficult to grasp is how so many millions of ordinary people could become mindless cult followers, all marching together and repeating the same phrases as if part of one unitary organism.  How do you teach millions of people to throw a straight arm high into the air as part of a Nazi salute?  How do you condition a populace to greet one another with an exclamatory "Heil Hitler!"?  How do you teach law-abiding citizens that breaking the windows of Jewish businesses is not only acceptable, but also patriotic?  How do you mobilize a nation, as Mao did, to destroy its own glorious history?  Or convince a prosperous country, as Chávez did, to trade the wealth of the free market for socialist poverty?  How do you so effectively harness the passionate hatred of uneducated children that they turn on their parents and teachers, destroy their churches and religious temples and statues and historical monuments, and violently punish anyone who gets in their way?  How can any of the sins of authoritarian dictators, socialist despots, or communist mass murderers ever become reality in America, where freedom and personal liberty reign?
Then I look at police officers lying prostrate before a crowd demanding their obedience.  And I watch Mitt Romney prove his devotion to those who would control his mind by declaring, like a victim of Stockholm syndrome, that "black lives matter" in cadence with the "woke" mob.  And I see statues of WashingtonJefferson, and Lincoln toppled over and churches and synagogues desecrated.  And I watch thousands of people all bending a knee together, lest they be outed as insufficiently devoted to the new state church of the super-woke and its ever-evolving requirements for remaining in good standing.  And I realize that teachers and parents and ordinary Americans who know better are too afraid to speak up and against the demands of the Black Lives Matter and Antifa and Democratic Party–run mobs.  And I watch Google and Facebook and Twitter actively conspire to deprive Americans of their free speech, especially political speech most in need of protection.  And I finally realize that this is how it can happen here.  Not because there are too few of us who care about free speech and personal liberty, but because too many of us decide to go along to get along.
Marxist socialist politicians, global government technocrats, transnational corporate boards of directors, and "woke" mobs have joined forces to scare and control everyone else.  During this time of mass hysteria driven by the political exploitation of disease and racial grievance, a normal American who simply wants to be left alone to attend church and run a small business can find both his church and business destroyed, while the United Nationsstate and local governments, and virtue-signaling corporate brands actively support those waging war and damn the victim for having the temerity to pray and make a living.
When arsonists on the street are celebrated for burning down history and arsonists at the major tech companies are celebrated for preventing points of view, it's clear that the anti-Americans have gained the upper hand.  When a celebrated and wealthy NFL quarterback retreats briskly from defending the American flag, you know that even those known for their courage have become too afraid to defend what is right.  When your employment is threatened unless you learn to bow down before the mob and repeat meaningless slogans as if they were meaningful sacraments, there is nowhere left to hide from a war that will consume us all.  We either fight and defend the free speech of every American now or no American will ever again be free.  A middle ground no longer exists.
There is no more effective way to lead a nation to civil war than to deprive half of that nation of a voice.  When politicians and privileged corporate giants and shock troops on the street all demand obedience to one point of view, there is no peaceful release valve for those who disagree.  And when the strictures of political correctness are more threatening than their intended targets, then political correctness wages war on people of conscience.  
The freedom to create ideas and release them into the world, to pray fervently and openly according to personal belief, to speak without worry of pain or punishment, is so essential to what America is that fighting for its preservation is nothing short of fighting for the survival of the American nation itself.  If we lose it, everything else falls apart.  Preserving free speech must be where we make our last stand.
Image: Tyler Menezes via Flickr.


More than 60 People Shot, 16 Killed, over Weekend in Mayor Lightfoot’s Chicago



CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - APRIL 16: Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot arrives at Wrigley Field on April 16, 2020 in Chicago Illinois. Wrigley Field has been converted to a temporary satellite food packing and distribution center in cooperation with the Lakeville Food Pantry to support ongoing relief efforts underway in the city …
Jonathan Daniel/Getty
2:12

More than 60 people were shot, 16 fatally, over the course of the weekend in Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s (D) Chicago.
On Sunday morning Breitbart News reported at least 20 had been shot in a 24-hour time-frame running from Friday at 4 p.m. to Saturday at 4 p.m. Seven people were killed during that interval.
On Monday morning, NBC Chicago reported the total number of shooting victims was over 60 for the weekend, with 16 people dead.
The Chicag0 Sun-Times reported one of the weekend’s fatalities was a 10-year-old girl who was “inside a Logan Square home on the Northwest Side” when she was shot in the head by a stray bullet. She was shot at 9:40 p.m. Saturday and pronounced dead just hours later.
A one-year-old boy riding in the car with his mom was also shot and killed Saturday. He and his mother were driving back from the laundromat when a car pulled up next to them and opened fire. The mother was shot as well, but her wounds were not life-threatening.
At least 100 people were shot in Mayor Lightfoot’s Chicago last weekend, which was Father’s Day Weekend, and 14 of them succumbed to their wounds.
On June 21, 2020, Breitbart News reported at least 56 people were shot in Chicago by Sunday morning of Father’s Day Weekend alone. Nine of those shooting victims died.
More than 30 were shot, two fatally, in Chicago the weekend before that and 35 were shot, five fatally, the weekend prior.
The Sun-Times reported 85 shot, 24 fatally, in Chicago during the last weekend of May 2020.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.


VIDEO: Man Allegedly Shot, Killed Two Chicago Teens Who Asked How Tall He Was


2:07
A man was arrested Wednesday after he allegedly shot and killed two teenagers in Chicago, Illinois, for asking how tall he was.
“Police said Laroy Battle, 19, opened fire on two teens in an alley in the 7900-block of South Luella Avenue around 5 p.m. on Saturday, June 20,” according to ABC 7 Chicago.
Deputy Chief of Detectives Brendan Deenihan said the shooting happened after the two teens and a friend had a brief encounter with Battle, whom they did not know, at a neighborhood corner store.
“The victims commented, because, since Battle is quite tall, and they asked him how tall he was and you know, hoped to be that tall someday. And unfortunately, obviously we’ll never see the full growth of these poor children,” Deenihan explained.
As the three teenagers walked home from the store, police said two of them were shot multiple times in an alleyway.
“Jasean Francis, 17, was shot in the back, chest and left hand and taken to University of Chicago Hospital, where he died,” the ABC 7 report stated.
“Charles Riley, 16, was shot in the back and left leg and was taken to University of Chicago Hospital, where he also died,” the article continued.
Deenihan said the teens had been to a mall together and knew the neighborhood well, but did not often venture out because it was so dangerous.
However, on that one occasion, the boys got permission from their mothers to walk to the store and buy candy.
“None of it makes sense,” Deenihan said of the shooting.
“Battle is charged with two counts of first degree murder. Police said he had a previous conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, for which he received probation,” the ABC 7 article noted, adding that he was denied bond on Friday.
At a press conference Thursday, Deenihan called both victims “very good kids from really excellent families,” according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

The Russian Origins of Black Neo-Marxism

 

“White” does not mean white.  “White” in radical parlance means anyone of any race, creed, nationality, color, sex, or sexual preference who embraces capitalism, free markets, limited government, and American traditional culture and values.”
This philosophical concept belongs to Noel Ignatiev, a white American of Russian origin, who is the ideological founding father of numerous radical black movements in America.  The author of this concept was even lucky enough to see his best students -- Black Lives Matter (BLM) -- in action. 
Research into the work of this former Harvard professor finally answered the question of why BLM proponents are so negative about the perfectly rational slogan “All Lives Matter.” The fact is that the “black” in the interpretation of Ignatiev is a revolutionary Marxist.  All those who do not agree with the Left ideology should, according to Ignatiev, be eliminated. 
The slogan “All Lives Matter” blurs the concept of the enemy and brings confusion to the minds of revolutionaries.  That is why any mention of “All Lives Matter” (or its version in support of the police -- “Blue Lives Matter”) provokes such an acute reaction of the Left.
According to Ignatiev, “black” is not the level of pigment in the skin, but the level of adherence to the Marxist doctrine.
According to this definition, the great American free-market economist Thomas Sowell, although he has quite enough black pigment, is not “black.” The conservative justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Clarence Thomas is not “black” either.  According to Ignatiev, many black Americans are not “black” just because they do not want to follow the Marxist dogma. 
Noel Ignatiev (1940-2019) was born in America in a family of Jewish immigrants from Russia and was a third-generation communist.  Moreover, he was not just a member of the Communist Party of the USA from the age of 17 but belonged to its most radical, ultra-left Marxist-Leninist wing.  What was his most outstanding contribution to American philosophy? Here it is:
“Eventually white women can breed out, but my feeling is that if you are a white male, you should kill yourself now.  If you are a thoughtful person, with a social consciousness who considers himself white, you will consider suicide.”
It was he, a convinced, uncompromising, and resolute communist, who in 1967 proposed the doctrine of “white privilege.” Not as a racial term, but as a somewhat modified Marxist term of the class struggle.  The notorious “eradication of white privileges” is simply the standard Marxist wealth redistribution, expressed in newspeak.
Of course, the primary task for Ignatiev was never the physical extermination of whites.  He was talking about the ideological purification of the “whites” from the principles of private property, individualism, and freedom -- all concepts profoundly alien to the Marxists.  Supporters of Ignatiev, aiming for socialism in America, have chosen a very peculiar way -- the mass transformation of whites and squeezing out of them of all their “whiteness.” He sees a happy future as an all-American Gulag, where the re-education of “whites” into “blacks” takes place.
In this case, Ignatiev has no doubts about his righteousness:
“The goal of destroying the white race is simply so desirable, it boggles the mind trying to understand how anyone could possibly object to it.”
The showcase kitsch concentration camp CHAZ/Antifastan in Seattle, with its intolerance of dissent, is the pinnacle of the realization of Ignatieff’s ideas.
The kneeling of some American police offices, military personnel, and politicians in front of a crowd of “blacks” (“blacks” from a Marxist point of view, of course) is an acknowledgment of the supremacy of left-wing ideology over the law.  This is a recognition of the supremacy of the leftist dogma over the Constitution and the oath.
Kneeling is a confirmation that America is not suffering from systemic racism but from systemic neo-Marxism.
Before citing another statement of Ignatiev, let’s consider its antithesis:
“Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead black males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the black race’ is destroyed.”
No, this is not black racism.  This is a systematic, canonical, and “ideologically correct” approach to the class struggle, designed to accomplish a dogmatic Marxist wealth redistribution.  Why? Because since the 60s, all leftists have known the maxim: “The issue is never the issue.  The issue is always the revolution.”
BLOG EDITOR: BARACK OBAMA HAS OPENLY ADMITTED HE WOULD ACCEPT A THIRD TERM. HIS DIVISIONIST PLATFORM SEEKS TO ACHIEVE THAT.
That is why the two paramilitary wings of the Democrat party -- the “white” Antifa and the “black” BLM -- perfectly understand each other.  After all, the race is not a problem.  The main goal is the revolution.  (By the way, the “white” wing of the stormtroopers was also created by the communist: Soviet agent Ernst Thalmann established Antifa in Germany in 1932.)
BLM stormtroopers are trying to provoke a racial war in America in the hope that it will develop into a civil war -- simply because it is much easier to make a revolution during a war.  One of the founders of BLM, Patrisse Cullors, does not hide the fact that BLM members are “trained Marxists” who “read Marx, Lenin, and Mao.”
Of course, the entire Ignatiev’s clink clank is hardly perceived by an unprepared audience.  Therefore, for brevity, we formulate the quintessence of Ignatieff’s philosophy in a simplified form: racism is a form of anti-communism (meaning the “white racism,” of course). 
Actually, many readers are familiar with such definitions.  For example, “Zionism is a form of racism” has been an official UN slogan for many years.  Therefore, the militant anti-Semitism of paleocommunist Ignatiev should not surprise anyone. Indeed, according to Ignatiev, it follows that “Zionism is a form of anti-communism.” Moreover, Ignatiev hated Christianity as much as Judaism (he especially hated Christmas and, oddly enough, Christmas trees).
The Race Traitor magazine published a policy article by Ignatiev in 1997 entitled “The Point Is Not To Interpret Whiteness But To Abolish It”:
"When it comes to abolishing the white race, the task is not to win over more whites to oppose “racism”; there are “anti-racists” enough already to do the job.  The task is to gather together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white.  It is a strategy of creative provocation.”
Of course, by “minority” here Ignatiev means a group of fiery revolutionaries, and “creative provocation” means riots and vandalism. The analogy with the Russian Bolsheviks here is direct – the lumpenproletariat was used in the communist coup in Russia; in America, Ignatiev proposes to use the lumpenblacks as cannon fodder.
No, not all immigrants from Russia became great Americans, such as Sergei Rachmaninov, Igor Sikorsky, Vladimir Nabokov, Joseph Brodsky, and Ayn Rand.  Unfortunately, Russia also offered the arch-communist Noel Ignatiev and the founder of Russian fascism Ivan Ilyin
That’s where the Democrats, who are looking everywhere for the Russian fingerprints, can come unrolled -- after all, if one believes Democrats, even President Trump is the puppet of the Kremlin.  Where is the noble indignation of the leftist press about the “Russian interference in the United States internal affairs”? After all, it was Ignatiev who made titanic efforts to turn American youth into brainless, self-righteous fanatics of a Marxist utopia.
The question, of course, is rhetorical.
Leftists in America -- despite intraspecific ideological competition and the amount of skin pigment -- are not on the American side of the barricades..
Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative columnist at Gary Gindler Chronicles and the founder of a new science: Politiphysics. Follow him on Twitter and Quodverum

BLM Protesters Storm Beverly Hills Neighborhood: ‘Eat the Rich!’

AP Photo/Chris Pizzello, File
27 Jun 202051,581
2:28
Police made several arrests after a group of Black Lives Matter protesters marched through a Beverly Hills residential neighborhood Friday night.
“Videos and photographs of the mob flooded social media as they shouted various messages throughout the residential neighborhood and tore down American flags,” the Daily Wire reported.
Human Events Managing Editor Ian Miles Cheong shared footage of protesters shouting “Eat the rich!”:
Black Lives Matter mob shouts “eat the rich” as they march down a residential area in Beverly Hills. They’re coming for your homes.pic.twitter.com/gs5Hszjb7m
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 27, 2020
Later, he tweeted a video of protesters in Los Angeles shouting “No justice, no peace! No racist police!” as they tore down an American flag attached to a building:
The Black Lives Matter mob in Los Angeles seized a privately owned American flag in a residential suburb, shredding it and pulling it down. pic.twitter.com/gCffXqZuwZ
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 27, 2020
In another video, the protesters in Beverly Hills shouted, “Abolish capitalism now!” while they continued their march through the neighborhood:
A mob of Black Lives Matter activists march through residential neighborhoods in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, chanting “abolish capitalism now.” These same people live off welfare provided by taxpayers.pic.twitter.com/s0w9qNY9ZT
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 27, 2020
In an update on its website at 11:40 p.m., the Beverly Hills Police Department (BHPD) said “An unlawful assembly has been declared in the area of Rexford Drive and Carmelita Ave. BHPD remains on scene.”
Saturday morning, the department tweeted that the unlawful assembly was over and arrests had been made:
The unlawful assembly in the area of Rexford Dr & Carmelita Ave has ended with arrests being made. Protesters have now left the City.
— Beverly Hills Police (@BeverlyHillsPD) June 27, 2020
Wednesday, President Trump tweeted that it was sad how government leaders in many states had allowed protesters to tear down statues and monuments:
….the good and the bad. It is important for us to understand and remember, even in turbulent and difficult times, and learn from them. Knowledge comes from the most unusual of places!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 25, 2020
In an executive order issued Friday on protecting America’s memorials and statues, the president said many of the rioters, arsonists, and left-wing extremists who carried out acts against the monuments had identified themselves with ideologies such as Marxism.
He continued:
Anarchists and left-wing extremists have sought to advance a fringe ideology that paints the United States of America as fundamentally unjust and have sought to impose that ideology on Americans through violence and mob intimidation.  They have led riots in the streets, burned police vehicles, killed and assaulted government officers as well as business owners defending their property, and even seized an area within one city where law and order gave way to anarchy. During the unrest, innocent citizens also have been harmed and killed.
“My Administration will not allow violent mobs incited by a radical fringe to become the arbiters of the aspects of our history that can be celebrated in public spaces,” the president commented.
“State and local public officials’ abdication of their law enforcement responsibilities in deference to this violent assault must end,” he concluded.

Two Black Conservative Women Speak Out about the Democratic Party

Two conservative black American women speak out about their feelings and why the Democrats are not the party for them.  Throughout the country, impoverished black neighborhoods have been controlled by Democratic politicians.  Education school boards; Democrats; mayors: Democrats; district attorneys: Democrats; police chiefs: Democrats; governors: Democrats; congressional districts: Democrats; and senators: Democrats.
Stacy Washington, a conservative black radio host (listen.stacyontheright.com), is dumbfounded that Biden and many Democrats say nothing but are never questioned about solutions.  "At the Breakfast Club he uttered the words 'you ain't black' if they did not vote for him.  He essentially claimed ownership of the black vote just because he is a Democrat.  Today, black Americans want to know why they should vote for him.  He criticizes President Trump but never provides viable alternatives of what he would do.  Democrats feel they own the black vote."
Kathy Barnette is the author of the book Nothing to Lose, Everything to Gain and is the Republican candidate for Pennsylvania's 4th District.  She echoes the same sentiment as Stacy.  "In my book, I wrote how I was like most black people, born into the Democratic Party.  It was never a point of conversation, deliberation, or discussion.  Time and again, I voted Democratic.  I don't remember ever having a thought not to vote that way even though I studied the issues and candidates.  But I woke up after growing up in a desperate economic situation.  I had a front-row seat on the failed liberal policies that left us exploited and devastated."
What has become important to Kathy is her life experiences.  At the age of eighteen, she joined the military, becoming a part of the CID (criminal investigation detachment) unit.  She was one of the few people who were not from a law enforcement background and the only black person.  "I had heard about police brutality.  For me, as a young black girl, after having spent time with these people, I realized the stress and struggles they were under.  With all my life experiences, the book written became the journey for me to get off the Democratic plantation."
She is running for Congress because she looks at the black community as a "microcosm of the failed liberal policies.  This is what is playing out on the streets today.  When you have lived the life I did and the obstacles I have overcome, you make sure not to remain silent.  My opponent and Vice President Biden are just feeble puppets.  The incumbent I am running against is a political social climber.  She got elected on the wave of the 2018 MeToo movement.  It was convenient then for her to say it is all about the women, but now it is no longer just 'believe the women, but wait for facts.'  Puppets do as they are told what to do.  Another example is my opponent's ties to China.  Her bike business received 20 million dollars from the Chinese National Party to make bikes there.  Yet she speaks of a fair wage.  She had taken jobs away from Americans and is paying the Chinese people less than $2."
Stacy told American Thinker, "About 10 to 20% of those living in the inner cities do the crimes.  Everyone else is running scared.  The liberal policies of reliance on government instead of locally controlled areas are just bad for everyone.  Law and order are important." 
Kathy believes in the rule of law.  She does not understand why people support defunding the police, considering it is those neighborhoods that need more, not less, police protection.  "If someone is breaking into my home, trying to accost me, my children, or my husband, and I call 911, will I get a recording of soft music, giving me tips on how to manage my stress?  Look at Chicago that recently had 104 shooting incidents.  I am very aware that in the inner city it is hard pressed to find any conservative thought, competitive thinking, or political diversity.  I talk about it in my book.  When liberals are in control, they bring destruction, instability, and violence.  Confusion is their middle name.  The only remedy is to kick them out of office."
For an example of what is happening, people need to look no farther than the Senate police reform legislation that was recently blocked by the Democrats.  Nancy Pelosi said how the Republicans are "trying to get away with murder, actually."  Yet she and the Democrats ignore the fact that it was put forward by a Republican black American, Senator Tim Scott.  He noted in an email sent out, "These are serious reforms to respond to the serious moment our nation is facing.  My [Democratic] colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, took to the Senate floor to call my efforts to reform policing in our country a "token process."  Those words hurt me in my soul.  Senator Durbin went on to call my bill a 'half-hearted approach' to police reform.  I don't know exactly what Senator Durbin meant, but his rhetoric was out of line and represents a divisive moment for our country As the only African-American Republican senator, I have been leading efforts for years to reform our police on the issues impacting communities of color all across our country.  Democrats like Senator Durbin are more interested in scoring political points."
In the book, Kathy asserts, "Regardless of the party's policies, its agendas, its platform, its moral decline, or the lack of its community responsiveness, the encoded message is that if you're black, you must be a Democrat.  To do, think, or say otherwise is to reject your own race.  And that is unacceptable."  She explained, "White liberals go into black communities to tell them what their issues are.  White liberals are allowed to take control of the narrative and vocabulary.  Black people should be participating in the discussions.  People should wrap their minds around this manipulation."
She told American Thinker that she decided to have her campaign participate in the Black Lives Matter protests.  Why?  Because she wants to go where the black people are and present some critical thinking.  "I was surrounded by liberals.  I want to present a different option.  The black people, after I was done speaking and talking about my proposal for the Minority Inclusion Act (MIA), gave me nothing but ovations.  I will not be bullied into silence.  The Democratic goal is not to solve the problems, but to get more power and influence.  To make those they are serving more dependent on them.  These white liberals will come out of it winning, while the rest of us have boarded up windows and a devasted economy.  This is my fear for the black community."
Democrats like Durbin and Pelosi think they know more about what is best for the black community than black Americans like Tim Scott.  Kathy was asked if she thought there is racism in this country as put forward by liberal media and politicians.  "I think these liberal white liberals will try to come out of it with more power, control, and manipulation of the narrative.  They want everything covered through the lens of racism, something I talk about in my book.  I do not believe that this country is systematically racist.  But as I say in my book, racism still exists.  Bigotry is real.  Hate is evil.  Have I been called the N-word?  Yes!  I am the children's children of those who were bred for a business strategy, have had their children taken away and sold to the highest bidder, have had to take a literacy test to vote, or forced to live in a particular neighborhood.  My great great grandmother was a slave."
She went on to say, "Toppling statues and renaming buildings does absolutely nothing to improve my life.  These statues are like markers of where we are and where we were at that level of time.  Let it add to the level of understanding.  No one is building, but destroying.  They should not be destroyed because they serve as a reminder.  Markers in time show us where we were, how far we've come, and where we are going."
Kathy wants Americans to understand: "this nation is not perfect or complete, but is moving in the right path.  We do have to grow and improve.  I love America, my nation, and want to see everyone do well and succeed in life.  I am on a mission.  My nation that I love is on fire.  We need better options.  Every time I hear the National Anthem, I cry.  We need to see the good, the bad, and the ugly.  The Constitution is an amazing document.  We need to raise the bar of expectation, to reach above ourselves as our forefathers did.  I want to see a better tomorrow with an obligation to live well.  This is a nation that is willing to right its wrong."
The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles


No comments: