WHAT MAKES ANYONE THINK THAT THIS NEGRO WAS THE SHOOTER IN THE COP SHOOTING?

 Deonte Lee Murray, 36, was already in custody for unrelated carjacking charges, prosecutors said.

Let's just put it this way: Murray was in jail, later, for carjacking.

Carjackers do not carjack police cars. Bad idea.

GOOD FOR THE POPE

ERIC SCHMIDT US DROPPED BALL ON TECH FUNDING

IT HAD ALREADY LONG DROPPED THE BALL ON A WHOLE HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN THAT 

DEBATE PURELY SPORTING INTEREST IT WAS BETTER THAN COULD HAVE IMAGINED POSSIBLE

 You really had to see and hear in real time to appreciate. No transcript could do it any justice.

Not at all a debate.

A three way simultaneous desperate improvisation.

IN N OUT BURGER

 https://www.in-n-out.com/history

RIDENHOUR AWARDS COMING UP SOON

https://ridenhour2020.eventbrite.com 

THE SECRET SOCIETY IN BROAD DAYLIGHT AND WHAT IT CAN ACCOMPLISH THE 1619 PROJECT

FOLLOWING ON SEVERAL RECENT POSTS

I want to advert to the passage below, in the context of the accomplishments of the Republican Party, and of Lincoln.

"...In the last half century, many, though not all, historians, other academics, and now, journalists and op-ed writers, have gone in a different direction, arguing that hypocrisy was really the defining feature of what the American revolutionaries accomplished, and that none of it had (or will have) any real meaning until it has been extended to everyone on a fully equal basis...."  DK

In the long transformation of the contagion of liberty, fallout from the Reformation, in 17th through 19th Century British politics, emancipation of this or that minority became expeditient, in a struggle between aristocratic factions and commons, neither of a majority of whom were either Catholic, or later, Jews. The Reform Acts, etc.

This to some extent is background.

Douglas went over in the First Debate the outline of background to creation of the secret abolitionist Republican party out of some Whigs and some Democrats. 

Neither Whig nor Democrat majorities wanted a much stronger federal government. 

Neither wanted to see much of a decline in the several states' individual rights and prerogatives. 

Neither Whigs nor Democrats wanted to see the institution of slavery nationalized, or either mandated, or prohibited ab initio for new territories by federal fiat over existing states' rights, or territories existing or emerging wishes, even though there had been precedent for federal exclusion of slavery in territories, as distinct from states. 

Only handfulls of abolitionists of either party objected to states' rights, and mainly only on the issue of slavery and trade. 

Let's just put it this way: Other than for that, they mostly were, and would have remained, as good states' rights Whigs or Democrats as any other manjack wanton white grifters in Congress ever were.

Moving on to the issue of sectional strife, that had existed for a long time, but it had been mediated in a bi partisan way since there were some members of Congress from both sections.

Neither party majority, or its constituents, wanted or had voted for war to settle the slavery or any other issue. 

They certainly did not think, and had certainly not been told, that they were in fact voting Republican in order to start, one way or another, immediately, an abolitionist war with seceding Southern states over the issue of slavery. 

Furthermore, if they had been asked, a large majority of them, they also would have said that they believed that Southern states, or any states, had a right to secede from the USA if their people (the ones that counted) properly so chose. 

There had been examples already in American history of a threat of secession by Northern states, and it was opposed but the balance of opinion probably favored the right to secede as well.

Turning to the Supreme Court, Justice Taney set out at length in Dred Scott the well established existing situation regarding the legal and constitutional position of negroes, a quite complex one, having to do even with counting and balancing inhabitants for Congressional representation, and characterized also in other contexts by racial inferiority and subordinate status in white society, none of which was the slightest bit reactionary or contentious for most all of those whites with some knowledge, regardless of the state they inhabited, except the few extreme abolitionists in either party. 

The Court, no less than most congressmen of both parties, was merely towing a powerful states' rights theme struck in the Constitution, and as modified by existing legislation, and it had been mostly quite properly adhered to by the Court since 1787 in Dred Scott and before. 

When scholars such as Foner join Lincoln's chorus dubbing Dred Scott an abominable decision, they expose either their ignorance, their guile, or both.

So, taken together, not only Congress, but also the Supreme Court, had generally viewed abolitionism with abhorrence, states' rights as the norm, and secession as legitimate.

It is only once the existing background of this separation of powers stage has been set, and it is seen that Lincoln's Republican secret society then upends by underhanded political manoeuvres the main positions, and so called checks and balances of all three branches of government at the same time, that the enormity of this electoral coup d'etat by fraud can finally be brought into high relief. 

The conspiring Republicans could never have come to power legitimately by open admission of their actual agenda.  They all knew that.

I want to return to Foner's account, not the nonsense high sounding parts about Lincoln gradually coming to abolitionism or toward radical republicanism, or the even more nonsense passages where Foner calls Lincoln on the racist carpet, of which there are plenty, but rather those passages, sometimes heartbreaking, sprinkled here and there throughout the book, some early experiences, see also late, p. 223, 224, (his full White House meeting with free negroes account is online, and posted elsewhere here) 225, 256, 257, where Lincoln's actual experiences and feelings, or lack of feelings, (I am not suggesting he need have actually had any) for negroes, early and late, in various contexts, shows through again and again, the pathos of these passages, of his superior and dismissive attitude toward those whom he publicly claimed should be treated as equals according to the Declaration, but denied it to the audiences who rejected it. Condemning Dred Scott but equivocating when convenient.

But in reality, behind even all of that dissembling rhetoric, he did not hesitate, as a very cold blooded politician, to use them mainly, one might almost say, exclusively, as his personal political pawns and later as cannon fodder, for his own political purposes, as one might use an old broken rake, a bent but usable shovel, or a dependable expendable farm animal. 

Had some benevolent God of Negroes offered to pay the bill for them to all be returned, against their will,  to Africa, free and slave, trust me, he would have jumped on it.

Lincoln's white only Immigration Act followed closely his negro Emancipation Proclamation, both during the Civil War.

So, in concluding, at least for the night, i have to say that DK's term hypocrisy hardly captures what Lincoln's secret society accomplished. 

Rather, it was an actual Republican coup d' etat, a traitorous and fraudulent abuse of the electoral system, used to bring them, a radical fringe group, to power under totally false pretenses, so that they could then foment a civil war with the slave holding states and share the spoils among themselves under our spoils of office system. And that is exactly what they did, holding power from 1860 until 1932, 72 long years.

The secession of Deep South states, upon Lincoln's electoral victory, ironically, itself had the Republican party's desired effect, among many Northern racist but hardly abolitionist whites, of confirming his prior and extensive false claims that Southern whites intended to nationalize slavery not merely into new territories but into the Northern states themselves, so that the very Northern fears that Lincoln had previously fraudulently stoked to get elected now seemed to be being confirmed on the ground.

As we see even today, sometimes arguably routinely legitimate actions, so called non violent protests, sometimes government sanctioned, although now often interspersed with subversive elements both domestic and foreign, can play into the hands of radicals on the other side, espousing concepts of law and order and national unity not so very different from Lincoln's radical abolitionist program itself. 

Think of the Democrats as a more diverse group of Douglas' moderates, but also now some radical and secessionist STOKELY ANTIFAS and BLM Black Power negroes espousing the original sin of the white West and white male America, confronting a stalwart unionist white Republican now in the White House.

In certain ways, Lincoln's coup was not so different from what Hitler had done to Weimar Germany, and was conducted by politicians in broad daylight only slightly less cynical or hypocritical.

This post is dedicated to DK's friend, Thomas Childers, whose Teaching Company lectures on Hitler I most enjoyed.

SMELL THE COFFEE GAME OVER

AS I HAD SAID LONG AGO........... 

WHY NOT SAY IT WITH WEIWEI?

"The West should really have worried about China decades ago. Now it's already a bit too late, because the West has built its strong system in China and to simply cut it off, it will hurt deeply. That's why China is very arrogant."

This is one reason why Pillsbury's Confessions was an important summary, showing how far back the China delusion went, even though, as I had noted, itself following on the long Japanese delusion before it.

HEIL HONEY BRITS TAKING THE PISS OUT OF AMERICANS

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf9jJx0NSjw

NIGERIA WHY EVEN THINK ABOUT LIFTING SANCTIONS ON THAT MALI BITCH?

ASSROAST PHYSICS REALLY SET IN BIG IN CALIFORNIA

What matter, this or that reason?

Does it really matter whether the universe is really getting hotter, or just we are?

Think about it?

If it's just us, we're not really going to reverse it. Trust me.

If it's the universe, we're not going to reverse it. Trust me.

Take a shot.

Either way, it's getting hotter.

RE NIALL FERGUSON I HAD NOTED HOUSE ROTHSCHILD WASTE OF TIME VIRTUAL HISTORY VERY DIFFERENT STORY

Ferguson was editor, although he did write, or collaborate on, four sections. 

HAZEL CHU DESERVES TO SIT WHERE SHE DOES

 While I would have thought that there would be ethnic Irish politicians who might make more sense, given the complexity and violence of  the long Irish, and British Isles, political and religious history, the Dublin Irish Council elected her themselves.

LEFT GLOBAL PAN AFRICA BLM BOMB ON NYT DONKEY

 Nigeria's Boko Haram crisis: 'Bomb on donkey' used to ambush Borno governor.

GLOBAL RACE POLITICS I PREFER PUTIN TO A MONGOLIAN AN AFRICAN OR ANYTHING IN BETWEEN

THE POSTMODERN VOTE IS INDETERMINATE AND IN EYES OF BEHOLDERS

Solipsis, diversity drones, infest.

Nanos, white slates, negro holes, Big N Bang, fake sea level, Chad

BOKO Taxes, Twilight. Tonal time face space recognition gap.

NYT Paludon DONKEY.

Scratch Native Americans, Mongols bleed.

ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN HAVE HAD IT

THE GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES

One of the world's oldest conflicts, a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan, has re-erupted into fierce combat that killed at least 23 people.

They just need more American aid, Gates toilets, and shuttle diplomacy to get over it.

Terms search: Rupert Chapman

ANY CREATURE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO IMPROVISE MAY TRY IT

 Especially when it is a matter of life or death.

ONLY TWO IDEAS MOST DEMOCRATS CAN AGREE ON AND RUB TOGETHER: 1 STRAIGHT WHITE MALE + 2 BAD SMELL

 Smell test, not skin color ID.

Most Democrats' one decision not necessarily visual.

Smell is all they need.

Smell test tabula rasa.

Newest fragrance: Straight White Male.

Buy it. Make a difference.

FATAL ONLY NASALLY NOT CREDIBLE CDC BULLSHIT

 The CDC says people cannot get infected by swallowing contaminated water, and it cannot be passed from person to person.

Those infected with Naegleria fowleri have symptoms including fever, nausea and vomiting, as well as a stiff neck and headaches. Most die within a week.

TIME FOR A BLM TAKEOVER OF COLOR IN FRANCE BABY! THE 1619 PROJECT FALLOUT

 France racism: Paris to commemorate slave rebellion figure

WHY DOESN'T TRUMP FREE ALL NOW ENSLAVED AFRICAN NEGROES AND SEND THEM TO EUROPE AS A GESTURE OF GOOD WILL?

MORE THAN HALF OF ALL GLOBAL DEMOCRATS HAVE NOW BEEN RENDERED OBSOLETE BY GLOBAL DEMOCRACY

LINCOLN REPUBLICAN PARTY SECRET SOCIETY IN BROAD DAYLIGHT ARENDT KOYRE BOBBITT FONER

This is a note following on the recent posts below.

I have cited Bobbitt in the past, who had noted that Lincoln's Union was what Bobbitt termed the first nation state of terror. The Shield of Achilles

Bobbitt, reviewing Civil War material, and in view of his remarks on the jurisprudential legitimacy of Dred Scott, Constitutional Fate, Constitutional Interpretation, appears  also to have thought this was hardly as innocent or as benevolent a regime as it has since been painted by Whig interpretations, including Foner's.

Here is another important piece of the puzzle, brought out publicly in broad daylight, already by Douglas in the First Debate Opening Speech, the issue of how the secret agreement between Lincoln, the Whig and Democrat abolitionists, and Trumbull, had turned out, at first. It had turned out not as agreed. 

The account, as told by Douglas, is on p 52 of Holzer and probably retold in later debates.

Why is this discussion important? Because it shows facts proving the existence of a secret abolitionist society of politicians of both parties, of a conspiracy among them, of a perceived or actual conspirators' double cross of Lincoln by Trumbull and others, and about the retribution Lincoln then later exacted for that double cross. 

Trumbull, as Douglas describes, after the double cross, had then become Lincoln's thorough paced tool, traducing Douglas, to get Douglas' spot for Lincoln "in order to quiet Lincoln".  

They had to pass a resolution that Lincoln was the first choice of the Republican party.

That was also why the Republican Convention were compelled to instruct for Lincoln and for nobody else, when they nominated him, according to Douglas. 

See Zarefski, Lincoln Douglas and Slavery, p. 42. Zarefski seems to have had no clue why this was the case, called it confusing, and doesn't think to question what may have lain behind this fact situation. 

(For the preponderance of northern white racism requiring a secret society abolitionism candidate, see Zarefski p. 19. Northerners did not want negroes free or slave, and voted for Lincoln thinking he would remove them, gradual extinction accompanied by removal was Lincoln's story. Frankly, it involved keeping them bottled up only in the South until removed. There was never, from the northern electorate perspective, any possibility of allowing free negroes in the north or in the territories.  Removal is the word the electorate was thinking, not emancipate, or enfranchise. Lincoln's expressed view of Dred Scott was thus his most dangerous and exposed admission for his secret society plan, the one most likely to not get him elected.  This was also why Douglas pounded Lincoln's Dred Scott view so very hard, in the very first speech, after exposing the secret society. Only an immediate abolitionist would object to 

Dred Scott on the ground that it had denied the rights and privileges of citizenship to negroes, slave or free.)

As Douglas said, they had nobody else in the Republican Party, except Lincoln, for the reason that Lincoln demanded that they should now carry out "the arrangement". 

Why therefore, did they, a political party convention, summarily bypass even from consideration, as Douglas even listed some of them, Archy Williams, Orville Browning, John Wentworth, Norman Judd, all fellow Republicans?

One word: Fear!

Maybe there was another word: Greed!

Why were they afraid? 

For the same reason Douglas said Trumbull  was then traducing against Douglas, to get Douglas' spot for Lincoln, because Trumbull and the fellow abolitionists had either failed or double crossed Lincoln already, and Trumbull was doing it "in order to quiet Lincoln".

What do you think "in order to quiet Lincoln" might have meant to Trumbull, and to Lincoln's fellow Republican party abolitionists?

I am telling you now, it meant one very big thing: 

That if Trumbull and the Republican party secret society did not make amends, and seal the deal with Lincoln at its head now, he would not hesitate to now rat them all out, as being a secret society of radical abolitionists, not gradualists, not even actual colonizers, and he would let the chips fall where they might in the aftermath of his disclosures. See Arendt, Origins, The Totalitarian Movement.

Compare Trumbull's comments on Lincoln, his secretiveness, unwillingness to share any more information with anyone than he thought necessary at the time, cited in a webpage in a post below,

 

http://www.mrlincolnandfriends.org/members-of-congress/lyman-trumbull/

with Arendt, Origins, pb, p. 376, fn. 90, '.....Hitler to his General Staff 1939, "...a primer for a secret society."

Even great historians like J G Randall, whom I have cited many times here, and on whom Nevins admitted he had later relied heavily, failed to see that Lincoln was an abolitionist from the beginning and involved in a secret agreement with other abolitionists of both parties to form the Republican Party. Randall had thought Lincoln a moderate, a gradualist, had taken him at his word, so to speak.

Why was the new Republican Party secret society so interesting? Because it involved and combined abolitionist renegades from both the Whigs and Democrats! 

It was the wholesale party betrayal of both the majorities of elected politicians of each party, and of the great majority of the constituents of each major party, by the immediate abolitionist rogues joining the Republican secret society party. 

As Douglas put it, Holzer p. 52, "...having formed this new party for the joint benefit of deserters from Whiggery and deserters from Democracy---..."

Why did these scalawags and carpetbagger traitors to their parties and people do it?

It ended up being by far the biggest political and financial bonanza for these politicians and their party this nation ever saw or ever will. 

They won the Civil War, reaped the proceeds in all directions, didn't pay the bills, and kept themselves, their successors, assigns, puppets, and their cronies in power from 1860 all the way until 1932, (ignoring Wilson as a Democrat), 72 long sad years. Lincoln's Immigration Act, the most ambitious in American history was not for the South. it was not really designed to replace negroes, who weren't now going anywhere. The Immigration Act was for importing foreign whites for the North and the West. 

For the South, it was Lincoln's Morgenthau Plan, keep control for a time, keep freed negroes voting Republican, and let white southerners do something about negroes if they could. It was not the job of the federal government, after the Reconstruction Northern occupation. Not its job to repatriate them, not its job to assure them any source of livelihood. Not its job. Only to make sure that southern whites did not reinstitute negro slavery, or try to export negroes either north or west. That was when the fat really finally hit the fire.

The Republicans' colonization plan for negroes turned out to have actually meant this: the South was to now become an isolated colony of Africa, cut off from the rest of America. And that is largely what it remained for a long time. 

Even when a left Democrat finally took over, (ignoring Wilson as a Democrat), in 1932, after 72 years, he did almost nothing to change that whatsoever.

ERIC FONER THE FIERY TRIAL RETAILING THE MYTH OF LINCOLN'S GROWTH THE IDEA OF NEGRO PROGRESS THE 1619 PROJECT BLM

RE LINCOLN TRUMBULL SECRET PACT 1854 1858 RE DOUGLAS' ASSERTIONS IN THE DEBATES 1858

ERIC FONER IS A STOKELY

WHY NOT A GLOBAL CIVIL WAR TO LIBERATE ALL WOMEN FROM ALL MEN FIGHT IT OUT HOUSE BY HOUSE GUERILLA STYLE

ERIC FONER IS A STOKELY

 Lincoln's got white racism original sin all over his ass and 

Foner cannot wash that off.

It doesn't come off.

it is indelible.

It is his skin color.

Lincoln was America's second most successful Stokely.

Jefferson was the first.

Lincoln really needed real negroes, much later in history, like Henry Louis Gates, (not Ken Burns, who is white, descendant of deep south slave owners, of all things, maybe on his mother's side, I hope) to confirm regarding him, and for posterity, that he had nevertheless been right all along; because, quite frankly, regarding radical white males, and as David Kaiser and others have quite insightfully noted, it can now be seen, and widely interpreted, on the left, that as a white racist male, Lincoln had not himself properly ever been in a position racially, or properly able to rely on his own judgments regarding race or racism, but rather had just been instinctively and blindly guessing his radical way forward in the Civil War toward negro equality and emancipation, as he went along, growing as he went.

Lincoln's legacy really needs to get the imprimatur from real radical negroes now, not white Stokelys,  or the Lincoln Monument is history baby!

I personally cannot stand Lincoln, so these wild ass negroes can tear it down. It is what white Lincoln Stokelys richly deserve.

RE LINCOLN TRUMBULL SECRET PACT 1854 1858 RE DOUGLAS' ASSERTIONS IN THE DEBATES 1858

 See The Lincoln Douglas Debates, The First Complete Unexpurgated Text, First Debate, Douglas Opening Speech. Douglas describes the origins and the purposes of the Republican Party Secret Society. See also Ch 3, Lincoln Douglas and Slavery, Zarefsky.

http://www.mrlincolnandfriends.org/members-of-congress/lyman-trumbull/

Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Ch Eleven The Totalitarian Movement, II The Totalitarian Organization, see esp, pb, p 376, the secret society in broad daylight.

Why doesn't Foner get into this kind of stuff?

Because it would queer his Northern white Jewish liberal whitewashing account of Lincoln as a changeling in The Fiery Trial.

You see, by the time Foner writes his tome, abolitionism, negro equality, and radical republicanism had become good, and gradualism, negro inferiority, and negro colonialization bad.

So the story of Lincoln had to become one of a changeling over time into an abolitionist, a negro equalitarian, and a radical republican to get ready for reconstruction which is also viewed as real real good.

TERRI GROSS GLORIA STEINEM OLD INTERVIEW

Hi.
Hi. Thanks for being here.

We're talking remotely. That is how you always do it.

Yes. So why did you start MS Magazine?

We felt we needed our own womens' civilization.

Did the black power movement have anything to do with that?

Well black women weren't very happy with negro men, let's put it that way.

I see, but how is that relevant?

Black women identified with our struggle.

That sounds fair. You couldn't throw in with Black Power?

No, Terri, that was a guy thing.

So feminism divided negro women from negro men!

Yes, but feminism hardly regrets that.

That's all the time we have for now. Thank you!

Pleasure.

ERIC FONER THE FIERY TRIAL RETAILING THE MYTH OF LINCOLN'S GROWTH THE IDEA OF NEGRO PROGRESS THE 1619 PROJECT BLM

 Having started reading this, this is my first impression.

He is going to make a Whig interpretation hero out of Lincoln no matter what.

His material leads in the opposite direction, including the few quotations and references from his youth.

Lincoln gradually grows into Abolitionism, and gradually grows into or at least toward Radical Republicanism.

Very fussy mannered historian's nonsense.

Reminds me of Werner Jaeger's Aristotle, The Fundamentals Of The History of His Development, highly regarded in its day.

Stephen A Douglas had his number right from the beginning.

Foner calls it growth, Lincoln out in front of the mandate of his electorate, thinking morally and righteously for them, gradually becoming the abolitionist and radical republican all northern whites should also have been as well from the start. 

I still call it hypocrisy and betrayal.

He was the chosen leader of a party founded on abolitionism which could not say its name, "a secret society established in broad daylight", as Arendt cites to Koyre in her chapter The Totalitarian Movement. 

Lincoln always denied that he was an abolitionist, anathema to Northern white voters who wanted to be rid of negroes not free them and keep them.  So Lincoln was always ostensibly for colonization,  especially in public, but among the elite of his own party there was never support for that. And once they recognized the voter bonanza of freed negroes, the colonization jig was up.

In my view, the secret strategy was always, and had always been, merely to render illegal any movement of negroes into Northern states. As Foner recounts, Ohio, Illinois, and Kentucky, and probably the rest, already had such laws on their books, and it's fair to say, having read Tocqueville, that the white northerners adored them. 

Thus the Republican secret plan was to free the negroes, but force white Southerners to deal with them into eternity. The corrollary was that no negroes were going to be allowed into the territories or into new states as formed.

It was going to be a Southern problem for Southerners. And that was in fact the way it remained for about fifty years.

In order for Foner to make his case of growth into abolitionism he has to deny or undercut Douglas' arguments about the abolitionist conspiracy to form the Republican Party, arguments Douglas made against Lincoln, and Lincoln denied, in the debates.

Let's read those sections of Foner's book to confirm that he does that!

Why not smoke him out!

After all, when the South seceded, more or less upon Lincoln's election in 1860, they didn't resort to that desperate measure for their health, thinking him a moderate gradualist who might some day grow dangerous! Insiders like Douglas knew the score.

As I suspected, Foner discusses the debates, makes Lincoln look mostly good, Douglas mostly bad, Dred Scott an abomination of jurisprudence, the Republican conspiracy, discussed only in isolated sentences here and there is never seriously scrutinized for its veracity. 

It is a rambling shambling account, more Foner, and his emplacement of a brand on Southern losers, Taney, and Democrats, his vindication of Jefferson and New England regarding slavery, than either Lincoln, Douglas, the substance of the debates and the basis for their mutual allegations, or history as it was lived. It is a pastiche.

For Foner's theory, Lincoln cannot have been a secret and conspiring abolitionist politician early, in 1854, as Douglas had laid out, because he then cannot grow into one late. 

But Foner does not even give a real sniff of this huge Republican bi party abolitionization issue. Foner, p.106. Yet his footnotes show that he was familiar with the sources, even Zarefsky.

One important point that Douglas made, even in the first debate as well, that is often glossed over in claiming that Lincoln was no abolitionist, was that Liincoln's grounds for abhorring Dred Scott were identical to those of the abolitionists, that it deprived negroes of the rights and priviileges of citizenship. 

Foner admits that it had not been the jurisprudence of any state, except one, or of the federal government, to grant negroes the right to vote, and for the rest negroes had always been denied rights and privileges by everyone, but fails to draw Douglas proper conclusion, even from this obvious example, that Lincoln and the Republican Party were a secret abolitionist society.

Only a very radical immediate abolitionist would have thought that negroes should be immediately freed and given full rights of citizenship. But that was Lincoln's fundamental objection to Dred Scott and to the whole Supreme Court. Foner has to try to avoid this interpretation by dancing all around the concept of citizenship, turning it into a complex fantasmagoria within which Lincoln's remark recedes into the murky distance, but no American back then doubted that white people could have or get citizenship in variious states but that negroes could not, even if freed by their owners, and many states put restrictions on that.

Douglas' claim of a Republican conspiracy, and Lincoln's part in it, to abolitionize both parties was true. 

Lincoln's of a Democratic conspiracy to nationalize slavery was false, but it scared his electorate into electing him in 1860. 

Foner's account of A House Divided is not an early signal of the secret society program the Southern Democrats recognized when he won in 1860.

Rather, according to Foner, it was a very different message for the rank and file, it was rhetoric which all Americans, in Arendt's vast deceived electorate front organization, were each supposed to individually struggle with, in their own broken hearts.

Lincoln needed to grow, through long struggle, to overcome his own institutional racism, and aberrant urge to colonize them,  to later become the good abolitionist radical republican racial equalitarian Americans all now and should admire.

THE VIETNAMESE ARE SELLING USED CONDOMS IN BULK ON WORLD MARKETS 800 POUND LOTS

 

BROOKLYN BLM THE 1619 PROJECT JUST CALL THEM STOKELYS JAKES

 MARIO SAVIO WAS THE CLASSIC STOKELY

"...Today, white activists effectively argue that their race and privilege makes it impossible for them to form correct political programs on their own and forces them to defer to others for leadership...." David Kaiser

That was a great DK observation. 

Just call them Stokelys! Savios! Jess Krugs! Brian Lehrers! Jakes!

White, especially Jewish, Black Power Negroes

NYT WNYC defer to real negroes for leadership, to get Black Power racism right!

BREONNA TAYLOR WASHINGTON POST

 Breonna Taylor’s ex was offered a plea deal that said she was part of a ‘crime syndicate,’ family’s attorney says.

So it turns out maybe it was all the cops', state attorneys', and judges' fault.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/27/us/breonna-taylor-jamarcus-glover-arrest/index.html

If true, then Louisville can just go without cops from now on, and its citizens all deserve it.

But, maybe there's even more to the story.

Maybe city council slum clearance mission!

Get Breonna and those negroes out of there for a new city project! Taylor house needed condemning as drug syndicate stronghold!

Something even like that!

NYT IS STOKELY CARMICHAEL

BREONNA TAYLOR PAYBACK TIME

 I am just going to go through a scenario here that may at least smack of truth, whether true or not.

What if the cop hit on Breonna's house was a set up?

A judge had granted a warrant to search Ms Taylor's home because investigators suspected her ex-boyfriend, a convicted drug dealer, was using the address to receive packages. Ms Taylor had no criminal record.

One had been hit by a shot fired by Ms Taylor's boyfriend, who later told police he thought it was an ex-boyfriend of Ms Taylor who had broken into the apartment.

What if the ex boyfriend wanted the cops to hit his ex girlfriend's house?

The new boyfriend thought the ex boyfriend was breaking in.

What if that was exactly what the ex boyfriend wanted him to think, and knew he carried a gun?

How could he do it?

A million ways.

The search warrant itself is probably based mostly if not entirely on hearsay evidence. It might even be the word of a jail house snitch working off charges.

This, for me, would be the most interesting question in the whole matter, not the drumbeat of institutional racism which the NYT and wnyc wants to pound. 

Maybe it turns out to be a little more like Kitty Genovese, NYT tells the wrong story wrong? What caused the cops to go and break into that house? Look for the smoking gun. Maybe there is none, but how would you know?

You would have to lurk around the Louisville drug underworld to get the answer. Maybe the ex boyfriend has a new squeeze who would talk for money!

THE 1619 PROJECT WHITE AND NEGRO STOOGES OF LIBERAL JEWS ROLL ON

 Breonna Taylor: Two officers shot during Louisville protests

I just want to refer to a few circumstances brought out fragmentarily in a news report.

A warrant gets issued to violently and without warning enter a house, where no suspect himself is thought to reside, based on evidence at an in camera probable cause hearing that an ex boyfriend drug dealer may have been having drugs delivered. The resident of the house has no police record.

What things are wrong with this picture?

Breaking into a house, any house, not just one in a ghetto, at night is dangerous, as we often see. Police usually do so by surprise, they don't knock or identify themselves.

WOKE UP THIS MORNING TO WNYC A TOOL OF NYT LIBERAL JEWISH WHITE NEGRO BRIAN LEHRER PUMPING OUT A CARMICHAEL INTERVIEW

 ON THE ROTTEN TO THE CORE CARMICHAEL INSTITUTIONAL RACISM, INTERVIEWING TWO WOMEN OF COLOR

RE EUROPEANS HAVE TURNED BROWN IN ONLY THREE GENERATIONS RIGHT BEFORE THEIR EYES

A Troublesome Inheritance, Ch 4, re race equality.

Sowell, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, see Index.

"... the ideas of racial and gender equality are almost unique to the West..." David Kaiser

DK did not say this, but it was the white West, not the later West of color.

This post and references follows up on themes brought out in the post referred to in the heading above.

FOLK MUSIC SHAMING LET'S START WITH SAY REGGAE THIS IS SO MONOTONOUSLY HORRIFIC I LOSE MY LUNCH WHEN I HEAR IT

 FIVE SECONDS OF BOB MARLEY AND I UPCHUCK!

Even a nice cannibal repast I had, a stone's throw from Gates' compound, over there in Zanzibar!

HUNTER GETTING CALLED ON THE SENATOR CARPET AGAIN AROUND ELECTION TIME

 When you think back through history, regarding what an American senator seat means, versus what one in the house of Lords had long meant,.......

They don't really know, to tell the truth, what a senator is for....

"...ambassador to Moscow. The assignment has nothing to do with Soviet - American relations. The present ambassador, it seems, is leaving. It is the election year of 1952. For purely domestic political reasons, the administration is afraid to leave the post vacant. Foreign policy -- policy toward the Soviet Union -- plays no part in the decision. It never occurs to people in the administration that the position of American ambassador to Moscow has anything to do with policy. They don't really know, to tell the truth, what an ambassador is for...." Kennan, 'FLASHBACKS'

CAN YOU CONSENT IF YOU HAVE ALREADY ADVISED

 Can you convise if already assent, or assent if already convise?

EUROPEANS HAVE TURNED BROWN IN ONLY THREE GENERATIONS RIGHT BEFORE THEIR EYES

 UNDER THE WATCHFUL EYES OF THEIR LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENTS

IT HAS BEEN THE MULTIRACIAL SELF QUEERING OF A CIVILIZATION.

AMERICANS PROVED OVER AND OVER SINCE 1776 THAT THEY COULD GIVE A FUCK ABOUT EUROPE AS A CIVILIZATION. 

THEY ONLY ENTERED WWI WHEN LENIN CAME TO POWER, LIKING ANTI WEST SOCIALISM.

THEY ONLY ENTERED WWII LATE BECAUSE THEY WERE STILL LEFTISTS AND HATED GERMANS, ALTHOUGH 40% OF WHITES HERE HAD COME FROM GERMANIC COUNTRIES.

ANERICAN TERMINATION OF EUROPEAN EMPIRES WAS THE COUP DE GRACE.

YOU CAN THINK OF IT IN DAVID KAISER'S LARGE SCALE, LONG TERM, PLATE TECTONIC, TERMS, BUT USING A MORE CORRECT SOCIAL CIVILIZATIONAL, NICHOLAS WADE TYPE GENETIC MUTATION ACCOUNT, FOR THE LONG HUNDREDS OF YEARS SLIDE TOWARD WESTERN WHITE LIBERAL CIVILIZATION SELF QUEERING.

IN KAISER'S IDIOM, IT WOULD BE USELESS AND POINTLESS TO QUESTION SUCH A LONG IRREVERSIBLE UNQUESTIONABLE LARGE SCALE GENETIC DEGENERATE PROCESS. A DEVOLUTION ON A BRAUDELIAN SCALE. 

A GRADUAL CREEPING TECTONIC PROCESS OF BENEVOLENT THOMAS SOWELL MIDDLEMAN MINORITIES AND LIBERAL NICHOLAS WADE TRADER GENETICS POPULATIONS SOCIAL  PRACTICES, NATURAL SELECCTING OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS ALL OVER THE WORLD.

THINK OF NICHOLAS WADE'S ACCOUNTS, SAY,  OF THE NEANDERTHALS, OR OF DAVID REICH'S THE LONG NEANDERTHAL KISS GOODBYE.  SO PUT, I AGREE WITH THAT.

ONE CAN THINK OF GREGORY CLARK'S WORK AS A THUMBNAIL SKETCH, GOING BACK 800 YEARS, OF THE COOPERATIVENESS AND LIBERALNESS OF WHITE BRITISH ISLES EUROPEANS.

THINK OF WESTERN GLOBALIZATION AS A WHITE POPULATION MUTATION NATURAL SELECTION SUICIDE TRAIT, WHICH OTHER POPULATIONS CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.

I LUMP AMERICAN WHITES IN THE SAME DREGS CATEGORY AS AMERICAN NEGROES. 

EXPAT AND REFUGEE EUROPEAN JEWS HAVE HAD NO PROBLEM MAKING STOOGES OF BOTH, EITHER LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE. THEY DON'T LIKE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST EACH OTHER. 

THAT IS WHY THE NYT TIMES CRIED FOUL, WEDGIE!, WHEN TRUMP IMPLIED THAT ONLY JEWS WHO SUPPORTED ISRAEL'S ASPIRATIONS WERE GOOD JEWS. 

(MUCH LIKE BIDEN'S (LIBERAL JEWISH LIKE) REMARKS ABOUT NEGROES VOTING FOR TRUMP!)

TAKE YOUR PICK

WHITE OR BLACK

LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE

TAKE A SHOT.

EITHER COLOR, EITHER PARTY

EITHER WAY, YOU'RE ALL NOW JEWISH STOOGES.

JESSICA KRUG OR SHAUN KING OR JARED KUSHNER LOOKALIKES

Terms search: wedgie

This post is dedicated to Jake Silverstein.

EU NEEDS A CLOSED BORDER PACT THIS IS PROBABLY NOT IT

 EU CANNOT BE RELIED ON TO DO ANYTHING MUCH, OR ANYTHING RIGHT.

Europe migration: EU plans mandatory pact to 'rebuild trust'

AFRICANS ASIANS AND MUSLIMS HAVE BEEN COMING ACROSS THE MEXICAN BORDER, NOT JUST MEXICANS.

VINCENT COMING FOR CRUZ RUBIO SUPREME COURT NOMINEE 2016 2020 DOUBLE TALK

 

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

VINCENT COMES FOR TED CRUZ

WESTERN LIBERAL POP IS DESIGNED TO FUCK YOUR DUMBASS HEADS ALL AROUND

Rolling In The Deep, Alexandro, etc, etc.

You aren't supposed to understand them, and you don't.

If there were inside story, or a part of one, you won't fucking know what it is. 

CLASSIC AND RECENT POSTS ALL BROUGHT TOGETHER SOMEONE SAW LET'S JUST ROLL EM, AGAIN!

 

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

PAST DK POST RE NYT USING WHITE NEGRO RACISM FOR ITS OTHER AGENDAS

I have commented here recently on the use of Blow by NYT, especially in connection to 1619 and BLM topics. These posts can be found by terms search. 
Saturday, May 26, 2012

Bad news, good news

I started this blog to put current events in a broader historical context. Back then, nearly 8 years ago, the broader context was the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration's attempts to transform our world role and increase the power of the executive branch; now, the context relates mainly to our limping economy and our painfully inadequate attempts to do something about it. But looming over both of those is something bigger--our movement away from the Enlightenment project of using reason to design better public policy and improve human life. It is becoming clearer, by the way, how little the Bush Administration thought about what it was doing in Iraq. Teaching the two Iraq wars last week, we reviewed the basic policy document the Bush I Administration wrote in 1990 before embarking on the Gulf War, a two-page memorandum that laid out quite clearly what they were trying to achieve and how they planned to achieve it. It is becoming increasingly clear that there was no such document in 2003--if there had been, I would have met some one by now who had seen it. That, however, is for another time.

Rather than use reason to try to figure out what to do, we have continued to follow the 1960s motto which George W. Bush, as I pointed out in one of my very first posts, criticized, yet followed: "If it feels good, do it." Several news stories this week illustrate where we are, in various ways. One op-ed column this morning, however, gives me a ray of hope.

The JPMorgan Chase scandal, to begin with, shows that little, if anything, has been done to rein in the freewheeling financial practices that landed us in this mess five years ago. The Dodd-Frank law has not fully been implemented, but I have read more than once this week that it's not at all clear that it would have stopped the loss of at least $4 billion in JPMorgan's London office. Jamie Dimon, who had enjoyed a relatively strong reputation, has emerged as the latest example of Keynes's definition of a sound banker: not a banker who is never ruined, but one who is ruined along with all the others. When Dimon testified before a Senate hearing, the Republican Senators argued that the problem was too much regulation--a portent of things to come, should Mitt Romney win re-election. In parallel, we have the ongoing story of how President Obama is going to treat Mitt Romney's past as the head of Bain Capital. On the one hand, the President can hardly hope to appeal to his core constituency if he does not point out, as Newt Gingrich did, that Romney zealously and successfully pursued profits without much caring who got hurt. On the other hand, as the Times reported last week, the President can't come on too strong without alienating the private equity firms, hedge fund managers and brokerage houses upon which he depends for campaign contributions as well. Another story suggests that both parties in Congress would like to deal with the issue of the Bush tax cuts before the election, which could even force the President to give up on raising taxes on the highest earning Americans. (As I noted a few weeks ago, he has no plans to raise them as much as Herbert Hoover did.) The likely outcome of all this is that they will indeed become permanent or at least be extended for two more years, confirming George W. Bush as the President in recent memory who did most to transform America.

On the other side of the political fence we have the Elizabeth Warren scandal, revolving around her, and Harvard Law School's, decision to list her as a minority hire on the apparently dubious grounds that she had a great-great-great grandparent who was Cherokee. Harvard Law did so rather proudly, it seems, because of the pressure it was under to hire non-white women in the 1990s, pressure which came in part from a black male faculty member, Derrick Bell, who was warmly introduced during the controversy by Harvard Law Professor Barack Obama. What depresses me about this is that Warren, in addition to being an obviously courageous woman willing to take on powerful institutions, represents a genuine rags-to-riches story of the kind that has become increasingly unusual in our society. But she works in big-time academia, whose corrupt values have corrupted the most basic value of academia of all, respect for truth. Her campaign is now arguing that the whole flap is designed to question her qualifications. Perhaps it is, in part, but she and Harvard have to take some responsibility for that, since they began claiming that her purported ancestry was part of her qualifications, an absurd position which could cost her a very close Senate race.

Greed and identity politics are two sides of the attack on the Enlightenment we have been suffering. I do not think we will make real progress on our economic problems until people begin stating the obvious: that it hurts society to allow anyone to acquire the kind of multi-billion dollar fortunes which now represent success on Wall Street, and that confiscatory tax rates should stop this, as they did in the middle of the century. I also think that racial, gender, and sexual preference issues will remain a distraction until we re-establish the goal of treating one another as citizens. And that leads me to my one hopeful sign this morning, a column by Charles Blow of the Times on the Louisiana prison system and what it means.

Blow's column is based on an amazing week-long series in the New Orleans Times-Picayune which I hope will become a book. About twenty years ago federal courts ordered Louisiana to reduce overcrowding in its prisons. The state responded not by letting more people out, but by passing a law encouraging the construction of private prisons. Many were constructed--and many local sheriffs were involved in their construction. These prisons became profit-making institutions for local law enforcement, and the overall prison population continued to grow. Today Louisiana incarcerates 1,619 people for every 100,000 population--twice as many as the rest of the United States, three times as many as Russia, and about thirteen times as many as China. More than half of them are non-violent offenders. The increasing proportion in local jails receive very little training of any kind and most inmates are back in prison within five years of their release. This is an appalling national scandal, and I hope the Times-Picayune writers win the Pulitzer they deserve..

What I really like about the story is this. Charles Blow is black--the only regular black columnist on the Times op-ed page. A mainstream minority academic would argue that he had to be hired, and that more like him should be, to provide a "minority perspective" on that hallowed page. But in this case, even though I feel quite sure that a disproportionate number of Louisiana's inmates are black, he wrote the entire column without mentioning race at all. He wrote about greed, essentially, taking away the freedom of large numbers of American citizens and disrupting their communities. He compared us unfavorably to the rest of the world for our remarkable incarceration rate, as we deserve to be compared. He wrote, in short, a piece for the ages, in no way reflecting the particular skewed views of our time.

Thank you, Charles Blow.

Saturday, June 27, 2020

AMERICAN NEGROES THROWN UNDER THE BUS BY THE LIBERAL JEWISH ESTABLISHMENT

I feel sorry for the negroes, not for the liberal Jews who should have known better.

Charles M. Blow, especially, is a negro stooge of liberal Jews, in the style of Hannah Arendt's Origins terminology and iconography. But there are also plenty of white negro stooges on the op ed staff as well.

Some things are true even if Trump says them. His Order protecting monuments accuses the protesters of "a deep ignorance of our history".

You can say, with Lisa Lerer and Uscinski, or say Jake Silverstein, that this is just another faux conspiracy loser NYT bashing propaganda theory, and a false McCarthyite smokescreen by Western whites now increasingly on the wrong side of history. 

But I would reply that The 1619 Project itself is a gigantic false conspiracy theory, of Western Civilization itself not just the US, as mainly a history of negro oppression by European whites.

It also all plays into the hands of China's current agenda to paint Americans as racists and McCarthyite faux conspiracy whackos, in collaboration with the liberal Jewish establishment which had long supported China even more eagerly than late arriving Republicans after 72, 80 and beyond.

Terms search: some things true Trump

Friday, June 26, 2020

NYT BOARD DIALOGUE WHISPER

You want the other guy to be the scapegoat.
Blow: a perfect Tom.
A Washington Monument!
Get it right: Lincoln Memorial.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

RE NOCERO RACE AND NCAA

"... it's almost always ok (FOR THE NYT) to raise the spectre of black white racism..." 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/magazine/FBI-charlottesville-white-nationalism-far-right.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/magazine/children-of-the-opioid-epidemic.html

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/04/05/ineq-a05.html

https://thepointmag.com/2018/politics/black-fire

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/what-white-america-fails-to-see.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/books/review/richard-gergel-unexampled-courage.html

http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times

Thursday, June 6, 2019

ATTEMPTS TO HOLD BACK INEVITABLE SHIFTS IN AMERICAN POWER

If they are inevitable, then why are we discussing Trump trying to hold them back?

Why even talk about something apparently ridiculous like  

Fighting The Course Of History

Charles M Blow ing Smoke Up Your Ass!

That's Blow's Job!

Thursday, December 19, 2019

PLACES LIKE VOX ARE FILLED WITH GUYS BEING GIVEN NEW ASS HOLES NOW

NYT filled with people who need new assholes from the new revisionism raining down on their sorry heads after seven decades of this bullshit, Krugman, Thomas L Friedman, etc, Charles M Blow, Kristof, a byword, Bruni very deserving, Nicholas Wade in Reich's crosshairs,  Manjoo, they, say no more, especially.

Saturday, August 10, 2019

BLACK WHITE RELATIONS IS THE CHARLES M BLOW JOB

HE'S NOT WHISTLEBLOWING, NO RIDENOUR PRIZE FOR HIM.

STEINEM GOT THAT!

Wednesday, August 7, 2019

LIEO ORGANS LIKE THE NYT REALLY DEEP DOWN WANT TO CLOSE THE RACIAL WEALTH GAP

by closing The Racial Race Gap.

Call it: The Postmodern David Reich Solution

See DK recent post:

Postmodernism 101

And some posts on this blog: uniracialism, population distribution, etc.

They think that that is a solution.

But trust me, the NIMBY RACIAL NYT wants that good global racial mixing for everyone else, the NYT customers they got Charles M Blow preaching almost daily to, all people of color everywhere, but not for NY Jews, either liberal or conservative, and certainly not for the folks in Israel!

The Old Testament, The Torah, filled with racial warnings, and aspersions on Jews who violate it. Moses, a classic example, his Cushite wife.....

It's like a Rig Veda!

Sunday, August 4, 2019

DAVID REICH RE CHINA'S RISE TO WORLD DOMINATION

Let's talk race. 

Not the Charles M Blow American bullshit white black kind.