Race Mongers Are Consistent Liars. So Why Are We Shocked When They Race Monger and Lie?

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently we're once again seeing accusations of "racism" by a spoiled black athlete, Tyreek Hill, because he was pulled over for speeding, and now according to Hill:

 ‘He Gotta Go, Man',..... “because in that instance right there, like not only did he treat me bad — you know what I’m saying — he also treated my teammates with disrespect. He had some crazy words towards them, and they ain’t even do nothing! Like, what did they do to you? They’re just walking on the sidewalk. So, I don’t know, bro. He gotta go, man, and [there are] not too many times that ‘Cheetah’ say people gotta go, but you? … Gone.”....(more here)...

Yessir, he was only pulled over because he was black, except the body cam footage tells a different tale.  He was pulled over for speeding, and he was cuffed because he acted like a privileged jerk. As  NBA star Jonathan Issac states, Tyreek Hill’s behavior showed black Americans how not to act. 

Here's the fact of the matter. When pulled over by the police, you do as your told, your shut your mouth and move on.  Can cops be jerks? Oh yeah...you bet, and a lot of people have been confronted by jerk cops, of all races, but they're the cops, and if there's an issue, then there are procedures on how to handle it.  This unending claim of racism by miscreant blacks has worn out, except for race mongering jerks.

According to NAACP chapter President, blue lives don’t matter, promoting this kind of uncooperative behavior.  Behavior that's led to more tragic outcomes than being handcuffed.  

As the NAACP chapter president in Springfield, you deliver exactly the wrong message and as such you sir are part of the problem. After the shooting of two officers in Compton who were just sitting in their police car doing their job, I have had enough.

Remember four years ago when that study came out claiming white doctors were effectively killing black babies. It was a lie.  As the author points out:

Scientists finally re-analyzed the study and found that it was riddled with errors—but that didn’t matter then because it furthered the narrative.............Just because leftists say it’s a scientific study, that doesn’t mean it is. The funding goes to people who come out with results that advance the goals of pharmaceutical manufacturers and political activists. As the Free Black Thought warns, we owe it to ourselves and to society as a whole not to accept any study at face value unless we have an assurance that it’s passed replication and, if at all possible, reproducibility.

The racist lies are ubiquitous.   Science is riddled with revoked studies.  What to do about woke science journals that are filled with junk science, and worse yet, work to destroy valid science via censorship.  

Tags: 

Ricky Pearsall was murdered by a 17-year-old black.  However, it wasn't really murder, he was defending himself and I guess the gun he just happened to be carrying just accidentally went off during his act of thievery.  How do I know he was black.  Because his race was never mentioned in the articles, and generally that's a tell, because the media works to hide the crime rate in black America.  If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll apologize.  

These race mongering liars are fostering an uncontrollable society among black youth, and it's impacting everything in America, as student behavior is the real reason for teacher burnout.  As for low pay, that's a joke.

So what's the race mongering left wanting? Laws ‘specifically’ for black people, because they deserve it, and they want more, and forever.   America has devoted billions to black America over the last 60 years and for the most part, it's been wasted.  Start first by fixing black legitimacy, then there won't be a need to "help" these people, oh  but that's racist, and homophobic, because..... and get this....“Ideas about the superiority of the nuclear family are deeply connected to the origins of white supremacy . . . .”   White racism isn't the problem for black America, it's black racism, black culture, and leftist corruption of our culture. 

REVIEW: ‘Am I Racist?’ September 12, 2024 by Andrea Widburg A brilliant, laugh-out-loud exposé of the race hustling industry by a talented provocateur who never misses a beat and is delighted to embarrass those who deserve it......

There are three words that are among the most misused in America. Racism, discrimination, and prejudice.  

First, racism means hating, or at the very least, disliking people simply because they belong to a certain race.  Prejudice means to prejudge.  Discrimination means to decide what you like and dislike.   

I don't dislike people for their race, I dislike them for the way they act, and that obviates the idea of prejudgement.  Evaluation isn't prejudgement, and there's absolutely nothing wrong by discriminatorily saying, "I don't like that!"    

The response from the left?    

David Jolly: Scaring White America Is the ‘Ethos of Today’s Republican Party’..... “I can draw a direct thread to the words of Katie Britt in her response to the State of the Union. They were essentially black and brown people are coming into your white communities and you should be scared. She gave this speech about how terrifying it is to be a white woman because black and brown people might come into your neighborhood. This is not just this campaign strategy, the ethos of today’s Republican Party.”

Well, perhaps based on what we're seeing going on in Springfield Ohio, and the crime statistics of America as a whole, white people need to be scared, and if that's the ethos of the Republican party, I say thank you.   If any group represents all the things I dislike, I will happily make that judgement, and I don't care if they're black, it's about how they act. 

We call any bias against a race, racism.  Any bias against women is sexism.  But for some odd reason any expressed bias against white people is called humor.  Paraphrased quote by Warren Farrell

Posted by Rich Kozlovich at 2:31 AM No comments:

If Walz is Talking, He's Lying

 By Rich Kozlovich 

 

This is from my files.  On May 5, 2014 Edward Acosta published a piece in Patriot Update, which I can't link since that site apparently no longer exists saying:

When it comes to matters of government policy and public affairs, one lie is unacceptable, two lies is a slap in the face and three lies is just plain Machiavellian! For devious behavior, the liar should be publicly taken to task. In other words, if it is illegal to lie to our government, it should be illegal for them to lie to us...... as the saying goes regarding deception, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

Well, Timmy is just brimming with deception, and if by now the Democrats haven't evoked the Eagleton affair over all that's come out, it's not going to happen, and I think it's for two reasons.  I'll tell you what, we'll come back to that.  Here's where we are from my commentaries up until now.

• Will the Real Tim Walz Please Stand Up!
• Duty, Honor, Integrity, Valor!

All that is a pretty condemnatory, but there's more! Never fear, with Walz, the hits just keep right on coming.  

Yesterday I published this piece by Daniel Greenfield, where a party spokesman Says Walz’s Lies Make Him Authentic.  Authentic!  Really?  So then, lying is the definition for realty?  Did I get that right?  In fact, it appears his entire history a bit of a lie, which Daniel goes on to list.  Paraphrasing his snarky conclusion, here's how the Democrats see this: 

Gov. Walz doesn’t make stuff up because he lies a lot, but because he’s an ordinary person and like most ordinary people speaks off the cuff.  You see lying is the way real people speak and not like a politician.   Which of course means his behavior is not that of a pathological liar, but that of a regular guy, just one of the boys.  The more he lies, the more he demonstrates his authenticity, and the less his relationship is with the truth, the more reason we should trust him.

Now who could possibly find fault with that?  Right?  So, now that we've cleared all this up, let's just see what have been appearing in the news about just how authentic Walz has been in the last few days.  

Walz Is a Pathological Liar- "Over the last few weeks, as corrects and fact checks roll in, I've wondered whether Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has ever told the truth about anything at all.  We know that he's lied about his military service.........We know he lied brazenly about his DUI...........  We know he even stooped to lying about how his two children were conceived, making up a false story in furtherance of an already-deceitful attack against JD Vance......... As Rebecca noted over the weekend, here's yet another incident along this theme."

Tim Walz claimed he won an award from the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce "for participating in a Harvard-affiliated teacher-exchange program with China".  Not only did he lie about the award, but it appears there is no such program originating from Harvard, which stirs some interesting questions.   

What we're seeing is another day and another lie, but he was in China and it now appears Walz was groomed by the Chinese Communist Party.  Which bodes well the question: Who funded his educational efforts?  This is now under question, more here on that.  

He brought hundreds of Chinese students here, in the name of student exchanges, along with "lots of copies of Mao’s Little Red Book", telling the Americans going there to avoid acting like Americans because China is wonderful place to live, and everyone is the same, unless you're someone which the Chinese Communist Party disapproves.  Then you're eligible for organ transplants.   As donors.

As time goes by it appears the more things change, the more they stay the same.  In 2016 Patricia McCarthy posted this article, The Vast Cognitive Gulf between the Left and the Right, saying:

Is there a neurological or psychological reason that explains the left's complete meltdown at losing an election..... a vast number of angry voters on the Left have become unhinged, delusional, depressed.  And they act out, like spoiled children when they do not get the toy they want.  Many of our elite media left remain, like Ken Burns, in a "fetal position.".......

 

The Left will produce countless "studies" that "show" they have bigger brains, are a more advanced species and that conservatives are truly mentally impaired......Nothing makes them feel better than demeaning their ideological opponents on pseudo-intellectual grounds..........the self-appointed morally superior Left that is behind the tyrannies of multiculturalism, political correctness, a genderless society, man-made global warming, the promotion of homosexuality and gay marriage, the crusade against all religions but Islam.....loved Castro, and Stalin and Mao -- they still do........ 

 

There is a huge disconnect between how the Left and the Right see the world, America, and people, especially those who do not embrace the same rigid anti-values they do.......

 

So, as we watch the Walz story playing out it becomes clear why the Democrat party isn't upset at his character insisting he be replaced with someone worthy, as they did Thomas Eagleton.  I think there are  two reasons.  First they don't believe it matters.  Secondly, and most importantly, he's them! 

Finally, the long and short of it, Tim Walz is the Democrat's gift to the Republicans that keeps on giving, and the hits just keep right on coming.

Dickensian Truths?

Editors Note: Reprinted with permission from Dr. Ray. Did everyone see the movie, The Mutiny on the Bounty"? Perhaps everyone would like to read the real history of that story also; most importantly to read the follow up history.  

Except for the characters, the ship, the voyage and the fact that there really was a mutiny, everything you know about this account is a lie.  There is a startlingly large amount of things that people "know for sure" that just simply aren't true.  

 Once we get past these historical "truths" about society in general, perhaps we can move on to "green" activism in order to see it correctly.  RK

By John J. Ray

Although we never normally think of him that way, Dickens may be the second most influential Leftist after Marx. His storytelling ability enthralls us to this day and is for almost all of us the only picture we have of the 19th century -- and a dismal picture it is. Dickens portrayed the worst of his times, not the average or the typical but we tend to accept his verbal pictures as typical. And the situations that Dickens described were so bad that the word "Dickensian" has come to mean oppressive, uncaring and inhuman. His novels were, however, political propaganda. Surprisingly, England in the Victorian era had a social welfare system that was both fairly comprehensive and independent of the government.

Even in the modern era of universal government welfare payments we can still find people living in "Dickensian" conditions -- for one obvious instance, the Australian Aborigines. All systems have some weaknesses and concentrating on the worst cases tells us nothing about how well the system works as a whole. A modern-day Dickens could equally well describe terrible situations caused by the actions of heartless government employees. See SOCIALIZED MEDICINE for just some examples of that. So let us now look briefly at what history tells us about the Victorian system rather than at what the novels of Dickens tell us about it:

There were two main sources of social security in Victorian England: The parish and the Friendly Societies. The parish system is the one Dickens concentrated on but it was in fact the Friendly Societies that were more important. We still have many of the Friendly Societies with us to this day. Most Australians will have heard of Manchester Unity, The Oddfellows, The Druids and various other societies. These days just about all they provide is health insurance but in the Victorian era their functions were much broader.

They also provided unemployment insurance, widows benefits, funeral benefits and various social functions. In the Victorian era a skilled worker would normally join a Friendly Society associated with his work, his town or his religion. If no other Society suited him he could join the Oddfellows. When he joined, he signed up to pay a weekly subscription to the society out of his wages. In return the Society covered him for most of the problems of daily life. If he got sick he went for free to the Society's doctor or a doctor that the Society had an agreement with. If he got really sick he could be admitted for free to a hospital run or approved by the Society. If he became unemployed he would receive a weekly payment from the Society to keep him going. If he died, his widow would be looked after. So ordinary workers in the Victorian era in fact had quite a high level of social welfare benefits -- all privately provided without any involvement by the government.

Some people, however, fell outside the Friendly Society system by reason of being too poor or too foolish to join. For these there was the parish system of poorhouses and workhouses. This was a system whereby the local parish of the Church of England gave charity to the poor so that nobody need be without shelter or food. It provided only the most basic food and shelter and did nothing to make poverty comfortable but it did make sure that everybody was provided for in some way. It was in that system that Oliver Twist was portrayed by Dickens as asking for "more please", implying that the people in it were not well fed. About that, though, we read:

Doctors writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) say they have uncovered the gruel truth behind the Victorian workhouse. Charles Dickens, they contend, was exaggerating when he portrayed Oliver Twist and other orphans driven to the brink of starvation by a miserly diet of watery porridge. In fact, the food provided under 1834 Poor Law Act, which set up workhouses for the destitute poor in mid-19th-century Britain, was dreary but there was plenty of it and the diet was nutritious enough for children of Oliver's age, their paper says.

In Oliver Twist, Dickens wrote, the orphans were given "three meals of thin gruel a day, with an onion twice a week and half a roll on Sunday." On feast days, according to the novel, the inmates received an extra two and a quarter ounces (64 grams) of bread.

Four medical experts, with skills ranging from nutrition to paediatrics and the history of medicine, say such a diet would have killed or crippled the children, inflicting anaemia, scurvy, rickets and other diseases linked to vitamin deficiency. They took a closer look at the actual historical record, sifting through contemporary documents and even replicating the gruel that workhouse children most likely had.

One important source for their research was a treatise by a physician, Jonathan Pereira. He wrote it in 1843, five years after Dickens completed "Oliver Twist" and ignited a furious debate about the workhouses. Pereira found that the local boards of the guardians of the poor had a choice of six "workhouse dietaries", one of which they could choose according to the circumstances of each establishment. On the basis of Pereira's figures, using a recipe for water gruel taken from a 17th-century English cook book, the authors calculate Oliver would have had around three pints (1.76 litres) of gruel per day, comprising 3.75 ounces (106 grams) of top-quality oatmeal from Berwick, Scotland. Far from being thin, the gruel would have been "substantial," the authors say.

This would not have been the only source of food. Pereira details "considerable amounts" of beef and mutton that were delivered to individual London workhouses. "The diet described by Dickens would not have supported health and growth in a nine-year-old child, but the published workhouse diets would have generally met that need," the BMJ paper says. "Given the limited number of food staples used, the workhouse diet was certainly dreary but it was adequate."

The authors add a caveat, saying that this assumption is made on the basis that inmates actually received the quantity and quality of food prescribed, but Pereira's book suggests this was generally the case.

Such a system was sometimes no doubt heartless and could be abused and it was episodes of heartlessness and abuse that Dickens portrayed -- and which he moved his middle-class readers to "improve". Attempting to improve the Victorian system, however destroyed it. As one commentator acerbically observes:

In effect, the bourgeoisie declared war on their underlings, and tried to improve them out of existence. Their weapons in this war were 'a national system of education, a state system of welfare, public housing schemes and, later on, a state system of hospitals, a comprehensive system of National Insurance and much else besides.' These might not all sound like unmitigated evils to LRB readers, but Mount does a spirited job of pointing to the ways in which all of these structures were imposed on top of previously existing working-class vehicles for self-help. In one of the most original sections of Mind the Gap, he evokes a thriving culture of schools, Sunday schools, reading rooms, Nonconformist religion, collective insurance and trade unions. 'It is not too much to say that the lower classes in Britain between 1800 and 1940 had created a remarkable civilisation of their own which it is hard to parallel in human history: narrow-minded perhaps, prudish certainly, occasionally pharisaical, but steadfast, industrious, honourable, idealistic, peaceable and purposeful.'

And then this civilisation was dismantled. To take only one of a number of Mount's examples, the extensive culture of privately run working-class schools was destroyed by the board-schools founded by the 1870 Education Act, which were not free, but were effectively subsidised to a point where they put their private competitors out of business. All of this was part of a process in which 'the working classes are firmly tagged as the patients, never the agents.'

So any system can be abused and can fail and there is no doubt that the present system of government welfare that we have is also often heartless and is also often abused. The main difference between then and now is that the present system is more generous. Our unemployed get more spent on them. Our society today is however much richer than the England of Victorian times so the more generous provisions of the present era would probably have occurred under any system.

Child labour

The plight of child labourers in Victorian Britain is not usually considered to have been a happy one. Writers such as Charles Dickens painted a grim picture of the hardships suffered by young people in the mills, factories and workhouses of the Industrial Revolution. But an official report into the treatment of working children in the 1840s, made available online yesterday for the first time, suggests the situation was not so bad after all.

The frank accounts emerged in interviews with dozens of youngsters conducted for the Children's Employment Commission. The commission was set up by Lord Ashley in 1840 to support his campaign for reducing the working hours of women and children.

Surprisingly, a number of the children interviewed did not complain about their lot -- even though they were questioned away from their workplace and the scrutinising eyes of their employers.

Sub-commissioner Frederick Roper noted in his 1841 investigation of pre-independence Dublin's pin-making establishments: "Notwithstanding their evident poverty ... there is in their countenances an appearance of good health and much cheerfulness."

A report on workers at a factory in Belfast found a 14-year-old boy who earned four shillings a week "would rather be doing something better ... but does not dislike his current employment". The report concluded: "I find all in this factory able to read, and nearly all to write. They are orderly, appear to be well-behaved, and to be very contented."

So once again we see that the Dickensian portrayal of something is at least questionable.

Happy people?

It is notable that contented, successful people (Podsnap, Gradgrind) are portrayed most unfavourably by Dickens. This too is Leftist. As noted conservative historian Russell Kirk quoted Bagehot as saying: "Conservatism is enjoyment". The converse is however more familiar: Leftists are miserable sods always complaining about something. They have a pervasive hatred of the world around them. And that, presumably, is why Dickens and many other literary figures are Leftist. Just as newspapers do well on accounts of disasters, so tales of suffering, unhappiness and escape from oppression sell novels. As Bagehot also said: "All the best stories in the world are but one story in reality - the story of escape. It is the only thing which interests us all and at all times, how to escape." Conservatives, of course are not so driven. They see plenty to criticize in the world but are generally content just to get on with their own lives rather than constantly striving to tear down "the system". (More brilliant Bagehot quotes here)

Let me say just a few words about Mr Podsnap (in "Our Mutual Friend"). Read how Dickens describes him here

It is a classic piece of Leftist poison, where Mr Podsnap's contentment with himself and the world about him is completely transmogrified. Podsnap can literally do nothing right. Even his patriotism is portrayed as ignorant -- something that anticipated modern Leftism. And Podsnap's success in business seems to be just somehow accidental -- with no suggestion that Podsnap may work hard and intelligently at what he does. The Leftists of academe whom I know so well think exactly that way about business to this day. And even Mr Podsnap's furniture is ridiculed. And there is of course no suggestion that solid citizens like Mr Podsnap keep the world on an even keel. Leftists don't want the world kept on an even keel. Their ideal is revolution -- with all the hate-driven indifference to human life that that normally entails.

So let us not get a false picture of the evil capitalistic 19th century from Dickens's brilliant propaganda. The 19th century was in fact second only to the 20th century for the improvements it brought to the lives of ordinary English people.

I mentioned recently a minor Australian Leftist blog that seems to have a devotion to listing my "sins". If they ever read the present post they will no doubt add breathlessly to the list that I criticize the great Dickens. Horror! How imbecilic I must be to challenge such a conventional hero!

Leftists tend to think of themselves as iconoclastic (even though they have said little that is original since Marx) but they put up very effective mental barriers against real iconoclasm (such as my critique of Dickens). They just see real iconoclasm as too far beyond the pale to contemplate. That is certainly the commonest reaction I get from Leftists when I point out that Hitler was a socialist. Their low level of intellectual curiosity makes them very conventional thinkers. Only the simplest of propositions (e.g. Bush = Hitler) get past their mental portals.