The term white supremacy is used quite commonly. However, it’s actual meaning does not at all comport with what the term means.
When non-white groups advocate for their culture, “supremacy” is never applied to them.
White supremacy has come into common usage. In this article, we will illuminate the inaccurate use of the term as well as the double standard applied to advocacy for a racial or cultural group.
Typical Usage of the Term White Supremacy
In the video, the female commenter — Sahar Aziz makes a number of good points. However, she uses the term “white supremacist” several times.
This not doubt feels good, as Sahar Aziz is not white. However, the double standard of justice applied to non-Arabs in the Middle East is extreme. Visitors have close to no rights. Arabs bring in indentured labor from all over the world, and these foreign workers can be bought and sold, have their passports taken from them, are frequently beaten and treated terribly.
Migrant workers that came to Qatari are treated terribly. However, there is little coverage of this, and of course, the term Arab supremacy is not used.
In Hong Kong, Southeast Asian domestic workers from the Philippines or Indonesia are often terribly mistreated. However, no one would think to use the term “Chinese supremacy.” Chinese after all are the minority. And they are not white — so how could a Chinese person ever be guilty of mistreating other races?
Unlike in white countries, these immigrant workers have no rights. In the US, for example, Mexicans usually are not deported unless they are felons. Many illegal Mexican workers have driver licenses, use emergency rooms as free clinics, and are entitled to in-state tuition in California.
However, even though the treatment of foreign workers is demonstrably better in white countries than any place else, the bulk of the focus on redressing inequities is in white countries – not non-white countries.
Does Sahar Aziz even bother talking about Arab supremacy?
And why would she care?
She lives in a white country now, and her main objective is wringing as many concessions from that white country as possible. What does she care about how Arabs treat non-Arabs? Do Mexicans in the US care about Mexico’s legal system? No, Mexicans in the US care more about stopping deportations and getting more Mexicans in the country? Do Indians care about improving India?
Indians spend nearly all of their political change efforts in getting the US’s foreign worker programs to allow in even more Indians.
This is the rare Indian protesting against something other than enlarged foreign worker programs for Indians. However, she is not protesting for the things on her sign in India. India is far worst on every topic — rather she is lobbying for these things in the US. However, how is an Indian — which has a caste system and a society known for mass discrimination, a model for the US. How are these immigrants who come from countries that have made far less progress on all of these issues a model for white countries?
These groups seem to spend most of their outrage energy talking about how white societies can give more to non-whites and be made more accommodating to non-whites — and of course, correspondingly less accommodating to whites. This is true even though it was the whites that founded the countries they moved to.
The Inconsistent Use of the Term Racial Supremacy
In the video above, Sahar Aziz calls members of the Trump administration white supremacists. As an Arab, does she feel the same way or worse about the regimes in the Middle East? Where would Sahar Aziz rather be a foreign worker — in the US or the Middle East?
Sahar Aziz is falling into the pattern of calling people that want to promote white culture are categorized as anti-everything else.
However, how can this be an accurate characterization?
When non-whites promote their culture and, in fact, change the culture, as with the Mexicans in California all to the suit them, they are not accused of being anti-white.
The formal catchphrase of La Raza is the following.
“Everything for the Mexican race, nothing for anyone else.”
Why isn’t La Raza called Mexican supremacist?
Mexicans have even make up fake histories where they occupied the US (that is the Mexican government), and therefore the entirety of the US belongs to Mexico. Mexican pride or advocate or immigration attorneys are not pro-Mexican; they are anti-white or Mexican-supremacist.
Using The Term Supremacist Consistently
If we are going to categorize all things that promote white culture as white supremacists, then we must use the same language with non-whites. The Imperial Japanese thought that the Japanese were superior to all other races. Yet when racial superiority beliefs of WW2 are discussed, the Japanese are left out of the discussion, and the Nazis take center stage. What is that? The Japanese had the same racial superiority beliefs as the Nazis. Secondly, when WW2 is covered, often, the racial beliefs against the Japanese are often discussed, but never the Japanese racial beliefs? Again why is that?
And along these lines, the new strategy is to call people that one does not agree with the Nazis.
This biology teacher triggered a walkout by a trans student and sympathizers and to the group cutting the mikes of the presenters. The presenters were also called Nazis. What was the offense? A biology professor stated that there are undeniable biological differences between men and women. That is all it takes to be called a Nazi these days. And it is important that the term Nazis be used. If you call someone a sharing the ideology of the Imperial Japanese, its not PC because you are using a negative reference to a group of people that are not white, and under PC culture, only whites can have an ideology that makes them superior to other races. The Chinese, who received vicious treatment at the hands of the Japanese, might disagree — but then again, the Chinese also consider themselves racially superior to all other groups.
According to actress Debra Messing of Will and Grace fame, Trump is very similar to Hitler. The evidence is the shocking similarity than each at one time held up a book.
The Tricky Matter in Differentiating Pride from White Supremacy
When a non-white group advocates for itself, its “pride” and a positive thing. But when whites do, it is a racist or white supremacist. Commentary is now so censored that bringing up white accomplishments is a form of white supremacy. The current approach is to categorize white accomplishment as a sham, and that for instance, the only reason that it was the US that put a man on the moon, was because the whites stole the technology from other countries (in the undeveloped world). That white media censored the accomplishments of non-whites.
Stopping Whites from Advocating for Themselves
The point of miscategorizing white advocacy as white supremacy is to make whites defenseless. If Spike Lee says, as he has, that he does not like it when whites come in and take over or take back neighborhoods, it is considered perfectly fine. But if a white person wants a white neighborhood to stay white, then they are a white supremacist.
Overall, the people that told us diversity is a strength have been proven wrong. Diversity is a weakness, and now diversity is leading to whites being censored and shamed into never supporting white or European culture. Young whites are now told to advocate for non-whites, while the non-whites would never advocate for them.
And the only reason we have diversity is that non-whites want to live around whites. There are not “diversity” issues when whites go and live or retire in the Philippines or Latin America. If the whites don’t like their treatment, they leave. But we have a situation where non-whites immigrate to white countries and then say the conditions are intolerable.
Behind them are an unlimited number of future immigrants who are complaining that they are not allowed into white countries fast enough. And then as soon as they are allowed into these countries, they call the countries white supremacist.
These Africans are so offended by white supremacy, that they are risking their lives to cross the Mediterranian to get to Europe. Which is it? Are whites a bunch of racists, or do you want to gain entry to their countries?
These Latin Americans also are so offended by white supremacy that they are taking the trip north to enter the US illegally.
According to the Minnesota Coroner’s Office, George Floyd was killed by underlying health conditions.
We cover the long history in falsifying illegitimate police killing autopsies.
The George Floyd killing was very obviously an unjust murder. It should lead to the prosecution of the police officers involved, as well as an inquiry into why police officers are still using highly dangerous suppression techniques that interfere with breathing. We cover the case in the article What Are the Real Motivations Behind the George Floyd Protests?
Case Study #1: George Floyd Dies from Underlying Health Conditions
However, according to the Minnesota authorities have already tried to cover up the murder by stating that the autopsy showed that George Floyd died from..
“underlying health conditions.”
US law enforcement has a long history of falsifying autopsies to shield the system from culpability. In effect, the Minnesota Medical Examiner’s office is saying.
“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes.”
Let us review a few historical examples of law enforcement falsifying autopsies to observe the pattern.
Case Study #2: Pressuring Medical Examiners to Fake Autopsies and the Attica Prison Riot
Police killed both prisoners and hostages taken by prisoners.
Ten of those slain by police bullets were state employees, guards and civilian staff who had been held as hostages since September 9th when inmates first seized the prison. Several other hostages were grievously wounded. The hostages had been murdered by the inmates, they said, their throats slit. Another had been castrated. Within hours, the story was around the world. None of it was true. – The Marshal Project
However, because the authorities wanted the deaths of hostages blamed on inmates, the medical examiner was pressured to create fake autopsy results. The following quotation illustrates what happens to medical examiners who don’t go along with creating the right concocted autopsy results.
Many of the dead were sent to Edland, the medical examiner for Monroe County, N.Y. As Thompson writes, Edland was forced to conduct the autopsies in a morgue packed with state troopers, “milling around and trying to oversee everything.” Edland also heard from officials at all levels of state government, right up to the governor’s office. He was under an enormous amount of pressure to confirm the official narrative.
Yet Edland found that the hostages’ wounds weren’t consistent with police accounts of the raid. In fact, he found that all of the deceased hostages had been killed by gunfire. Because the prisoners didn’t have guns, his findings meant that the hostages weren’t murdered by inmates but had been mistakenly killed by raiding police officers. Some law enforcement authorities tried to argue that the hostages must have been shot with crudely fashioned prison guns, but the wounds didn’t support that theory either.
Edland’s conclusions ruined the official narrative. They also put him in the crosshairs of some powerful people. The harassment started almost immediately, when a spokesman from the state’s department of corrections called Edland a “clown coroner” and promised a new autopsy from another doctor they were flying in from New York City. Others called Edland a “radical left-winger” and insinuated he was part of a communist plot. Edlund was a registered Republican who had voted for Barry Goldwater, and Richard Nixon three times. As Thompson writes, Edland was also known among other medical examiners to be a “right-winger.” (He was also known to be an excellent medical examiner.)
He faced professional retaliation too, as local police and prosecutors vowed to stop sending him bodies for autopsy. Later, state troopers descended on funeral homes across the region to pressure morticians to claim that the bodies of the hostages had no bullet wounds. (This was just part of a much larger coverup that included hiding and destroying evidence, all thoroughly detailed and sourced in Thompson’s book.) – Washington Post
And then, after he refused the pressure from multiple law enforcement bodies, Edland was harassed by police who targeted him.
Over the next several years, New York state troopers pulled him over more than 40 times. Police questioned his family and friends, looking for details about his personal life that they could use to embarrass him.
The constant harassment continued. Edland, his wife and their three daughters had to give friends and relatives a code under which to call the house so the family would know the call was friendly and safe to answer. Edland grew depressed and despondent. In 1976 he suffered a psychotic break that required a six-month hospitalization. – Washington Post
This is a very similar story to what the FBI did to Martin Luther King.
After J. Edgar Hoovers’ attempt to get MLK to kill himself failed, there is considerable debate as to whether the man who may have killed MLK, and was prosecuted for the murder, James Earl Ray, was set up and coordinated by the FBI.
James Earl Ray escaped to Canada and was found to have entered Canada with documents he could not have attained without assistance from a US federal agency.
J Edgar Hoover — Hero of the FBI?
The intended strategy of J Edgar Hoover (hero of the FBI, and showcased at the FBI headquarters), was to harass MLK to such an extent to get him to kill himself.
J. Edgar Hoover’s crimes have been thoroughly exposed. He kept decades of surveillance on US presidents so that he could not be removed from power. Even the establishment Life Magazine published on them.
The FBI has done nothing to account for Hoover legacy, and continue to have their building named after him, and his bust displayed prominently in their lobby.
What Failing to Disavow J. Edgar Hoover Means
This is a perfect illustration that the FBI does not care about ethics or the citizens of its policies. The FBI is merely an instrument of power. The FBI expects their agents to violate laws, and never to be held accountable.
In terms of faking stories, the FBI never tires of the practice.
For three years, the FBI created another fake story, Russiagate. To support RussiaGate, the FBI indicted a Russian troll farm, which they knew had no impact on the 2016 election, and then issued a fake report on the claimed hacking of the DNC emails, that has a title that does not match the interior of the report. In a footnote in the report, the FBI issued the disclaimer that they did not actually have any evidence of hacking. Even though the title of the report indicated that they did.
Prior to this, the FBI was extremely confident that Saddam Hussain had WMDs. Did Meuller actually think Saddam Hussain had WMDs? Meuller was Director of the FBI, and Directors of the FBI don’t care what is true. They care about accumulating more power. If Saddam Hussain having WMDs or Osama Bin Laden can help him accumulate more power, then he is in favor of constructing false information to support the narrative.
J. Edgar Hoover would have been so proud.
The FBI has not disavowed J. Edgar Hoover, because the leadership of the FBI agrees with J. Edgar Hoover’s philosophy, that the FBI should function only to look out for its own interests and gain as much power as it can. The FBI tell any lie and violate the rights of US citizens as much as possible.
The FBI also thought they would entrap Michael Flynn. The FBI’s own emails state that they interviewed Michael Flynn intending to get him to lie. There was no underlying crime that was being investigated.
Case Study #3: Pressuring Medical Examiners to Fake Autopsies and Waco
This video shows how the government stated that the corpses of Branch Davidians showed that they committed suicide on mass when the FBI attacked the compound.
The FBI stated that the Branch Davidians with multiple bullet holes had “shot themselves to death.”
Several of the Branch Davidians were run over by the FBI’s modified tanks/breach vehicles. If the FBI’s narrative is to be followed, the Branch Davidians took over the modified tanks and ran themselves over with the tanks.
After the carnage at Waco, Bill Clinton defended the FBI’s actions by stating that children were being molested.
This is super cuddly Bill Clinton. The multi-decade hero of Democrats. So charismatic, and he felt “everyone’s pain.” He would never defend oppressive and illegal acts by the government, would he?
Even though the FBI infused the compound with flammable gas, and then ignited the gas with flash-bang grenades, according to the FBI and to Bill Clinton, the Branch Davidians immolated themselves.
Let us review the claims by the government regarding the causes of the death of the Branch Davidians.
The FBI never fired on the Branch Davidians even though many of their corpses were riddled with bullet holes. (again self-inflicted)
Some of the Branch Davidians were run over by the tread of modified tanks but were not killed by the act of being run over by the tank (it is unknown as to whether they had “underlying health conditions.”)
The Branch Davidians immolated themselves, even though the fire was started by the FBI. The Branch Davidians added to the flames by starting their own fires in the compound — timed for when the FBI happened to attack the compound.
The FBI is so confident in their assertion that the Branch Davidians fired through their door when the FBI raided the compound, and that no shots were fired through the door from the FBI, that after the FBI entered the door into evidence, the FBI promptly lost the door. The government also had a videotape of the raid that would have corroborated their story that the Branch Davidians fired on them first. However, the government “lost” that piece of evidence also. As the government controls the evidence they can choose to lose or not be able to find evidence at any time that shows their guilt.
The Government’s Expectations for the Acceptance of Extraordinate Coincidences
Notice that as with George Floyd, whose underlying health conditions caused him to die at the exact moment that a police officer kneeled on his neck for close to 9 minutes, the Branch Davidians took a break from their busy child molesting schedules to shoot themselves to death, start fires in the compound, and run themselves over with FBI tanks.
The Branch Davidians did all of this at the exact moment that the FBI decided to attack the compound, and not in the 51-day standoff prior to the FBI attacking the compound.
The argument was that the cult was irreparably dedicated to suicide. Apparently, not all that dedicated as they procrastinated for over a month and a half before they all killed themselves (9 people escaped the inferno).
The number of coincidences presented by the government is truly astounding. Luckily, after nearly all of the children in the compound were dead, they no longer had to be molested by the Branch Davidians — which was Bill Clinton’s primary concern.
Bill Clinton simply will nottolerate any nonconsensual or otherwise inappropriate sexual relations.
Bill Clinton only happens to, since this time, have been frequently visited with international underage pedophile and human trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Curiously, as what Bill Clinton was doing flying with and traveling with Jeffery Epstein, as the primary thing that Jeffrey Epstein did was provide underage women to powerful men. We most likely will not find out, because establishment media has no interest in following up on this story. When powerful men do the exact same thing that David Koresh did, nothing happens to them.
Were the Branch Davidians Engaging in Child Molestation and Cooking Meth?
There was never any evidence of child molestation occurring in with the Branch Davidians — what was occurring was David Koresh was having sex with a number of the young women and underage women. This is not “child molestation.” It is legally categorized as statutory rape. And there is not any evidence that anyone but David Koresh was doing this. But there is another problem with doing this, as pointed out by the local Sherrif. And that is that parental consent is 14 years old in Texas. As the parents were with the children and in the compound, they were giving consent for sexual relations with David Koresh. This is not a very good situation — but Texas should perhaps think of changing the law. All of this was why this issue, which had been looked into previously by the local police, never led to any charges being brought against David Koresh.
The Branch Davidians were also accused of cooking methamphetamine by the ATF. But this accusation was less nefarious and had to do with intergovernmental billing. In fact, the ATF did not tell the courts this, nor did they want it to come out during the hearings that they had said this. The concoction appears to be about obtaining free financial support from the US special forces.
If the ATF were to receive training and the use of military helicopters from US special forces, they needed an excuse for the use of the training, or the ATF would have to have reimbursed the military.
“According to now deceased Congressman Steven Schiff of New Mexico, ”In order for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to have obtained the military assistance they did receive, not because of the Posse Comitatus Act, but because of existing military policy, they misrepresented to the military that this was an anti-drug raid when it was never an anti-drug raid.(emphasis added)” – Libretarian Institute
Hmmmmm….where did the US military get the idea that the raid was for a meth lab?
From the ATF.
Curiously, the warrant the ATF obtained to search the Branch Davidian compound did not mention meth or meth or amphetamine a single time.
The following is the listed reason for the warrant.
A quantity of firearms, including but not limited to: an assortment of AR-15 rifles and AK-47 rifles, and parts thereof, along with a quantity of assorted machinegun conversion parts, which, when assembled, would be classified as machineguns, machinerty and implements used or suitable for use in converting semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic and for constructing destructive devices such as pipe bombs, and homemade grenades, this machinery would include, but not limited to metal lathes and milling machines, .50 caliber anti-tank rifle, sten guns, grenade launchers, practice rifle grenades, practice hand grenades, various chemicals, including but not limited to black powder, igniter cord, aluminum metal powder and potassium nitrate, magnesium metal powder, metals in various forms, inert “pineapple” type hand grenades, pipe bombs and parts thereof, and other suitable casings of unknown description which, when assembled, would be classified as destructive devices as those terms are defined in Section 5845 (b), and Section 5845 (f), Chapter 53, Title 26, United States Code, which are not registered with the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, Washington, D.C., as required by law, and documentary and computerized evidence of receipt, ownership and instructions for converting semi-automatic firearms into machineguns, and the construction of improvised explosive weapons, including computer hardware, peripheral equipment and software containing files and directories and the information theron. This is to include any disks, manuals, printouts and other assorted computer equipment. – The ATF’s Request for Warrent
This means that the ATF told the US military one thing, and the court they obtained the warrant another. Of course, the ATF does not deal with drugs, that is the DEA. However, if the ATF suspected a meth lab, why wasn’t the DEA contacted to assist in the raid, and a second methamphetamine warrant requested by the DEA?
This also means that the US special forces pilots that piloted the helicopters were operating under the pretense that the raid was of a meth lab.
So this false claim of meth cooking, helped the ATF save some money. And why not convince other government entities to provide you with resources by leveling a false claim against people you intend search?
In David Hardy’s, This is Not an Assault, he stresses, “Once the military trainers pointed out that the ATF would have to pay, the ATF suddenly claimed that the Davidians—who in fact eschewed hard liquor, tobacco, cow’s milk and junk food—were a ‘dangerous extremist organization’ believed to be producing methamphetamine.” (This is Not an Assault, Hardy, p. 258)– Libretarian Institute
Something else was missing from the ATF submission to the court asking for the warrant.
If Bill Clinton was so confident that the Branch Davidians were molesting children, why does the warrant not mention child molestation? Of course, the ATF does not deal with child molestation — but if child molestation was suspected then one is actually required to contact Child Protective Services. However, CPS was not contacted. Perhaps the ATF did not think that child molestation was happening at the compound. The ATF appears to have told different parties different stories depending upon what was helpful to them at the time.
All of this, like so much law enforcement, is on the up and up. Nothing to see here obviously, move along.
Authorities rig the autopsies and create fantasy narratives when law enforcement is at fault. Law enforcement will lie to other agencies about what they suspect if the price is right. They will pressure and harass medical examiners if they don’t get the autopsy results they like. They will accuse the deceased of shooting themselves or burning themselves alive, and of people, they kill of having “underlying health conditions.”
This should now simply be expected from US law enforcement.
With the George Floyd falsified autopsy, law enforcement has demonstrated that once again there is no ridiculous story they will not concoct to cover up for the misdeeds of police.
There was substantially less enthusiasm for making cases against law enforcement officials. Only one police officer was ever charged, for reckless endangerment. And that indictment, along with the other convictions and pending charges, was wiped away in 1976 by a new governor, Hugh Carey, who pardoned all involved saying he wanted to “close the books.”
Given what he learned in his digging, such notions weren’t much of a stretch. Police had taken purposeful steps to obscure who did what that day, Bell found. Before storming the prison, police commanders ordered officers to remove their name tags. And although standard policy called for a record to be made of which weapons were issued to which officers, no one kept track when rifles were handed out to troopers. Also ignored was a requirement that officers fill out reports detailing the number of times they had discharged their weapons and why. When Bell pressed senior police officials about why no such reports were compiled after Attica he was told, with a straight face, that the reports were used only when officers had shot at animals.
In preparation to serve a search warrant on Mount Carmel, the ATF agents wanted to be trained by Special Forces at Ft. Hood and have the use of military helicopter and pilots. There was a problem with this request; federal law prohibited it unless the ATF paid. This is covered under two acts.
The first is the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1877, which has forbidden the military from being included in domestic law enforcement in any manner. This is logical since the military is supposed to be non-political. Historically, any place we’ve seen the military patrolling the citizens has quickly led to instability. The second law is the Economy Act which demands that civilian departments reimburse for any aid provided by the military unless the case has a “drug nexus.” For a drug case, the equipment and operators are free—for anything else the civilian agency pays. (This is Not an Assault, Hardy pp. 247-248)
Did the ATF tell the Army at Ft. Hood the Branch Davidians were “cooking meth” to avoid paying them back for their training and manpower? According to now deceased Congressman Steven Schiff of New Mexico, ”In order for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to have obtained the military assistance they did receive, not because of the Posse Comitatus Act, but because of existing military policy, they misrepresented to the military that this was an anti-drug raid when it was never an anti-drug raid.” (Waco: Rules of Engagement, 40:20)
Police found a package dumped close to the site, which included a rifle and binoculars, both with Ray’s fingerprints. Ray had purchased the rifle under an alias six days earlier. A worldwide manhunt was triggered, which culminated in the arrest of Ray at London‘s Heathrow Airport two months later.
Ray confessed to the assassination on March 10, 1969. On the advice of his attorneyPercy Foreman, Ray took a guilty plea to avoid a conviction and potential death penalty. Ray was sentenced to a 99-year prison term; he recanted his confession three days later.
Ray fired Foreman as his attorney and claimed a man he met in Montreal with the alias “Raul” was involved, as was Ray’s brother Johnny, but that he was not. He said through his new attorney Jack Kershaw that, although he did not “personally shoot King”, he may have been “partially responsible without knowing it”, hinting at a conspiracy. In May 1977, Kershaw presented evidence to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he believed exonerated his client, but tests did not prove conclusive. Kershaw also claimed Ray was somewhere else when the shots were fired, but he could not find a witness to corroborate the claim.
King had been targeted by COINTELPRO and had also been under surveillance by military intelligence agencies during the period leading up to his assassination under the code name Operation Lantern Spike.
The murder of George Floyd by police officers lead to out of control protests and riots in multiple cities.
We will cover some important insight into the reaction.
The George Floyd killing was very obviously an unjust murder. It should lead to the prosecution of the police officers involved, as well as an inquiry into why police officers are still using highly dangerous suppression techniques that interfere with breathing.
The Facts of the Case
In the George Floyd case, we have police officers continuing to place people on the ground with their arms handcuffed being their backs, with police kneeling on the suspect’s neck. How is kneeling on a person’s neck for over 8 minutes an approved police suppression tactic? Even if the individual survives, it falls into the category of cruel and unusual punishment. It is also completely unnecessary as the suspect with his arms handcuffed behind his back is easily controllable.
If you cannot control a suspect who has his arms handcuffed behind his back and with a 3 to 1 advantage — you need to leave the police force as you are not physically strong enough or mentally tough enough to work in policing. Although it must be noted that Floyd was six foot six and quite muscular and an ex-athlete.
All the officers needed to do was have him sit either in the police car (which has doors that do not unlock from the inside in the back seat) or set him up with his back leaning against the car. One countervailing issue what that Floyd refused to be placed in the car as the following quote explains.
Afterwards, as the two officers tried to walk Floyd to a squad car to take him in for booking, the complaint says he “stiffened up, fell to the ground, and told the officers he was claustrophobic.” This is when Officers Derek Chauvin and Tou Thoa drove up in their own car. Three officers tried to get Floyd into a car, but he struggled and resisted, saying he would not get in. Floyd said several times, while he was standing outside the squad car, that he could not breathe. Here is more video of the arrest.
Because the three officers could not get Floyd into the car, they put him on the pavement on his stomach, still handcuffed. Officer Chauvin had his knee on Floyd’s neck and another was holding his legs and back.. Officer Lane said, “Shall we roll him on his side?” Officer Chauvin said, “No staying put where we got him.” Officer Lane said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever.” Officer Chauvin said, “That’s why we have him on his stomach.” It is not clear what this exchange means, and the complaint offers no explanation. – American Renaissance
Obviously this still does not justify the officers putting Floyd in the position he was placed in.
George Floyd Died From Underlying Health Conditions?
The Minnesota authorities have already tried to cover up the murder by stating that the autopsy showed that George Floyd died from..
“underlying health conditions.”
This would be like a person involved in a head-on collision with an 18 wheeler having their cause of death declared as “underlying health conditions.”
Certainly, the driver may have had high blood pressure and was going to die eventually — but what killed him was the 18 wheeler.
The country needs long term endurance to pressure the government to change the overall criminal justice system in the US — which will be dissipated by focusing nearly all of the anger and attention on one of the smaller issues in the system. Things do not change through breaking windows and creating mass property damage. Instead, the police will use these behaviours to enforce more oppressive tactics.
See the following video.
Notice that most of the protesters in this video are white. And the police had no compunction in ramming them with their cars. The police will beat, threaten, and intimidate anyone who challenges them.
Black Lives Matter does not realize that the police in the US are not only violent towards them. Change will not come with just one racial group bringing their grievances, but with solidarity among all races in the US that they want not only the police but the criminal justice system to change.
This man, who is beaten for the crime of filming the police, is also not black.
The False Information Provided by Black Lives Matter
Black Lives Matter provides a constant stream of false information to the public. Their false information is promoting riots, like the nationwide riots that have occurred in response to the George Floyd killing. As with the protests/riots in Missouri in response to Michael Brown, the participants are using the meme “Hands Up….Don’t Shoot,” which never happened in the Michael Brown case. Because Black Lives Matter did not issue a retraction, even though the meme was discredited along with other statements by Michael Brown’s friend, the protesters still think this occurred.
The Multiple Factors: Understanding the Root Causes of the Riots
However, most parts of the US criminal justice system are extraordinarily punitive and unfair. Furthermore, the US now has such a high-income inequality that one has to go back to the Middle Ages to find a similar level of inequality.
With the decline of unions, wage inequality has grown enormously. The US is following a failed pattern of income inequality that has already been tested in Latin America and the Middle East and leads to predictable outcomes.
There is something very wrong with the overall US criminal justice system. It is proposed that such a high incarceration rate is not a legitimate criminal justice outcome, but instead a system of control. Both inside of prison and outside of prison. Inside of prison, increasingly unpaid or barely paid labor creates a slave system.
Therefore, it is likely that the motivations behind the aggressive protests are multifaceted, and the George Floyd murder is simply the trigger. As is explained by the following quotation.
Most people probably see these riots as inappropriate responses to police brutality. But these incidents are too numerous to list now. And changes are not happening.
When one compares the property damage of the riots with the massive looting by Congress and the Plutocrats, it is easy to see that the real looters are the Elites.(emphasis added)
Also, it is increasingly apparent that these multi-city riots may well be just a preview of the inevitable revolution that is to come. – Randy Snapp
The following video gives a great insight into the reasons behind the protests.
While it seems unproductive, a case can be made that the criminal justice system is so rigged against the lower-income part of society that they are acting out predictably.
The claims of groups like Black Lives Matter — which is focused explicitly on illegitimate police killing of blacks is not supported by the statistics. However, the complaints against the US criminal justice system overall, as well as the strong capture of the US economy by the financial sector and by elite interests is entirely accurate.
The links below is where the New York Times addresses the impact of the Coronavirus and economic decline impacts on the protests and riots.
Many young people, especially minorities, were gig-economy workers holding two or three part-time jobs that evaporated when the outbreak hit, said Tyler Sit, pastor of the New City Church, which is blocks away from where Mr. Floyd died and from the Third Precinct that was burned in the protests. They were left jobless and worried about not having benefits should they become ill. – NYT
These riots are therefore not about “justice for George Floyd.” They reflect irreconcilable differences between blacks and whites. These differences are largely inherent, but have been dangerously inflamed by media and intellectuals who have, wittingly or not, encouraged blacks to hate the police, to hate whites, and to hate the United States.
Interesting comment on this article.
It would be easier for blacks to be policed only by blacks if they’d all stay in their own segregated neighborhoods. Once they start committing crimes outside of those neighborhoods, and people call the police to deal with the situation, it’s more difficult to arrange for only black officers to show up to investigate.
The best answer is that blacks should stop doing things that require the police to show up, but everyone agrees that this option is off the table. It will never happen. They aren’t Asians.
Plus, I’ve read before that black-officer-on-black-perp violence is just as prevalent as white-officer-on-black-perp violence.
You think anything would be different with black cops? If anything, the black cops would be more heavy handed and the “community” which would continue their usual crimes, would still be complaining about police brutality. I wonder how they would be treated by say, the police force of Kinshasha, Congo?
You are right. The underlying problem isn’t just white cops; it’s the white man’s law that they hate even if black cops enforce it. It is a political problem with cultural roots.
When people of vastly different cultures live together, they get on each other’s nerves. When we do not agree on the basics of social order and we want to live under different rules, forcing us to live together inevitably results in conflict for which no amount of tolerance and understanding can possibly compensate. There is only one choice for such “communities”: separation of the groups into autonomous zones or centralized police-state control.
A guy with a mullet just started smashing windows at the Lake Street library. Other protesters surrounded him and demanded he stop. “That’s the library, you f***! It’s an information source for the community,” one guy said.No worries. Nothing was stolen. They just have to replace the windows.
Yet they let them in here every day from the Caribbean, West and East Africa. Americans are not uniting to stop this. The VA is full of medical personnel from the Caribbean, Africa, and India. I noticed this since Bush when Americans were robbed of good-paying because they imported foreigners. I am tired of hearing that these invaders make less money. Whatever amount they make less is not that much less because none of them live in the ghetto; all of them have nice homes and money is no object because they are always traveling around the world. I have not known the East Indians to riot but they are a huge threat. Just look at what their country is like (beyond disgusting in more ways than one and they are criminally-inclined because they do commit fraud but once again the law is only applied to Americans) and their population has grown so much that it is almost as big as China’s.
Somalis are the worst of the worst. This is a known fact in Africa as well. I am hearing that a lot of their crimes are quickly buried in the news to not offend the Somali community.
Only problem is – Blacks and other non Whites never agree to stay in their Black areas or use their Black owned businesses – they want to go where things are better, where things are nice. It’s unfair Whites have nice, modern clean shopping Malls while the “Hood” only has Arab run convenience stores. Blacks and other non Whites will never agree to stay in their neighborhoods, their cities (Baltimore and Camden NJ), their countries Zambai, now Zimbabwe, Haiti – same with the worst Arabs, Muslims.
French gave up all of French Algeria – the entire White Pied Noir population of French Algeria was ethnically cleansed when Algeria was handed over to Arab Muslim majority rule. Arabs gave Whites two choices:
Coffin or the Suitcase – leave with just the clothes on their backs.
Once Algeria became Arab Muslim ruled, all White Pied Noir expelled, Arab Muslims are not happy – they want to go where things are better they want to go to….
And then the whole thing starts all over again.
No – don’t concede White cities like Minneapolis to BlackLiesMatter Mobs or even the NOI who at least have some discipline.
People choose to believe the myths swarming around about the KKK. Their origin was shown in that film “The Birth of a Nation” based supposedly, on the recollections of the whites who lived after the freeing of slaves. Wild, low IQ freed blacks creating pure havoc. A militia later named KKK was formed in order to save lives and property. Every time a pic of a black swinging off a tree is shown to illustrate how terrible these whites where, I tell them to do some research and find out just what had occurred to bring this vigilante justice into action.
Blacks have issues with the police because they are constantly resisting and refusing to obey lawful orders. I can’t even count how many times I’ve conducted traffic stops where the black suspect would get out of the car and run. Countless. “Put your hands behind your back. You’re under arrest for XYZ”. Nope. A simple suspended DL situation would always turn into a resisting arrest, battery on LEO, fleeing, etc.
Did this also happen with whites? Of course. Just not at the rate of black folks.
Minnesota used to be one of the whitest places. Everything blacks touch, they kill.
I though until recently that Minnesota was a great place to escape non whites. What do we do just keep uprooting and leaving only for them to follow us?
This article comments on a woman card moment that went viral that also has racial overtones, but says as much about how we have overentitled women.
The following is the reaction of an excellent news show named The Hill to an altercation in Central Park over a woman being asked to place her dog on a leash, that quickly escalated to the man asking for this rule to be followed having the cops called on him and being accused of something that the video clearly shows he is not doing. The resulting interaction is ridiculous because all the man is asking for is that the rules of the park be followed.
Note: A person who behaves like this has become known as a “Karen.” Even though this woman’s name is not Karen, we will be referring to her as Karen throughout the article.
The Video and Commentary by The Hill
Please view the video, and then you can interpret the comments below.
A lot of women have a lot of paranoia about men threatening them. Which is odd — because while women are fast to imply they are being physically threatened and play the woman card at non-violent arguments, other feminists say that there are no biological differences between women and men and women would be excellent Navy Seals. However, if there is no biological difference between men and woman, why are women nearly always having men move their furniture for them.
Which is it?
Are women able to beat up any man, being unfairly discriminated against for combat roles, or are they looking for police assistance and the drop of a hat?
A few other questions come to mind.
Why is it that women think they have the right to win every argument they have if their opponent is a man?
Do men have the right to put forward our perspective in arguments, or are they always categorized as hostile or threatening?
A Racial Moment or a Woman Moment?
Virtually all of the coverage of this incident focused on the racial component.
But, here is the critical question to ask, would this confrontation have occurred if the woman were a man?
I think it unlikely.
Men are far less likely to expect special treatment during confrontations. Because we can point out white entitlement, the story becomes about race. However, the sex component is just as central to the confrontation, yet it was unnoticed and undiscussed by media entities. This is because out of control female entitlement, can’t be called out.
Naturally, if you opposed a woman falsely accuses a man in a ridiculous manner of threatening her — then you must be a sexist. Weren’t we all conditioned with #MeToo (recently amended to #MeTooIfIDon’tLikeYou, or #MeTooIfYouBelongtoTheOpposingPolitialParty or #MeTooButNotifJoeBiden) to believe all women?
Hmmmmmmmm….smells so good. Joey “Magic Hands” in action. But according to #MeToo its not sexual harassment as the individual is a Democrat.
However, if it were a Republican, it would not only be sexual harassment but would be called sexual assault. Or, if you are a Democrat, but you are not in 100% agreement with the establishment, then even resting your hand on the lower back/upper buttocks of women during photographs is totally unacceptable — and worthy of being thrown out of the Senate a la Al Franken.
Sexual harassment has now been broadened as well.
The words can be ratcheted up or down depending upon one’s agenda.
Must Beleive All Women?
Here we have, in the video, a woman clearly lying — but aren’t we supposed to believe her anyway? Again, I don’t want to lose my female credits I have worked so hard to earn by saying anything remotely not 100% supportive of women. One more demerit and I am banned for life from The Pottery Barn.
What Men Know
While blacks see this as an example racism — men know that this is increasingly what we are putting up with from women.
Therefore, this is not only a racial moment.
I am not convinced it is even predominantly racist.
For example, I am white, and if Karen had this confrontation with me, it is very likely she would have played the woman card the same way. I had a property manager state she would also call the police on me because we were in an argument about whether she had the right to place a very difficult to remove no parking sticker on my window. When I asked her what she would report as we were simply arguing, she could not think of anything. She then said I had threatened her by saying I would put the same difficult to remove sticker on her car she had placed on mine. At that point she said its property damage — which is curious because she had already placed that same sticker on my car.
In many cases, just the fact that a man is arguing with a woman is a police matter to many women.
Certainly, Karen did really love to put in the “African American man” term in there in the call to the police. This Karen would never accept racism or “white supremacy,” but the fact is that most whites are, in fact, afraid of blacks. This woman, no doubt, is disgusted by Trump’s “racism.” The statement about “threatening myself and my dog” was certainly amusing.
Was Karen Faking Fear?
Towards the end of the video, her voice changes in modulation, which normally indicates she is actually afraid. Is that faking? I ask because her voice modulation seemed to take over when she was on the phone to the police.
That has to be one of the least threatening, threatening situations I have ever seen. While she is voice acting, the man is roughly 20 feet away from her.
What kind of intimidation gives you 2 minutes and 20 feet of space to call the cops on them? This falls into the category or is at least very close to it of a false police report. Jussie Smollet ran into trouble for something similar, except Jussie was more premeditated and the illusory thugs were MAGA hat-wearing white racists.
Time to Reclassify Non-Violent Acts as Violence?
Notice how women have reclassified things to make them appear violent.
“Threatening”: Notice Karen’s reference or accusation of “threatening.” Threatening a person (and a dog) is now asking for the dog to be leashed.
“Sexual Assualt”: Sexual harassment was non-physical. However, not the term often used is sexual assault — which is a physical term. Whatever happened to the term “sexual harassment.” Was it not sufficiently threatening so it had to be decommissioned?
According to this tranny (excuse me transgender or aka “trans”). Never trannys. Anyway, according to this tranny (excuse me transgender), non-physical violence is now violence.
(PS, to tranny’s, a great way to not be misgendered by strangers is to stop masquerading sex you are not. If you have a massive adams apple, a deep voice and a five o’clock shadow, and you have the body of a man, you are going to get misgendered while ordering at Arby’s. The problem with being misgendered is primarily person looking like another sex then they would like to pass themselves off as.
This is true even if you are wearing a Maryln Monroe wig.
For example, I have yet to be called she in Arby’s or other fast-food establishments.
I would hypothesize that Sofia Vergara has never been misgendered. This greatly reduces the amount of “violence” she receives.
This tranny went ape when told by the oppressive patriarchy of the female biology professor that there are differences between men and women. Outside they referred to the biology professor as a Nazi and a fascist. The tranny then cut the mikes or disabled the mikes of the speakers.
This proto-masculine bigot misgendered a student in class! This man is clearly a monster and violated the school’s policies. We have reached the point where we are shaming men who wear pink shirts onto talk shows as being not appropriately sensitive. This man was promptly sent to a mangina re-education camp after the interview.
People are trying to change terms so that they can claim victim status.
Women are into this perversion of language.
Tranies are into this and have done this before with terms that already had accepted meanings.
Changing The Meaning of Terms is Why We Lost the Term for a Transmission
This used to be a “tranny,” which was short for transmission or auto transmission for those not into the whole brevity thing. For some reason, the transexuals decided to adopt the term. It might be because as with a transmission, they are “shifting gears.” Then after the term became popular, they changed the rules stated it was now derogatory. This messed up a perfectly good word.
AirTrans, the official airline of transexuals was recently forced to change its name to AirHisorHer Airlines, all in an attempt to not misgender and “do violence” to their customers. It became so confusing that in order to reduce pandemonium at 30 thousand feet, all passengers are now just called “it” or “hey you.” In 2019, gender pronouns were banned from AirTranny.
A whole host of people are rushing to exaggerate afflictions to claim the badge of victimhood. When a millennial or below now says that violence was done to them, you don’t know if someone stuck them with a knife or simply used the wrong pronoun.
The Tendency With Many Women to Escalate
Women are fast to call the cops and escalate situations that are not legal matters. This man was not “threatening her life.”
How Manginas And the Legal System Has Coddled Women
There are many men who will White Knight for these kinds of antics because they have been turned into manginas by our society. They feel obligated to compliment women continually or to tell them how “fabulous” they are.
This type of video is an illustration of how deluded many women have become with an unending parade of people like Oprah, Michelle Obama, and various manginas telling them they are the center of the universe.
According to the video, this Karen lost her job after this incident.
That seems like an overreaction, but she worked for an investment firm — which means her job loss improves the economy. Unless they replace her with another person instead of eliminating the position. This is a person of low character who uses unnecessary force against people regardless of what is right or wrong. She was more than ready to get this person in trouble with the police then just to get keep her from having to put a leash on her dog – and of course to admit that she was wong.
This shows the standard character of people that work in investment banks in Wall Street. So its not only a race moment, and a woman moment, it is also a Wall Street moment.
Normally Wall Street employees punish the rest of their country in their work-lives. This behavior was small potatoes compared to the damage that she would have inflicted on others on a daily basis working for her hedge fund, private equity firm, or other financial entity.
This video is a good example of how many women deliberately escalate situations as they know that escalating the situation and making up a story about being threatened increases their likelihood of getting their way. For police, it is important to moderate the response to female 911 calls. That is, when a call is received by a woman, the call is less likely to be an emergency than when the caller is male.
According to the prevailing wisdom, women are better than men.
They are better special forces soldiers than men, they are only kept out of the furniture moving profession because of male “patriarchy,” however, at the drop of a hat, they seem interested in calling on the “patriarchy” to either help them move their furniture or otherwise give them backup –which is odd — because as MS Magazine repeatedly tells us, there is no biological difference between men and women.
Its all just social construct. It must be nice to claim equality in things you have never done, and can never do, and then also have a woman card to pull out — you know, when the time is right and its time to play the damsel in distress.
This article is a debate between a woke individual and me on the history of women in combat roles.
I made the following comment on a YouTube video that showed a clip of The Rise of Skywalker. This miffed someone who thought I was not representing female combat history accurately.
Star Wars had two good movies — the first and second. The rest are are fan service. Why is a woman cast as a warrior. Women have never been warriors in history. Get a grip. Any society that used its women as warriors would get it ass kicked. – Me
The response to my comment.
Um, there have been a number of women warriors in history. This trilogy, however, is complete trash.
Really? Who? You know Joan of Arc did no fighting and was basically a mascot.
The response to me.
Your opinion is noted, but history disagrees. And aside from Joan, there was also Artrmusua I Of Caria, TRIỆU THỊ TRINH, NAKANO TAKEKO, TOMOE GOZEN, QUEEN BOUDICCA, GRACE O’MALLEY, LOZEN, ZENOBIA, Lyudmila Pavlichenko (nicknamed Lady Death), the 588th Night Bomber Regiment (whom the Germans nicknamed “Night Witches”, and feared). History has its share of women warriors. And by your logic, no field commander does any actual fighting and is “just a mascot”.
Again, Joan was a mascot, not a field commander. She did not fight herself and she had no fighting or military experience. So no, the analogy you provided is entirely incorrect. Joan inspired people, which is why I have categorized her as a mascot. Now you are listing a series of button pushers. I am aware of Pavlichenko, but she was a sniper. Women are actually more accurate than men at sniping (they have less tendency to muscle the rifle), but they can’t tolerate the physical conditions in most cases (snipers often have to poop on themselves and have bugs crawl on them and not move). You can come up with some button pushing women, but this character is a sword wielding warrior. Do you know what would happen if we had competitions between male and female sword fighters? Women would get annihilated. There is reason we don’t take females hitting males as seriously as males hitting females. The potential to do damage is not the same. So no, history does not disagree with me. Cherry picking button pushing women does not contradict my statement. Look, you are weaker than men. Deal with it. In history, warriors, particularly any fighting requiring physicality were men. Do you see any women in special forces? No. How about the infantry? Testing shows that even in the infantry (which is carrying a rifle and a pack) women get injured with far higher frequency. Men do not only nearly all the fighting historically but nearly all the physically demanding jobs. Do you see women trying to get into road construction, plumbing, house construction? I have to listen to women tell me a fake history and then claim they are doing everything men do — but then they can’t and don’t do these things. Women have been surrounded by men who patronize them and tell them they can do anything men can do. It’s ridiculous. This is not to say women don’t do things. They are better at different things. But putting these women in these roles is just not believable.
His response to me.
Bruh, you have some serious issues. You clearly don’t do any research and just insert your own opinions on the matter. In ancient Japan it was commonplace for women to train along with their husbands, both to be able to defend themselves while the husbands were away and on the battle field should they be needed. Feel free to believe what you want, but history has its stories, whether you believe them or not, doesn’t change what history records about them.And FYI, I’m not a girl you sexist moron. I work with women, my boss is a woman, and when I’m not at the job for whatever reason they’re more than capable of doing the heavy lifting. My boss makes sure everyone does their part on the job.
And here we go with the insults.
I just presented historically true things, and by the way, I have an extensive research background. Yes, what you said is true, but it is misleading. Spartan women were also taught to fight. However, that was as a last resort. If the village was overrun, then women had to fight. But they were not the warriors that were sent out in either Japan nor in Sparta. You have mischaracterized what those women in Japan actually did. You think this is “history,” but it is you mischaracterizing history. You try to find examples that prove your view, and in each case, its some cherry picking on your part. Think of this question. Where there any female knights? There is Briane of Tarth in GOT, but that is a fictional character. Why do you not see female knights? Who fought in the Civil War? Mostly men or mostly women? How about WW2, what percentage of the combatants were women? And then, why?
Sexism is seeking to diminish women. It is not stating facts about what they have historically done or what they currently do. And think it through. That is great that you see women who lift things at work. But they are still weaker than men. Women are even weaker than their bodies dictate because they don’t seem to have the same ability to push through mentally. I do notice a few exceptions like female bodybuilders, and Cross-Fit. But I think many of those women are on male hormones. I have been working out in gyms for around 35 years, and I see a strong tendency of women to stay away from significant exertion. I have never been able to train any of my girlfriends because they just seemed to lack that ability to make that effort. I am stunned to find out you are a man. Most men know everything I am writing is true, but they will patronize women to make them feel better. If you get around most men, if there are no women around, they all start giggling at the idea of women as warriors. But as soon as the women show up, they tend to go back to hiding their true thoughts.
You use history and ignore the history you consider irrelevant.How is it misleading? You agree that the women were in fact trained in combat. It being a last resort doesn’t discredit the fact that they’re trained as warriors and most likely some have a number of kills under their belt. I don’t cherry pick through anything, I simply state my findings for you to try and find a means of discrediting.
Given that the title of knighthood is nothing but a royal reward for service in any field of endeavor, e.g. music, science, medical care, etc, yes, women have become knights. Women weren’t allowed to fight in the Civil War, but it’s estimated that somewhere around 400 disguised themselves as men and went to war, sometimes without anyone ever discovering their true identities. I’ve already covered women in WWII. And why would the “why” be important? The question isn’t about the “why”, it’s about the “where they there”. And for the most part, the answer is yes. Maybe not in number you’d consider relevant, but the fact that they were there proves that history does in fact have women warriors, be they with a sword or a bow, with a gun or raining death from a plane, they were there.
And now, I’m done with this “argument”. Whether or not you consider any of this in you idea of what makes a woman a fighter, is up to you. I’m done here, and will go back to reading more interesting stories about warriors like Tadakatsu Honda.
It is misleading because they were trained as a last resort, and you are presenting them as if they were a primary battle force. They were not used in the military. Mostly they are doing it because there are no other options. They are not warriors; they were let us call it Plan B. Obviously versus getting killed, you will try to defend yourself. But these women were not at the front. I also do not ever recall hearing a story where women fought off an advancing army that had defeated their men. I don’t know ever battle that occurred in history, but I can’t even recall this as a thing. The women generally don’t get killed in this situation. They are taken as slaves or concubines. And then it brings up the question of what their likelihood of survival is. Women cannot compete with men in fighting matters so that they would be taking an enormous risk in fighting. Probably the toughest women I can think of were the Spartan women. The entire society was dedicated to militarism. However, I could not find examples of Spartan women fighting or fighting off, say the Persians after the Spartan army was defeated.
Ok, you know very well I was referring to a fighting knight. I think the topic of this conversation is combat.
Ok….why were here no armored female knights?
Here is a quote from Wikipedia.
“When the boy turned 15, he became a squire. In a religious ceremony, the new squire swore on a sword consecrated by a bishop or priest, and attended to assigned duties in his lord’s household. During this time the squires continued training in combat and were allowed to own armour (rather than borrowing it).”
Do you see that there? Wikipedia says he. Not she. There were no female armored knights.
I don’t know what to say to your Civil War example.
Ok. So some women have seen combat in history. I think most likely; the men looked forward to fighting them. But I will acknowledge that some women and men snuck in here and there. However, considering I just looked up and found that there were 2.75 million troops who were in the US Civil War. 400 is .00014 of the number of men. That is beyond a rounding error.
The argument that it was sexism that stopped women from being in combat roles would not add up. When civilizations fight, everything is on the line, and the losing side eventually runs out of young fighting-age men. If women were the equal to men or anywhere close, they would have been drafted and utilized at some time in history. Maybe just the top 5%. But outside of very marginal cases, you outlined. When we add this to what we know about the physical differences between men and women, it seems that previous societies so the exact same differences that we do now. The difference is that with woke culture, we now have to say things that are not true so that we can gain social acceptance and virtue signal. I am not sure how far I would have to take this to be accepted. For instance, are midgets warriors? How about old men, are they good warriors? People with medical conditions like diabetes? There are many men the military won’t take because they consider them not fit for combat. In WW2, this was called the 4F designation. I am 50 years old. They don’t take 50-year-old men into combat roles either. I would be managing a warehouse or something if a war began.
Other Examples from History of Women in Combat
When discussing this topic with a few other people, the example of women in combat roles in the Israeli military was brought up. So I looked into it. If you read the following quotation, it looks like women have been very much involved in combat, and this has been used as an example of women taking on this role.
According to the IDF, 535 female Israeli soldiers had been killed in combat operations between the period 1962-2016 (this figure does not include the dozens of female soldiers killed in Israeli service prior to 1962). Women have taken part in Israel’s military before and since the founding of the state in 1948, fulfilling various roles within the Ground, Navy and Air Forces. The 2000 Equality amendment to the Military Service law states that “The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men.” – Wikipedia
However, then the more one looks, the less these roles appear to be real combat roles.
In 2014, the IDF said that fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as infantry, tank crews, artillery guns service, fighter pilots, etc. Rather, they are concentrated in “combat-support”.
Before the establishment of the state, women served in combat roles in the militias that would become the Israel Defense Forces. The rate of women who took part in combat organizations stood at 20%. At the years before the establishment of the IDF, military service for women existed in the lines of the Hashomer and Haganah organizations.
Most served as medics, communications specialists, and weaponeers.
This comment is from an article written in Isreal.
I am struck by the way both women and medical personnel turn a blind eye to the physiological differences between men and women, which are inevitably reflected in performance differences and can be detrimental to all – first and foremost to the young women who will pay the price when they are unsuitable for a task. We must not allow equality to come before preparedness and the ability to perform. – Haaretz
In repeated attempts to put women in actual front line combat roles, the results are consistent in that they show women unable to get through training programs in anything but the smallest minority, as the following quotation explains.
Thirty-seven women have attended the Marines Corps’ Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Va., for 13 weeks of combat evaluations and mileslong hikes carrying heavy loads. Only two women have passed. Of those two women, only Lieutenant Hierl has been given a platoon of roughly 35 men to lead.
This is the issue with our current woke culture. One must exaggerate anecdotes into entirely overstating the role of women in combat, to gain social acceptance. There is so much wrong with this. There are issues of stolen valor, of women pretending that their sex did things historically that they simply did not do. This would be like saying that many men historically performed childbearing and that it is just a stereotype that men have not given birth. Secondly, it is a waste of resources as women are being allowed to try out for combat positions and invariably wash out. It should also be noted that training does not prepare a person for actual combat. It attempts to duplicate it, but no one is being killed next to you. Therefore it is a bit of a lab environment. Whatever women’s performance in these training programs, their performance in actual combat would be worse.
But the “feel-good commentary on this was apparent from the New York Times article. These comments show the PC delusion that has taken over large percentages of adults.
While this concept of “a woman leading men into combat” is a major paradigm shift in the Marine mindset, I am hopeful that the actions of First Lt. Marina Hierl and the Marine Corps in general will continue to realize that women’s ability to succeed in the military is largely due to their intelligence, inner strength, dedication and willingness to do the job in addition to meeting the physical demands and expectations of what is required.
Nowadays, women have been continuous fighting for equality. People should take more efforts to really realize equality. I believe that we can have better future.
As a woman in cardiothoracic surgery, another profession with few women leaders, I appreciate this article and the inspiration it provides to women seeking a career and a future. We know we have achieved gender equality when people begin to stay focused more on what you bring to the table than what your hairstyle is. The article describes how the Lieutenant wore her hair- I wonder if this were a man would such a comment have been made? Throwing micro-aggressive comments such as how a woman wears her hair along with how she leads might seem harmless but over time have been shown to continue the perception that women are not fit to lead. The we accept what makes us different, we learn how to make that diversity strengthen the team.
These comments are absolutely asinine and are not considerate of either women’s historical minute involvement in combat roles nor their poor performance in even being able to get through combat training. This illustrates that many people are simply living in fantasy land and working backward from what they want to be true to what is true.
Africans routinely state that European countries owe all of their wealth to theft from Africa during colonization.
We evaluate the accuracy of this claim.
In a number of online comments, it is stated that the wealth in European based countries is principally from African slavery. The following is an excellent example of this claim.
Yes, just like most European countries are rich because of colonization of African countries, but of course you are too stupid to see that. So, in essence, white people are living off OUR money, labor and resources.
Which Countries in Europe are Wealthy Today?
Something which Africans who make this claim do not appear to do is to evaluate the differences in wealth between European based countries, the degree each country was involved in colonialism, how long they were engaged in colonialism and what the basis for their current economies are today.
If one looks at the most colonial countries, like Spain and Portugal and the UK, they significantly lag the countries with the least colonial ties, like Germany, Norway, and Sweden. This is not to say resources were not extracted from countries due to their colonies. Both Spain and Portugal became wealthy because of their colonial extraction — but what is often missed is they did not stay what way for long. Portugal was one of the great maritime colonial powers and extracted mightily from its colonies. However, Portugal has not been a power in Europe for hundreds of years. What happened to the lasting value of this wealth that Portugal extracted from its colonies?
So while resources were extracted from Africa during the colonial period, but those were resources that were primarily underground and or agricultural commodities. In the case of the minerals, Africans both did not know existed and would not have been able to put to use. (you have to have mastered metallurgy to make use of mining output) And you have to have mining technologies to be able to access these resources in the first place. And there is little evidence of either in Africa prior to the European colonialist’s arrival in 1888.
Leaving Out Technology Transfer from the Equation
Something entirely left out of the conversation by Africans who make this claim is that every single technology used by Africans beyond stone age instruments was brought to Africa by Europeans. So, in essence, Africans are living of European technology. This has led to many negatives for Africa as well because while European medicine significantly reduced infant mortality, Africa, by in large, did not bring down its birth rates in a comparable manner. Now Africa stares over the abyss of massive overpopulation, which will lead to a high percentage of the continent to leave Africa.
This shows a barge left by the Belgians in the 1950s that is still used by Congolese but to ferry passengers up the river. No thanks are given by Africans for the technology they currently use that was brought by Europeans.
Even though Africans were shown how to use infrastructure, they have, in many cases, been unable to maintain what the Europeans left behind properly.
Indians and Bangladeshis like to communicate their anger about colonialism. However, take a guess where this train was built who brought the engineers (although the labor to lay the track would have been local)? Yes, the British. Those colonizers. If Indians and Bangladeshis are so offended by colonizers, why do they continue to use the infrastructure that the colonizers brought?
As with Africans, each of the ancestors of the people on this train, we’re promised that all that was necessary for a brighter future was to get rid of colonizers and have their countries managed locally?
How did that work out?
Well, the train images and video tells us. Did Europeans, who left India in 1947, stop India and Bangaladesh from upgrading their railroads?
The Weak Relationship Between The Degree of Colonization by European Countries and Their Current Wealth Level
Some of the wealthiest countries today in Europe had either no colonies or few colonies. Norway had no colonies and was colonized by Sweden.
Africans seem to think that colonialization only occurred by whites of blacks. However, it has been the standard way of human civilizations everywhere. The difference with European colonializations is that people in distant lands, who evolved to look different, were colonized. Before Europeans colonized many parts of Africa, Africa was already colonized by various more powerful tribes. Egypt, for example, had colonized parts of North-Eastern Africa for hundreds of years, which is far longer than Europeans were in Africa. Notice this explanation from Wikipedia.
The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (Arabic: السودان الإنجليزي المصري as-Sūdān al-Inglīzī al-Maṣrī) was a condominium of the United Kingdom and Egypt in the eastern Sudan region of northern Africa between 1899 and 1956, but in practice the structure of the condominium ensured full British control over the Sudan with Egypt having local influence[clarification needed] instead. Until 1914, Egypt itself was nominally part of the Ottoman Empire. During the 19th century it gradually expanded its control of the Sudan as far south as the Great Lakes region. In 1881 the Mahdist revolt broke out in Sudan and in 1882 the British invaded Egypt. Egypt became a de facto protectorate of Britain and together British and Egyptian forces gradually re-conquered the Sudan. In 1899, they formally agreed to establish a joint protectorate: Egypt on the basis of its previous claims and Britain by right of conquest.
Let us review the Ottoman Empire.
This video shows the growth and decline of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was a colonialist enterprise. It ranged from 1370 to the end of World War I. This was a roughly 700 year period of time, at least 10x more extended than the colonization of Africa by Europeans.
Do we see a pattern?
The Ottoman Empire colonized Egypt by 1520. However, Egypt had already colonized parts of Sudan. Therefore, the Sudanese area was controlled by the Ottoman Empire through Egypt. When the Ottoman Empire fell at the end of World War II, Egypt became colonized by the British, hence the “Anglo-Egyptian-Sudanese” area.
Colonization is a constant feature of humanity, and it is not a single instance from 1888 to 1945 (with extensions out to 1965) that was practiced in a single place, by whites who colonized Africans. Some Africans may look at everything written above, and ask the question, how can the Ottomans have had an empire?
The answer to this is that non-whites also colonize.
This may be shocking to most Africans, but sub-Sarahan people in Africa also had empires and colonies. Yes, it is true. And the empires were not just based upon trading baseball cards but were based upon violence.
Most Africans have not held a shield. However, they are undoubtedly familiar with them. They are found on many African flags. And notice the spears behind the shield. If pre-European colonialism Africans, all got along great and never colonized each other — what was the need for all of these instruments of war?
Does this look similar? Yes, it is a European shield. It served the same purpose as the African shields.
Yet, for some reason, Egypt’s colonization of Africa is mostly forgotten to Africans, as is the Zulu Empire. At the same time, the only empires Africans seem to like talking about is the European Empire. African schooling also tries to present all war and fighting as a feature of Europeans, and presents the idea that Africans were just sitting in their huts, minding their own business when the European colonizers showed up. African countries educational curriculum is unsophisticated and considers it perfectly fine to teach fictions. Most of Africa does not understand rational thinking, does not support Western Medicine, or have much of an appreciation for science. Therefore it is very easy for African leaders to promote this self serving view to its populace, that then removes from for personal responsibility for improving things.
They tell their citizens
“We are still recovering from colonialism.”
Each African leader has this sentence down, and they repeat it like parrot.
They must teach it at Oxford.
“We have many problems….political, social, economic.”
What African leaders have no intention of doing is doing something about it. They just let their populations explode around them. African leaders also like shopping at the Champs-Élysées road in Paris, and stop bringing back Yves st Lauren and Coach luxury items in 10 to 15 carts back to Africa. Not only did the Europeans rob their country, the white man made them take their wives to Paris on shopping sprees with taxpayer money. That is what we whites do, we like to make other races go shopping for luxury goods in Paris and Milan and Beverly Hills.
Independence movements in all of the formerly colonized countries follow this algorithm.
“Europeans colonialists have been robbing us!”
Independence….a XYZ country for XYZ people.
Get Independence on a Thursday
Some elite contingent takes power
Elite contingent begins robbing on Friday
Blame every issue on outsiders
Send your kids to Oxford
Repeat for the next generation of elites
This same trick is performed on the population by Indian elites as the following quote explains.
Though the narrative of white man robbed us continues in Indian history books but apparently the history books are more balanced now.
As does China as this quotation explains.
China has a historical grudge. Esp. since the Brits got the locals hooked on to Opium. Opium wars. They keep citing it all the time. An average Chinese guy is thoroughly brainwashed by school history books. He is trained not to trust the world outside.
The Example of Sweden and Norway
Norway never had any colonies in Africa or anywhere else. Yet Norway is one of the wealthiest countries in Europe. Can anyone explain how, if the argument is that colonies lead to long term wealth and explain the standard of living of European based countries, why is Norway wealthy?
Here is another example of a quote that proposes European based countries’ wealth is due to colonialism.
Colonialism, Neocolonialism along with racial discrimination, incompetent leaders and tribal wars have contributed, and still contribute to deprivation in the continent. Real research studies such as “Race, Poverty and Deprivation in South Africa” (Journal of African Economies, Volume 22, Issue 2, March 2013, Pages 187–238) should explain you the basics. Colonies=wealth. When Sweden possessed several colonies and sold most of them (you know what that means right? give or hand over in exchange for money).
Sweden has some of the fewest colonies for the shortest amounts of time, yet are one of the wealthiest countries in Europe. Sweden had colonies for 13 years. But most of Sweden’s African colonies were held from 3 to 6 years. Let us review each of Sweden’s colonies for the duration they were held.
Here is a list of Sweden’s colonies in Africa.
“The former Swedish colonies in Africa were: Swedish Gold Coast (1650–1663; lost to Denmark and the Dutch) Including the Cape Coast (1649–1663) consisting of the following settlements: Fort Apollonia, presently Beyin: 1655–1657. Fort Christiansborg/Fort Frederiksborg, which became the capital, presently Osu: 1652–1658.” – Wikipedia
Because Sweden sold its colonies that this explains Sweden’s present level of wealth?
According to many Africans, Sweden’s present level of wealth is based upon 13 years of colonial history. It seems this massive theft put into a bank account that the Swedes have been living off of?
Furthermore, these colonies were sold roughly 360 years ago.
Swedes are known for having nice parks and enjoying them. According to many Africans, this must be because Swedes don’t have to work (it is true, no one works in Sweden). All of Sweden’s wealth comes from a 13 year period when the Swedes had a few colonies in Africa in the 1650s. Selling those colonies has allowed Sweden to have a workfree existence since them. Saabs, Volvos, and pharmaceuticals do get exported from the country, but no one has any idea how they get built as no Swede has had a job in over 360 years — since the 1650s that is.
Let us review the Wikipedia entry on Sweden’s economy.
“telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, industrial machines, precision equipment, chemical goods, home goods and appliances, forestry, iron, and steel.”
Sweden has a lot of manufacturing, which Africa had zero to with either working in or developing. That is the basis of the Swedish economy. How is that related to income derived from 13 years of colonies?
So, several small colonial areas owned for an average of around six years (some were held longer, some shorter), roughly 360 years ago, explains Sweden’s present wealth? The Dutch had a significant colonial holding in Africa, but are the Dutch more wealthy than the Swedish today?
The Dutch have a per capita income that is roughly 2% higher than the Swedes.
Norway has a per capita income (never having any colonies remember) that is around 25% higher than either Sweden or the Dutch.
How about Australia and New Zealand. Both are European based countries settled by Europeans. However, neither of them had colonies. Yet both are wealthy. Is their wealth also based upon stealing from Africa? Did they steal from it without ever being involved in Africa?
I have to ask this question.
Are the Africans that make this claim about all Europeans based countries wealth being based upon theft from Africa capable of doing this analysis. Do they even attempt to look for evidence before making the claim? Because the argument falls apart quickly upon analysis.
Cross Country Comparison and Measuring the Degree of Colonizalization
Take a look at the countries most involved in colonialism. Say Spain and Portugal versus Sweden, Norway, and Germany. The latter having the least involvement in colonies. Which of the two groups of countries is wealthier?
If colonies lead to long term wealth, why is the wealth of countries inversely related to the degree those countries were involved in colonialism? Spain and Portugal did make short term wealth from stealing across the New World. But this did not translate to long term wealth.
Furthermore, the idea that Africans have never stolen, or have not stolen from African tribes they have conquered, or would not have stolen from European socities if they had had the technology to colonialize Europe is ridiculous. African is a continent of kleptocrats. For many Africans, theft is a problem if a white person does it. If a black person does it, it is perfectly fine.
The Short Period of Time of European Colonization of Africa
First, Africa was only colonized by Europeans from roughly 1890 to 1945, with 20 years taken to figure out the transfer. However, even before colonialization, Africa had achieved close to no technological advancements.
Why is this?
The Perpetual Need of Africans to Blame Outside Entities
African leaders rob their countries and then blame Europeans, and their populations buy it. Mugabe told his population that all the problems were due to whites. He kicked out white farmers, and now Zimbabwe, previously a net food exporter, can’t feed its population. And you can see how much Mugabe opposed theft. Mugabe turned Zimbabwe into a basket case with 100 Trillion Dollar notes!
While Mugabe robbed the country and here are his sons enjoying their stolen wealth, all while putting their own failures entirely on the white minority or on European colonialization.
And Africans are still blaming Europeans.
Why Do Africans Want to Live in the Countries Filled with Evil Colonizers?
Nearly all of the infrastructure and technology of any note is in one country in sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa. A European based country that Africans illegally immigrate into to get access to white infrastructure. Africans immigrated into SA during the height of apartied — because it was so much better than living in African run countries. And according to the same immigrants, SA has gone downhill since the end of apartied and the rise of the ANC.
Do you see what this says?
Apartied in a white-run country is far better than being African in an African run country.
Just think about that for a minute.
The thing that should have been focused on was not to end apartied (apparently) but to institute apartheid through the rest of Africa. If we want better outcomes for Africans. If one goes by outcomes, what other conclusion is one supposed to come to?
The way many Africans show their distant for their ex-European colonizers is by getting on rafts and trying to immigrate to the countries (some of which colonized them.) This shows how independent Africans are from Europeans.
Whenever Africans face a natural disaster or epidemic, they know they can’t rely on Africans to help them, and they go running to their ex-colonizers for support. That is the people who they say robbed them. This is yet again how Africans show that they don’t need European involvement. Africans take just the parts of the assistance they want. They take the inoculations. They take the wells dug for them by international aid groups. However, they leave birth control, which is, of course, a white plot to control them.
Africans, who have overwhelmed their infrastructure by growing to 1 billion from around 350 million since the end of colonization, don’t seem to get the importance of birth control. Most also don’t seem to understand the relationship between high birth rates and poverty and overwhelming the supporting system. Africans are quick to point to the “legacy of colonialization” but do not point to how their population growth has lead to their problems.
African’s claims around the wealth of European based countries being mostly or entirely based upon theft from Africa during the European colonial period do not hold up. This is not to say that Europeans did not take resources from Africa, but it does not explain the wealth of European or European based countries. And it also does not explain the wealth of European based countries ranging from the US to Australia to New Zealand to Austria to Norway that never had any African colonies.
*Liberia was technically a colony of the US. In essence, to resettle elite former US slaves to Africa, however, the US never extracted from Liberia, and the African Americo-Liberians locally managed it. The US propped up Liberia with aid, so Liberia received resources from the US rather than the other way around.
Coronavirus’ mortality differs enormously by age and fitness level of the victim.
We cover the likely reason for this.
The media has given an enormous amount of coverage of the Coronavirus. However, they have tended to cover the virus in a very sensational and, therefore, non-analytical way.
Let us get into the data on the mortality of the Coronavirus to see what it tells us.
Mortality by Age
The following table is from World O Meters, which has become the goto site for Coronavirus statistics.
Notice the dramatically increasing mortality by age.
If we look at people in the 70 to 79-year-old category, they have mortality from Coronavirus that is 40 times higher than someone in the 30 to 39-year-old category. People above 80 have a mortality rate that is 74 times higher than those in the 30 to 39-year-old category. This tells us that the vast majority of deaths from Coronavirus have been the aged. This tells me that many, if not perhaps, most of the people dying from Coronavirus are really just having their deaths pulled forward a few years.
Major media outlets have largely argued against this analysis, but pointing to anecdotes of people who are young and “perfectly healthy” who have died.
First, the anecdotes do not tell us the overall trend.
Second, as the victims who were declared as perfectly healthy were not given a full medical exam before falling ill, we don’t really know what underlying issues they had that were unpublished.
No Underlying Symptoms in Some of the Coronavirus Deaths?
The article titled Coronavirus Ravages 7 Members of a Single Family, Killing 4, in the New York Times, was very widely read. And it describes exactly what the title says about how the Fusco family of New Jersey had a very high mortality rate from the virus.
\However, the following quotation was found in the article.
the state’s health commissioner, Judith M. Persichilli, has said Ms. Fusco-Jackson had no underlying health problems.
Ms. Paradiso Fodera said the woman’s younger siblings were also in good health before contracting the virus.
“They’re young and they don’t have any underlying conditions,” Ms. Paradiso Fodera said.
It was unclear whether Mrs. Fusco, a heavyset woman, had underlying health problems.
The term “heavyset” is a PC term for fat or overweight. Whose feelings are we trying to save here?
Well, she is dead. Perhaps it saves the feelings of her family to not have their recently deceased mother as overweight or obese. However, “heavyset” is not a medical term. Big-boned, or other euphemisms also don’t belong in an article about a medical condition.
Then we can review a picture taken of the family.
Ms. Fusco is wearing the grey dress.
According to the New York Times…
“They’re young and they don’t have any underlying conditions.”
However, nearly everyone in this photo is overweight, and some are quite substantially overweight.
Any person at this body mass has underlying health issues. This is not fat-shaming, I don’t care what the Fusco family decided to weight, but the analysis that the Fusco family were normal healthy individuals is just not accurate. Furthermore, the Fusco’s had a high mortality rate from Coronavirus, isn’t it likely that their physical condition was a very likely reason for this? Yet, the New York Times presents this as some great mystery.
This plays into the storyline that the media has largely been running with, that
“Anyone can die from Coronavirus.”
This is supposed to be some type of wisdom. The current idea of “wisdom” is to say that any factor affects all groups. This is a view in entire opposition to data analysis. One is allowed to point out discrepancies, but only if those discrepancies fit within some PC paradigm. For example, Coronavirus also has a higher mortality with African Americans.
Major media was willing to cover the racial differences in Coronavirus deaths, even though the ratio only roughly 2x higher for African Americans versus other races.
Major media was far less interested in covering the age differences in the Coronavirus, even though the proportion is (as we covered) 40x to 76x, which is far higher than the African American differences of 2x.
The actual discrepancy seems to be of little importance to major media.
Instead, they notice some discrepancies that are “catnip” to them and then ignore or underreport far higher discrepancies. This reporting, for example, extends to the reporting of the percentage of homeless that are female. (which has been reported in some articles be 1 out of 4). The articles on this topic have tended to ignore the 3 out of 4 men that are homeless, and ask…
“How can we reduce the homelessness with women!”
So yes, perhaps anyone can die from the Coronavirus, but not with anywhere near equal probability. As the table shows.
Understanding The Relationship Between Mortality and Underlying Conditions
The topic of cardiovascular fitness and being able to fight Coronavirus is found in another table from the World O Meter.
Notice the #1 most important pre-existing condition is cardiovascular disease. This is, I think, because of the ability of the body to bring in oxygen and remove waste to fight the virus. If one’s cardiovascular health is low, one is, in general, more susceptible to infection. This is why heavy people have higher mortality after surgery. This is not entirely a single factor dependency.
People can be heavy or overweight, but still, be relatively active. And active person still has a high lung capacity and cardiovascular condition, even if they are overweight. Research indicates that activity is often as important if not more important than one’s body mass measurement (something generally resisted by the medical community).
However, physical inactivity and obesity have a high correlation. There is no possible way that many of the people in this photo of the Fusco family were overweight, but were physically active. This means that many of the members of the Fusco family could not rely on either a more normal body weight, nor overweight but physically active to increase their body function to fight after they contracted the Coronavirus.
The Influence of Cardiovascular Fitness on Fighting the Coronavirus
If a compromised cardiovascular system made one more suseptible to dying from the Coronavirus, it stands to reason that good cardiovascular fitness would do the opposite.
The best defense (that is after one has been infected with the Coronavirus, not keeping from being infected) is being in good physical condition. Closing the gyms reduces the transmission, but it has the paradoxical effect of lowering fitness, reducing one’s ability to fight Corona once or if one has contracted the virus.
The Influence of Lung Health on Fighting the Coronavirus
The #3 most important pre-existing condition that predicts mortality in chronic respiratory disease. This also makes sense as Coronvirus primarily attacks the lungs — but as doctors learn more about the virus, it seems to attack other organs as well, perhaps even the brain.
Coronavirus is closely related to a number of well-known viruses, but it is too new to have been extensively mapped and understood.
But the most acute organ the virus invades is the lungs.
If one has lower lung capacity (which also, a person with low cardiovascular fitness will naturally have), then this naturally means the infected individual has less spare lung capacity and is more susceptible to death as their limited lung capacity fills with fluid.
Coronavirus is not killing people at random, and the concept that “anyone can die from Coronavirus” is a misrepresentation of the data on Coronavirus mortality. The news media is more interested in coming up with shocking words like “horrific” or “lockdown” than presenting an analytical explanation of the epidemiology of Coronavirus.
The mortality of Coronavirus is highly concentrated among those who are aged or have pre-existing conditions. These are not mutually exclusive as most of the aged have pre-existing conditions as physical function declines with age, and declines strongly in old age.
Knowing who is susceptible to dying from Coronavirus should be used in how to respond to the virus. For example, the most susceptible people could be quarantined, rather than the far more expensive option of restricting the activities of the larger population. But the only problem is that this article has only addressed mortality from the Coronavirus. Because so little is known about the long term effects of the Coronavirus, surviving could, and likely will lead to long term health or lowered functioning capabilities after one “recovers” from the virus. All of this is unknown, as is whether the ability of the body to repair the damage done by the Coronavirus.
China has given Coronavirus to the world. China wants to point the fingers to other countries.
The evidence is in on multiple dimensions, and this is the right time to reconsider relations with China.
China has given the world a pandemic that is causing massive dislocations around the globe. The Chinese government has proposed that the virus was brought to China from the outside, and has been involved with covering up the virus, making them a menace to the world. However, China has been a menace to the countries that deal with them in many ways. Now is the time to evaluate what is the cost versus benefit of dealing with China.
The stated idea was that even though China was a totalitarian state, eventually with trade, this would change. It has not changed, and now the Western countries have helped build China up to a superpower, at least economically, but one with no press freedom, no internal freedoms, no human rights laws, etc..
China scores only a few positions up from North Korea in press freedom. People that said China would liberalize, and that capitalism directly caused companies to become more open, have been 100% wrong about China.
China is a country without any developed building codes, labor standards, or environmental standards. Yes, US multinationals outsourced their manufacturing to China, knowing precisely the pollution implications. Now China is highly polluted. Elite Chinese now buy citizenship in other countries as they see that China is unsustainable. The elite Chinese have no intention of pushing for regulation of industry in China, instead, they plan to use their money to immigrate to European based countries, and to continue to run their polluting sweatshops from the safety of their European based residences that do have regulations.
China has become a toxic hellhole. This pollution will not just stay in China, but counts against the global pollution load. A significant factor in the low cost of Chinese manufacturing is non-existent environmental regulations.
Chinese Slavery Work
Chinese workers are treated like slaves or robots by elite Chinese. This also reduces labor standards in countries where job losses have occurred.
Exporting Sweatshop Conditions
Chinese culture is all about labor exploitation and extremely comfortable with sweatshops. Chinese have set back manufacturing labor standards in Italy and now run so many sweatshops that, according to Italian officials, it is difficult to keep up.
China’s Wet Markets and Hygienic Problems
The Coronavirus did not appear in China through coincidence. China has a long term cultural problem with practicing modern hygiene, and much of the population does not believe in germ theory. Germ theory took a long time to gain acceptance in Western societies as well.
Chinese officials had been trying to close the Wuhan wet market, as it was aware of the hygienic risk, but it was not accomplished due to corruption.
These issues are explained in the following quotation.
Whilst not yet confirmed, it is thought that the source of the coronavirus (Covid-19) was a ‘wet market’ in Wuhan, China, which also illegally sold live animals which were butchered on the spot, usually with the same implement being used to despatch different species.
This practice poses a high risk of viruses jumping from animals to humans as the hygiene standards are effectively compromised. The original source of the current virus is thought to have come from bats which, although not on offer at the Wuhan market, may have infected live chickens or other animals which have then entered the human food chain.
Many commentators believe that it will not be easy, however, citing a report by the Chinese Academy of Engineering, sponsored by the government, which estimated that China’s wildlife trade was worth more than $17 billion and employed more than one million people.
Nevertheless, since the outbreak in December last year nearly 20,000 wildlife farms have been closed down or put under quarantine in an attempt to limit, and or extinguish, this cruel trade. – Edinburgh News
China Copyright Violations
China and Chinese people think they have the right to make counterfeit copies of virtually anything. The idea that products contain some intellectual property that was developed by other people does not appear to mean anything to the Chinese.
Scamming as a Culture
China is a scamming culture, much like Nigeria, with entire cities or towns based around running scams.
Making Ties With China?
Countries that think that developing relations with China is good for the economy should think twice. Secondly, given what we know about China and its cheating and low standards, and IP theft, why is any country reaching out to China? Companies are having their IP pilfered because the leadership within those companies is so shortsighted that they don’t appear to care about the long term consequences.
Relations with China as a Liability
Even without the virus, becoming a sister city with China, as described in the video, is a short-sighted proposition. China wants to bring manufactured products made in slave-like conditions to Germany. This is just like the US partnership with China, which is a war on the US middle class and is one of the things that has taken our income inequality back to the Dark Ages.
Chinese immigration has been terrible for Italy and has lead to sweatshops to rise in Italy, with everything being backward engineered, putting many Italians out of work. China looks like a society that is intent on taking advantage of every other society with which it comes into contact.
China’s Refusal to Accept Criticism
China deflects any blame to other countries and uses accusations of racism to cover for its actions. There is no criticism that China will accept. It believes it can do anything with impunity, and any country or individual that critiques them is racist. However, China, on the other hand, can blame any country, without evidence, and that claim is something they expect to be accepted.
China makes the elites in China, and outside of China, wealthy. However, it has devastating effects on the populations of both China and countries outside of China. Governments that have any type of industrial policy should reconsider what they are getting from China versus what China is taking from them.
This virus is only one of the many negative things with interacting with China. China is not only authoritarian; they are socially primitive. They have no concept, for example, of non-animal cruelty. Everything is around how we should be accepting of them, but accepting of what? The core of the culture is objectionable and seeks to take advantage of everyone, be it copying IP, stealing IP, using its slave workforce against the middle-class workers in Western countries, etc… We now know more than enough to see how Chinese have behaved and intends to behave in the future.
This is a great time to look at the logic of the trade relations and immigration policy towards China.
Africa has some of the most corrupt countries in the world.
Africans outside of Africa are developing a reputation of corruption.
Africans have a history of corruption both in Africa and when they leave Africa. This corruption causes a number of negative outcomes in non-African countries and should have those in the first world questioning why we are accepting Africans in leadership roles.
African Corruption in the WHO
The following video explains the backdoor corruption between China and the head of the World Health Organization.
This video outlines how the head of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom is from Ethiopia, where he already had a long history of corruption before rising to the he head of the WHO.
Tedros is apparently trading inaccurate and good coverage of China in return for China’s building of health care centers in Ethiopia. This is exactly what China does to corrupt entities. The US pays the bulk of the WHO’s budget, and we have Tedros being paid off by China in order to present a ridiculous image of China. This is bad for responding to the Coronavirus, and Tedros is doing this for his own financial benefit. The US is not paying most of the budget for WHO, so it can sold out by Tedros. A hot tip is not to hire people from corrupt countries into the top of a hierarchy, because the results will tend to be the same.
Sudanese Congressman Ilhan Omar has used marriages to run various scams, including marrying her brother. Naturally Omar is against any restriction of immigration into the US.
Africa contains some of the most corrupt countries in the world. It is unrealistic to think that Africans will not be corrupt when they leave Africa.
Placing Africans into positions of power will lead to corruption of that area.
Those trying to defend feminism will often say that they are only looking for “equality for women.”
How accurate is this claim?
Feminism is filled with false claims that range from there being no biological differences between men and women to the illusory pay gap. Women who align themselves with feminism try to retreat to the concept of “equality.”
This interview is relatively typical. Second and third-wave feminists undermined the credibility of feminism, and ever since, modern feminists have been trying to make it seem as if feminists’ reputation is just an issue of “perception.”
Emma’s Deranged Explanation of Feminism
Emma Watson also makes the claim that it is just about “gender equality across the board.” Emma uses the term “prejudice,” which is an assumption on her part. For instance, I am unimpressed with most feminist logic, but the more I am exposed to it, the less it holds together. This is not prejudice or pre-judging. This is judging. Emma makes the claim that misogyny is “normalized.” This makes a claim that is difficult to disprove, which is that misogyny is so pervasive it can’t even be observed. If a claim is made by a woman, and it is not accepted, then is it because of misogyny or because the argument is not persuasive or because no evidence was presented. Emma makes a claim about women getting the vote, but as is standard with feminists, it is not discussed how for most of US and European history, most men could not vote either. However, the inability to vote is something feminists like to say is exclusive to the injustice against women. Emma uses the term “patriarchal system,” which is also exceptionally poorly defined. Patriarchal means male-controlled, however, are common men or lower-middle-class men also a part of this patriarchal system as well? Feminists never bother testing their hypothesis, they simply assert.
Sugar Coating Feminism
Emma uses the term “misunderstanding” again that men think they can’t be feminists.
This is tied up with what Emma Watson thinks a feminist is rather than what it actually is. Emma is misrepresenting feminism in this interview, and sugar coating it for broad consumption. She then stereotypes men into not wanting to fall out of their “man-box” because it is so “fragile.” How does she know this? Could it be that men find feminism lacking inconsistency? Is all pushback on feminism necessarily due to things that have nothing to do with the content of feminism? Is there anyone who understands feminism who can critique feminism, or is any criticism based upon ignorance?
This is very common with feminists, and they don’t seem very concerned with evidence. They “feel” things, they think there are misunderstandings (from any person who disagrees with them). Feminists are fast to critique men’s movements but tolerate no criticism of feminism.
Tests For Equality
So, let us review different areas to see how true that feminists only want equality.
Women use the term “my body my choice,” however, they tend to be silent when it comes to a man’s right to choose. For instance, it is widely acknowledged that a man cannot force a woman to continue a pregnancy that she does not want to, but there is zero discussion of whether men have a right not to be made to pay for children they don’t want. Women consider the entire decision to be with women; even though, it requires by law 18 years of support from the man if the women and man divorce/break up, etc.. Women typically laugh off assertions that men have a right to their reproductive rights, and regularly switch to conversation to intercourse as being the end of a man’s right to choose.
In the area of reproductive rights, women (not just feminists) do not have equality. They have superiority.
For this area, the test of whether feminism means equality is false.
Under equality, either men or women could choose to be stay at home parents while the spouse goes to work. However, women do not accept if men make a choice to be a stay at home parent. Men who don’t work will find themselves divorced or left for another man. Meanwhile, women claim the right to work or not to work. And they typically want a partner that will support either decision they make.
For this area, the test of whether feminism means equality is false. Women claim superior work choice over men.
Type of Work
Women claim the desire to do any man a job does. However, women do not want physically demanding or dirty jobs or jobs that have to do with machinery. There are almost no female road workers, plumbers, automotive technicians, telephone repair workers, etc. And there is no pressure from feminists to increase the numbers of female bricklayers. Women also particularly dislike hazardous jobs. If civilizations relied upon female labor to fix power lines or repair infrastructure after natural disasters, it would drastically reduce the ability of societies to recover. The most ardent feminist is the first to point men to “step up” and fulfill their traditional role as soon as it hits the fan.
Women want clean and air-conditioned work environments. They want to hold specific types of jobs.
For this area, the test of whether feminism means equality is false. Women do not want to do all the jobs men do. They want the physically more comfortable jobs.
Paying for Things When With Men
Under a totally equal system, men would pay for women sometimes, and women would pay for men. As any man who has dated knows, having women pay is the fastest way to no longer date that woman. Women look at being made to pay as an affront. As soon as the topic of paying comes up, discussion of feminism leaves the building, and the construct of “traditional roles” is brought up by women, who want to be “treated like a lady.”
For this area, the test of whether feminism means equality is false.
Legal and Divorced Court
Under an equal system, neither side would be preferences during a divorce. However, it is very well known that women receive very preferential treatment in the courts. If feminists were serious about equality, they would lobby for this inequality to be removed. However, they don’t, they want that preferential treatment taken “off the books” as part of the discussion.
For this area, the test of whether feminism means equality is false.
Benefiting from Sex Appeal
Women that are sexually attractive have a long term pattern of trying to benefit from their sex appeal rather than looking for challenging jobs.
These women do not have to do this job. They don’t have to emphasize their appearance, but they have chosen to. Are these women looking for equality?
This topic is expressed and explained well in the following video.
For this area, the test of whether feminism means equality is false. Women who are feminist, who can, nearly always seek to benefit from their appearance.
Competing With Men
Even though there are fields that are mental and have nothing to do with physicality, that women cannot compete with men, such as chess, feminists want to be considered equal.
Observe the following video where the feminist proponent of the proposal that men and women are equal at chess, refuses to provided evidence for the claim.
Observing that women can’t compete with men in chess is not because of their natural abilities, but because they are discouraged against playing chess. Women want to be considered equal in all areas, even in areas they can’t compete.
Women don’t seem to realize this, but it is quite apparent to men at least, how different it is discussing things with women versus discussing them with men. As a long term technical worker, I don’t ever recall women having the same interest in technical details and subjects than men.
For the patriarchy to be part of what is stopping women from competing in chess, it would mean society is actively telling girls that they should not play chess. Is this true of violin players also? Violin playing used to be dominated by men, but now there are many accomplished violinists who are female? Why didn’t the patriarchy stop women from playing violins, when it did stop them from competing in chess. Are men able use the same crutch.
For this area, the test of whether feminism means equality is false. Women seek to be seen as equal in areas where they display no equal level of accomplishment.
When women who subscribe to feminism declare that they just want “equality between the sexes,” they are misrepresenting where feminism stands. Feminists do not seek equal treatment. They seek a society where women can pick and choose what roles they want to fill that appeal to them, and leave the rest of the roles for men to fill. The type of feminism that was true equality focused was first-wave feminism. However, the second and third wave feminism have pushed the movement into pushing for superior rights of choice for women over men. More than this, feminists have undermined male roles in society, telling women that they should be telling men what to do and what to think. The perfect idea of a feminist is where her husband brings over his friends to work on the house while she goes out to get her nails painted. Where she is never asked to lift anything but can claim to be the equal of men while taking only those roles she wants from society.
If equality is the goal, why does this video strike at the heart of what women often expect from their male counterparts? Does this look like equality?
The Insane Delusions of Feminists
Feminists have convinced women that they be in combat roles. Why was this test even necessary? Did anyone know that women can’t perform in combat roles? All the men know. Most women have no interest in combat roles, which is again another area that women have no interest in being “equal.” And this is just training, not bullets flying or people being shot. Women are a liability in combat positions and will seek the help of other men, who will most likely give it to them, reducing the effectiveness of the overall unit.
We could begin integrating society. There is no reason we can’t have boxing matches between women and and men, or allow full and open competition in all the sporting events.