Doc Drops COVID Truth Bombs: “Everything Was A Lie From The Beginning…”

/9 Comments/in /by

Via The Burning Platform,

Dr. Richard Urso shares some truth bombs about COVID-19, vaccines, lockdowns, masks…

“Everything was a lie from the beginning. The asymptomatic people don’t transmit. Kids were not harbingers of the disease. They don’t actually, they’re like a break on the disease. Lockdowns were a farce. Masks don’t work.”

“I tell people, I joke sometimes I say masks do work. A lot like bathing suits work to keep pee out of the pool. They’re not very effective. So that’s one of those things that, you know, it was a farce. Pretty much everything they said was a farce. I know we’re still recovering from it. Just yesterday we walked into a pharmacy and they were advertising COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Well if you want to destroy your immune system, take a COVID-19 vaccine. It will destroy your immune system. It distributes widely in your body. It can’t be broken down because it’s a genetically modified RNA. There are contaminants, process-related impurities, what I usually call them, but contaminants for most people, that they haven’t gotten out of the vaccines.”

“The drug that I invented took eight years for us to get the process-related impurities out. It’s hard to do and I knew this would be a problem early on when they were trying to push this so fast because nobody had ever made these vaccines in anything bigger than a blender. What we had is found is even worse.”

“They put an SV40 promoter in the vaccine, Pfizer did, that [is] actually well known for the last five decades to bind P53 to Guardian the genome and cause cancers. They know that. We just kept them in the head of the Human Genome Project [which?] did this discovery with a few other molecular biologists.”

“This is really big news because the contaminants and the impurities in the vaccine are very dangerous and there’s design flaws like I just pointed out. Wide distribution to the brain, the bone marrow, the ovaries, the testes and long term production six months or more in the last study that we did. So there’s a lot to talk about. Do not get the vaccines unless you just want a crummy immune system. ”

“I think the main thing is these vaccines are dangerous. They have process-related impurities. They cause cancer, strokes, heart attacks. The data is in 40% more deaths in 2021 between 18 to 64. This is just data we can’t ignore, so please stay away from the vaccines.”

The Virtuous and the Villainous: How Leftist Logic Implicitly Mandates the Slaughter and Subjugation of Whites

/8 Comments/in /by

It’s a clever little rule based on a curious linguistic coincidence: “You should eat oysters only in months whose name contains an ‘r.’” The linguistic coincidence is that, in the northern hemisphere, the names with an “r” cover all the cool and cold months when oysters were safest to eat in pre-refrigeration days. A similarly simple rule now governs politics and culture throughout the West. It runs like this: “Whites are full citizens with complete legal and social rights. Except in months whose name contains a vowel.”

Labour betrays its own

That has been the rule operating in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and many other British towns and cities as, decade after after decade, Muslim rape-gangs have preyed on White women and girls with not just the complicity of the authorities but sometimes the active assistance: “Police went to a house outside which a father was demanding the release of his daughter, who was inside with a group of British Pakistani adults. Officers found the girl, 14, who had been drugged, under a bed. The father and his daughter were arrested for racial harassment and assault respectively. Police left, leaving three men at the house with two more girls.”

Hateful heresy: Whiteness is wicked, not wonderful (portrait is the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith)

The police were applying the simple rule of “No rights for Whites in months with a vowel.” Yes, under normal circumstances they would have done their duty by rescuing the White girls and arresting the non-White men. But the month had a vowel in it, so they couldn’t. After all, that happened in Rotherham and nobody in the Labour council was going to criticize them for not doing their job. The Labour party was founded to champion the White working-class and claims to be staunchly feminist, but it long ago abandoned its founding principles and adapted its feminism to the modern age. Yes, Pakistani males were — and are — committing horrendous abuse against working-class females, but the males are non-White and the females are White, so a new leftist rule applies. It runs like this: “Preach equality, practise hierarchy.”

The mysticism of minority worship

The Labour party and other mainstream leftists claim to believe in the full equality of all human beings, but in fact they operate a hierarchy where non-Whites are at the top and Whites at the bottom. In the past leftists have justified that hierarchy by claiming that non-Whites are virtuous minorities oppressed by the villainous majority of Whites. However, in future they’ll justify the racial hierarchy by portraying non-Whites as the virtuous majority and Whites as a villainous minority. That’s why leftists now increasingly use the term “global majority” to refer to non-Whites, as I pointed out in my article “Globo-Mojo.” But one thing will not change: the superstition and pseudo-mysticism that are central to the leftist worship of non-Whites. Take a recent article in the Guardian, which treats a minor detail of British history as though it were of huge significance and importance:

Britain’s first black voter was in 1749, 25 years earlier than thought, and ran a pub

It’s a discovery that changes our understanding of British history — and it arises from just one word. Until now, the first black voter in Britain was thought to be the composer Charles Ignatius Sancho, the British abolitionist who, as the owner of property in Mayfair, voted in the 1774 Westminster election.

But a chance discovery at the British Library by Dr Gillian Williamson, a historian researching lodgers in Georgian London, reveals a black man voted in an election 25 years earlier. The revelation that John London, landlord of a pub in the capital, cast a vote in 1749, sheds new light on an era when the black population of London is believed to have been 10,000 strong, and the democratic process was limited but lively. (“Britain’s first black voter was in 1749, 25 years earlier than thought, and ran a pub,” The Guardian, 24th October 2024)

Wow! Blacks lived in London in the eighteenth century! And one of them ran a pub! And voted! Well, my reaction to those earth-shaking revelations can be summed up in two words: “So what?” Did Britain depend in any way on those Blacks? Did Isaac Newton plagiarize the work of an unrecognized Black genius for the Principia Mathematica? Did Christopher Wren rely on the work of unpaid Black architects and engineers to design and build St Paul’s cathedral? Did Robert Hooke steal the Black invention of the microscope to write his revolutionary book Micrographia? Did William Herschel steal the Black invention of the telescope to discover a new planet? In every case the answer is no. Britain did not depend on its Black residents in any way and great White achievers like Newton, Wren, Hooke and Herschel owed nothing to the much less powerful intelligence of Blacks.

The White genius Isaac Newton magically turns racially ambiguous for leftist TV

In other words, that breathless article in the Guardian is as ludicrous as it’s anti-historical. But it contains a very interesting and revealing statement by the leftist female historian who made that unimportant discovery. Gillian Williamson gushes about the Black pub-owner John London like this:

“I think it’s interesting that he’s the first-known black voter — in some ways unexceptional, in some ways exceptional. It shows that black people don’t just serve in low-level gig economy work, that it’s not extraordinary to be black in Georgian London. You can see black people as always there. If you are a pub landlord, people know who you are. Keeping good order, stopping fights, you have to do all these things in Georgian London. [This discovery] helps us see someone in a more rounded way, as someone with status.” (“Britain’s first black voter was in 1749, 25 years earlier than thought, and ran a pub,” The Guardian, 24th October 2024)

Leftists are celebrating a “status” for John London that depended on sexism and classism. No woman could vote in those days and neither could most men. If the Black John London was fully and authentically British, does this mean that he bore some responsibility for that sexism and classism? And for the even more appalling and abominable sins of slavery and colonialism enacted by Britain in those days? Of course not. John London was Black and therefore virtuous, not villainous. Blacks and other non-Whites have the same ontological status within leftism as the Son of God does within Christianity. According to Christians, Jesus was fully and authentically human, yet remained spotless of the sins committed by all other humans. According to leftists, non-Whites can be fully and authentically British or American or French or German, yet remain spotless of the sins committed by Whites who belong to those nations.

Righteous reversal of repulsive rule

Note further how Williamson claims that John London being a “pub landlord” in Georgian Britain means that “You can see black people as always there.” This is a pseudo-mystical claim that grants magical status to Black existence. The bounty of Blackness overturns the tyranny of time. The presence of any Black at any time means that Blacks must be seen as “always there” in British history. It’s a righteous reversal of a repulsive rule: the “one-drop rule” of racist White America, which stated that even the smallest trace of Black ancestry meant that someone was Black rather than White. Leftism now applies a one-second rule, which states that any time spent by Blacks in a Western nation, no matter how fleeting and unimportant, turns Western history into Black history.

As for me, I don’t care about the first Black to vote in Britain. What I’d like leftists to give me is something they’d be very reluctant to supply: the name of the first Black to commit murder in Britain. I’d also like them to give me the name of the first Black to commit rape in Britain. But perhaps it was the same Black. Although all races are capable of committing rape and murder, some races commit — and combine — those crimes at much higher rates. Blacks are at the top of the real-world moral hierarchy of villainy just as they’re at the top of the fake leftist hierarchy of virtue. In other words, leftism inverts the truth and turns reality on its head. In stark reality, Blacks commit crime and suffer from psychosis at much higher rates than Whites. In leftist fantasy, Blacks are victims, not villains, and psychosis is characteristic of Whites, not Blacks. That’s why the Black academic Kehinde Andrews is a woke hero in Britain for his book The Psychosis of Whiteness (2023), which implicitly argues for the slaughter and subjugation of Whites. After all, Kehinde believes that rational argument is useless against the wickedness of Whiteness, as he explains here:

Critical Whiteness studies has emerged as an academic discipline that has produced a lot of work and garnered attention in the last two decades. Central to this project is the idea that if the processes of Whiteness can be uncovered, then they can be reasoned with and overcome, through rationale dialogue. This article will argue, however, that Whiteness is a process rooted in the social structure, one that induces a form of psychosis framed by its irrationality, which is beyond any rational engagement. (“The Psychosis of Whiteness: The Celluloid Hallucinations of Amazing Grace and Belle,” Journal of Black Studies, Volume 47, Issue 5, July 2016)

What do wokesters like Kehinde really mean by “Whiteness”? In the final analysis, they can only mean “white existence” and “white autonomy.” According to Kehinde’s logic, those things lead ineluctably to “psychosis” and are “beyond any rational engagement” that might mitigate the horrors they visit on virtuous Blacks such as himself. This being so, there can be only two solutions to the “Psychosis of Whiteness”: Whites must be either exterminated or enslaved. If Whites are exterminated, their psychosis will never manifest itself again. If Whites are enslaved, their psychosis will still manifest itself, but it will no longer be able to harm the virtuous global majority of non-Whites.

Leftist logic in action: Whites can never feel pride, only shame

For obvious reasons, wokesters like Kehinde don’t mention slaughter and subjugation in their critiques of “Whiteness.” They don’t want to warn Whites of what they’re secretly or subconsciously planning. But the leftist logic is clear: if Whites are innately villainous and non-Whites innately virtuous, the only way to rescue the virtuous from the villainous is to strip the villainous either of existence or of autonomy. Dead Whites won’t bite and enslaved Whites won’t blight. That’s the lethal logic of lunatic leftism.

Elder Rape Is a Strength!

/5 Comments/in /by

Yet another example of how importing the Third World wrecks everything

As part of the Biden administration’s push to make everything worse and more expensive, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) — not to be confused with Congress, which writes the laws because we live in a democracy ha ha ha — issued a prospective rule requiring nursing homes to hire more staff.

Because who better to determine the staffing needs of the country’s 15,000 nursing homes than Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Biden’s CMS administrator? Also supporting the new rule are “patient advocates,” i.e. the Service Employees International Union, looking to increase its membership rolls.

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure

Fortunately, The New York Times reports, President-elect Donald Trump is expected to repeal the Biden staffing mandates.

Also fortunately, I have a much better idea! Like Brooks-LaSure, my expertise does not come from running nursing homes. It comes from reading the news.

Such as …

In 2018, hardworking Kenyan immigrant Billy Chemirmir enriched elderly nursing home patients in Texas by allegedly murdering at least 22 of them and stealing their jewelry. (Who will care for the elderly without mass third world immigration?) He was convicted in the first two trials and then killed in prison.

The year prior, Ethiopian immigrant Adeladilew A. Mekonen got 25 years after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting two patients at Providence St. Vincent Medical Center in Portland, Oregon, women aged 89 and 94. (By the way, why is an Ethiopian living in Portland?)

Third world immigrants are hard workers, though. Liberian George Kpingbah was a ripe old 77, but still managed to rape an elderly Alzheimer’s patient at the Walker Methodist Health Center in Minneapolis. This guy is a walking TV commercial for Cialis.

At the 2015 sentencing hearing, Kpingbah’s lawyer sought leniency on the grounds that the perp had “devoted much of his life to ensuring that his three daughters migrated to America,” as The Minnesota Star Tribune put it.

How can we ever thank you, Mr. Kpingbah?

In 2017, Parkpoom Seesangrit — you’ll never believe it, but yup, another immigrant — was convicted of raping a 69-year-old dementia patient at the East Longmeadow Skilled Nursing Center in Massachusetts. When the Thai national was caught by a nurse, he said, “I know I’m in trouble. This looks bad.”

Like so many immigrants, Seesangrit created another job right here in America: He needed a Thai interpreter at his trial. (Turns out our country is fairly bristling with Thais.)

In 2013, nursing assistant Antonio Nieto was convicted of sexually assaulting three female patients, aged 59, 73 and 93, in a Broomfield, Colorado, nursing home. In accordance with the Times Style Guide, the media refused to reveal where Nieto was from, but his lawyer said English was his second language and he needed a Spanish-language interpreter in court, so: Latin America.

In 2018, Ghanaian immigrant Fode Doukoure pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 74-year-old woman after placing an anesthesia-soaked rag over her mouth.

May I speak with the people who hired these guys? The ones who thought cheap labor was worth placing men from raging rape cultures in charge of weak, elderly Alzheimer’s patients?

Why are you crying, Grandma? Hey! Where’s your diamond-encrusted brooch?

The media would sooner praise MAGA than admit that most of the world outside of the West is a cesspool of child rape, gang rape, elder rape, torture rape, goat rape, AIDS, multidrug-resistant gonorrhea and so on. But it’s not an impenetrable mystery, and when you’re hiring employees to work with helpless dementia patients, it’s kind of important to understand this aspect of non-Western culture.

I will briefly mention some suggestive facts about only the countries mentioned here, a subject I cover in detail in “Adios, America!”

Mass rape was a regular feature of Liberia’s 14-year civil war, as it is in most wars on the Dark Continent — also in response to minor skirmishes, celebrations, election seasons and filming a music video.

Kenya’s three-month election season, for example, features mass rapes committed by police, ordinary Kenyans and militia groups. (And you thought our elections were bad.)

During the two-year conflict in Tigray, Ethiopia, government forces raped hundreds of women, in front of friends and family, holding some as sex slaves for repeated gang rapes, sometimes inserting large nails, gravel, metal and plastic shrapnel into their victims’ vaginas, among other things. (On the plus side, none of them were fat-shamed or made to feel unheard.)

Thailand is ranked among the top 10 countries for violence against women and girls. Last year, 11 Thai police officers were charged with gang-raping a 14-year-old girl.

The Inter-American Children’s Institute reports that Latin America is second only to Asia in the sexual exploitation of women and children, who are “seen as objects instead of human beings with rights and freedoms.”

In 2018, naive British teenagers paid 1,200 pounds apiece to go on a class trip to “volunteer” in … Ghana. Whereupon armed Ghanaian and Nigerian men broke into their compound, beat and robbed the males and raped the girls and their female teacher for three hours, finally leaving at around 4 a.m.

Contra Brooks-LaSure, the last thing nursing homes need is more Kenyans, Ethiopians, Liberians, Thais and Latin Americans. What’s really needed is fewer rapes.

Here’s something useful Dr. Mehmet Oz could do at CMS that would create no additional paperwork or regulatory burden for nursing homes: Investigate every one of these monstrous crimes and widely publish the names and incomes of the facility owners and operators who thought the abuse of elderly Americans was a small price to pay for all that cheap foreign labor.

 

COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER

Trust the Science: DEI Is Dangerous

/3 Comments/in /by
National Review – 11/29/24
We were told over and over again by leading institutions, high-profile figures, and the mainstream media that DEI fosters an “inclusive environment” and advances “equity” by eliminating biases and counteracting discrimination.
A booming industry emerged: About $8 billion is spent each year on diversity trainings in the United States, and more than half of Americans report that their workplace has DEI trainings or meetings. Of course, DEI is not merely limited to programming at organizations, businesses, and universities. Now, it is entrenched in our laws. President Biden has issued executive orders to promote social justice, beginning on his very first day in the Oval Office.
While DEI was celebrated, its opponents realized that it is a dangerous ideology. Some supposedly “equitable” policies have been clear examples of illegal discrimination, while the efforts to be “inclusive” have had disastrous consequences, particularly for single-sex spaces. Yet some of DEI’s terrible effects have more subtly eroded our social fabric: Most, if not all, DEI-themed trainings promote a victimhood mentality by organizing society into a hierarchy of “oppressor” and “oppressed” on the basis of immutable traits, then demonize anyone who is supposedly sitting comfortably atop the totem pole.
Regrettably, anyone who expressed even mild objections to DEI could be branded as a reprehensible bigot who needed immediate reeducation, thereby creating a demand for even more progressive-indoctrination sessions.
Now, a compelling new study confirms that DEI fosters racial and group animosity, not tolerance.
The study released on Monday by Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University Social Perception Lab has devastating but unsurprising results: Across the three experiments, the researchers found that participants exposed to DEI materials were more likely to perceive prejudice where none existed and were more willing to punish the perceived perpetrators.
Even worse, the participants who read DEI materials focused on caste were more likely to agree with Hitler quotes that substituted “Jew” with “Brahmin,” the top of the hierarchy group in the Indian caste system. The study found that “participants exposed to the DEI content were markedly more likely to endorse Hitler’s demonization statements, agreeing that Brahmins are ‘parasites’ (+35.4%), ‘viruses’ (+33.8%), and ‘the devil personified’ (+27.1%).”
Since DEI programming is so widespread, the study’s findings are obviously newsworthy. Yet our own Abigail Anthony reported that both the New York Times and Bloomberg had prepared articles on the study, then axed the stories just before publication.
Why? When asked for an explanation by the study’s authors, the editor of the Bloomberg “Equality” subsection simply cited editorial discretion.
At the New York Times, the reporter admitted that he did not have “any concerns about the methodology,” and that someone on the publication’s “data-driven reporting team” had “no problems” with the study. Yet the journalist insisted that the study should undergo peer review before getting coverage, even though he had previously reported on NCRI’s reports that hadn’t been peer-reviewed.
That journalist also stipulated, “I told my editor I thought if we were going to write a story casting serious doubts on the efficacy of the work of two of the country’s most prominent DEI scholars, the case against them has to be as strong as possible.”
As it happens, the study is strong, and the truth about DEI is getting out, no matter how uncomfortable it makes its reflexive supporters.

Epigenetics and the NAXALT Fallacy

/4 Comments/in , /by

Me:  Blacks are only about 13% of the population but do 50+% of the murders and a massive chunk of the violent crime, period.

Liberals and normiecons I know:  Not all Blacks are like that! [The standard NAXALT (not all X are like that) “argument.”]

Me:  Technically true, but most of them are at least accessories to it.

At any point in the game of life, it is totality of results (and risks) that counts. After all, you likely wouldn’t prefer buying a book on an online store with a price of $20 and $15 shipping if you could find the same one (both title- and condition of wear-wise) on another internet store with a $25 price tag but free shipping; you likely wouldn’t quit your current 150K a year job as an engineer in a company in Pennsylvania to take one paying $200,000 if you found out it would be the exact same type of work . . . just in an active war zone; and you likely wouldn’t want to marry a woman who though stunningly beautiful and very smart has an odd history of taking out substantial insurance policies on her husbands and partners—who by sheer coincidence often die within two years of the purchase. With any case in which characteristics and things are so inextricably bound up with each other as to be inseparable and thus must by necessity be taken in their totality, it is the statistically significant downsides or risks that define it; the exceptions thus establish the rules by which you deal with or avoid the case before you: this is merely a rational approach to any aspect of life, and in a sane nation (i.e., one not clown world) this would be especially the approach taken with regard to any public policy—which more often than not is both compulsory and done on a scale that makes any consequences, both positive and negative, widespread and profound in their impact. Obviously, this would include, if not especially apply to, the approach taken to immigration, citizenship, and any policies which exert a strong influence on which members of society have more kids relative to others (i.e., those having significant dysgenic or eugenic potential).

The potential for evil arising from a lack of thinking in terms of overall effects, either from a lack of mental wherewithal to do so or from the ideological blinders that too many of us allow ourselves to wear, can be seen just by looking around us at the American circus scene, with our crumbling (or, rather, exploding) cities and our overrun borders as the main attractions. We in the Dissident Right well know how deeply the nature of racial differences cuts to the heart of the matter and the degree to which nature/genetics rather than nurture determines the fate of nations, but as far as I can tell there is to some degree a lack of appreciation even on our side of the role that epigenetics plays in the ongoing (at least for now) downfall of our race and nation. The same is true of many normiecons, though they tend to keep the knowledge in their subconscious, well below the surface, with the Con Inc. ideological package they accept serving as ballast to keep it from rising to the surface.

To put it extremely concisely for readers who are unfamiliar with the term, the science of epigenetics deals with the portion of our DNA that bridges the gap between nature and nurture, with those portions of our DNA which are activated or deactivated by certain conditions in our environment. Absent those conditions, they are not expressed, although they remain part of our DNA. This produces ranges of physical and behavioral characteristics that two organisms with identical or near-identical DNA could exhibit based on environmental differences.

To give a quick example, take the size of goldfish. When I was little, my family had a small kiddie pool in our basement in which we kept goldfish (not any fancy koi kind, just the common ones from the pet store); they grew to much larger sizes than did those of my friend who kept his in a small fishbowl, despite their being the very same species. As explained on The Fish Vet’s Blog: All about Fish Vetting by Dr Richmond Lohhat:

Goldfish are one [of the species] that produce growth inhibitory hormones (e.g. somatostatin) and in nature it’s their way of reducing intraspecific competition by suppressing growth of other goldfish. This is a particularly useful survival mechanism especially if you’re a “big fish in a small pond.” In a tank situation, and if partial water changes are not performed regularly, this hormone can build up and suppress the goldfish itself. And in this way, it is also a survival mechanism whereby it will not outgrow its pond!

Other fish do not produce such potent hormones and this is why they can outgrow the aquarium they live in. These fish tend to be “big fish in a big pond.” Their survival strategy is to get as big as they can to avoid being eaten by someone else. The barramundi and Murray cod are great examples of such fish.

Fish wastes are generally not ideal for fish to live in. They would have anti-nutritional effects and nitrates are known to suppress the immune system. If conditions are not optimal, fish will not thrive and will not grow.[i]

 

In poor environmental conditions goldfish still grow, but they don’t get half as big as they could. They would, of course, never attain the size of silver arowana, another fish sometimes found in aquariums (“they are predatory and require a very large tank”), since that is outside of the range that their DNA allows. But they can grow from 18 inches to 2 feet if they have the space, clean water, and food.

It is the very same with humans. They have ranges of environment and behavior which they prefer or can adapt to: at one end are circumstances and people which make them feel as happy and at ease as much as anything earthly can, with such a milieu making them most likely to work, play, and breed to their full potential; at the other extreme are those which cause them such misery and anxiety that it’s all they can do to keep from giving in to the urge to throw in the towel and rush headlong to the hereafter—and, as you can guess, they will be underperforming in virtually every way while in such situations; and, of course, there are plenty of gradations between the two. With any of us, there are conditions under which we can thrive, conditions under which we can be content though not extremely happy, and then there are those under which we can just barely scrape by.

Having these ranges allows humans and even some others among the higher mammals to adapt and survive within unpleasant circumstances until the time when they can gain a better environment and begin to thrive once again. As long as they remain within the range of what is pleasing or tolerable to them, they can adapt their behavior without it wearing on them to a significant degree: extremely gregarious people might be fine with a life in which their social circle is rather small and meets only on the weekends, but they’d likely go mad as an ascetic monk living in a cave away from the nearest city; likewise, a scholarly introvert who has a university job and normally likes to spend summers alone engrossed in research might not mind helping out with a few freshman orientation mixer-type events but would very much mind being asked to spend a good deal of time interacting socially with large numbers of people. Going somewhat outside of their epigenetic comfort zones for a short time is nothing that normal, healthy people can’t weather—and maybe become stronger for. But ask them to stay well outside of their comfort ranges indefinitely, and you have a recipe for continual discomfort, depression and despair, lost productivity, breaking of ties to traditional institutions, and maybe even mental breakdown if not shooting sprees; ask an entire society to do this and you have a recipe for a failed state.This is why that pernicious phrase “a nation of immigrants” is half-accurate and fully deadly: the deadliest lies have enough sweet sugar of truth to get us to swallow and absorb them; if they didn’t, we’d spit them right out and likely give the person who tricked us into trying them a stern kick in the rear. It’s also why America can survive and even thrive with immigrants of various European stocks tossed together but not for Whites with non-Whites: European peoples have similar (though not identical) overlapping epigenetic ranges of behavior and mental habits that allow them (on average) to happily adapt to life among each other relatively free of stress or conflict. Though likely each group would be happiest among their closest ethnic kind. Why else would Italians, Irish, etc., tend to settle in the same states, cities, or neighborhoods? They would just as likely be happy enough among other Whites of European ancestry, allowing the American experiment to work, up to that point.

The problem arises when you try to mix peoples such as Whites and Blacks whose epigenetic ranges of behavioral characteristics have very little overlap: in such cases, you are going to be de facto forcing one or both groups to keep their behavior within a range or endure behavior that causes them some degree of stress, anxiety, and discomfort for which they will (accurately) blame the other. Outside of even extreme behaviors by those worse than the average within the group (e.g., Blacks shooting up a place over a really petty matter), this is destructive in that it causes one or more groups to endure a kind of cultural Chinese water torture that gradually takes its toll on everyone involved. Asking a group of Blacks in a movie theater to not talk and shout advice to characters on the screen is a pain to them; not asking them to stop doing it is a pain to everyone else.

The case can be slightly different with very small numbers of non-White immigrants who come by themselves (i.e., absent chain migration) and live within the White areas of an overwhelmingly White society: these might well be epigenetic outliers whose range of desirable behavior has more overlap with that of Whites than with that of their own kind. And when these non-White outliers find themselves among Whites, they will be most likely to stay within the White range of behavior, thus creating in the minds of White liberals a false impression of what all non-Whites are like. But I would bet a large sum of money that many if not most of even these would easily revert back to something within their native (i.e., average among their own kind) range if placed in a group of coethnics.

We can even see this in lesser animals: when you have one dog, cat, or parrot with you, it tends to act more like a person than the average of its kind (it stays quieter, it sits with you, etc.); but get a second one, and both immediately begin to act more like dogs, cats, or parrots than either would in the company of a human alone. And, of course, we see this in humans: one of those rare, right-side-of-the-bell-curve Blacks almost always acts much more Black among Blacks than among Whites.

Because the epigenetic ranges of desirable or undesirable behavior vary even within a group and the group as a whole contains extremes which would otherwise not overlap by themselves but have slight outliers within the average which can bridge those extremes, when taken together they form a kind of socio-cultural staircase with which the worst exceptions ascend to and impress themselves upon White society, working their destructive effects on it; in other words, although top-tier Blacks might fit in well with the White average, since top tier Blacks have a higher tolerance for the Black average than do average Whites and the Black average has a much higher tolerance for violent ghetto Blacks than do top tier Blacks or average Whites, those overlaps allow the worst Blacks to make their way into and pollute the average White areas.

What do I mean by this?

Think about the nature of White flight. The first Blacks of the bell-curve-right-tail variety to move into a White neighborhood might not be so bad and themselves might even be able to stay within the behavioral range that Whites prefer, but they will almost always have a tolerance for Blacks whose behavior falls within the Black average (and thus outside of the acceptable range for Whites); moreover that right-tail Black will likely stand up for his average friends and family against Whites and (when combined with the kind of anti-free association “civil rights” laws that have shackled White America since their passage) gradually make the neighborhood a cesspool of average Black behavior, to which the talented tenth will then adapt—at least until the average brings in the worst. You see, just as the right-tail Blacks have a higher tolerance for, and thus bring in their wake, average Blacks, so average Blacks have a higher tolerance for, and thus bring in their wake, those Blacks that liberals consider the exceptions: the full-blown drug-dealing, offspring-abandoning, gang-banging, ghetto POS Blacks whose proclivity for violence, low IQ, and negligible impulse control put them outside the right-tail Blacks’ acceptable range, putting the latter to flight to seek Whiter pastures in newer White suburbs and thus starting the whole cycle over again.

When the exceptions are not in total isolation from the average that forms the rule, they become the rule by nature of their being surrounded with and embedded in a culture that finds their behavior more tolerable than it finds the behavior of Whites protecting and enforcing the average that they find desirable or even acceptable—especially if those violent Black exceptions direct their behavior more at Whites than at their own kind. To paraphrase that famous Mao quote, the exceptions (often even the worst) move among the (average) people as a fish swims in the sea. Though the groomers/killers among the largest British Moslem communities made up only a minor fraction of its total, they could never have gotten away with their crimes against working-class White girls were it not for the aid and comfort given them (if only passively) by the average Moslems around them.

With all peoples the range of acceptable behavior is often contextual in nature: you might not find your idiot cousin’s loud, boorish behavior to be within the acceptable range, and you might not want to have him around very often if at all. But it’s quite likely you would instantly and instinctively jump up to defend him if someone outside your circle of family and close friends complain about him at a party for being too loud. Different peoples have different levels of ethnocentrism, with Whites having rather low levels compared to virtually all non-Whites. This can change the range of what they consider acceptable depending on whether it’s being done to or by their own group or another group. While Blacks might wish one of their own dead if he shot a fellow Black (though they likely still wouldn’t cooperate with White cops even to get the bastard jailed), they might not care if the man he shot were White—hell, they might even defend him in that case, even without knowing anything of the circumstances under which the shooting happened. Those non-Whites who seem to be so well behaved, intelligent, honorable, etc. when among Whites can very quickly regress to the ethnocentric, White-despising mean if they are among their average kin who make it clear that not falling into the average range will be severely frowned upon.

Writ large, this is what makes the difference between nations and empires: the latter are often judged by their greatest area and the amount of resources they command, while the former are often judged by what they were able to accomplish within themselves and how long they were able to endure through time. This is because nations, in the true sense, are countries made up of homogeneous peoples with the same epigenetic ranges who are for the most part extremely happy to live among themselves and have at least stronger cohesion to each other than they do to any other people and thus are willing to fight and sacrifice for their nation at least against others; this is what makes true nations so resilient to external pressure and internal stresses.

Empires, on the other hand, may be impressively large and expansive but fragile— both characteristics often owing to their being a motley hodgepodge of various nations and peoples, peoples who have no loyalty to each other and can be used by the powers in control at the center via a divide and conquer strategy: the Romans could use Germanic troops to put down a rebellion in the Balkans, while using ethnic Romans to suppress Germanic resistance; and the ancient empires, notably the Assyrian and Babylonian, were famous for moving entire populations around to keep them working for the benefit of the ruling dynasty while being too disoriented and disunited to effectively rise against it.

This is indeed the result that the smarter among our elites (think more along the lines of shadowy, 3-letter agency types and less of AOC types) are actively seeking in their bid to open the floodgates of the third world to inundate heritage Americans in a sea of Brown and Black: they are creating what you might call an intra-national empire, a country (if you can even call it that anymore) with the characteristics of an empire, including the ability of the ruling classes to use the divide and conquer tactic against Whites, the only group that consistently stands in the way of gun confiscation, elimination of free speech, and the other prerequisites for obtaining despotic power. An intra-national empire might have far less potential to endure long term, but it does convey immense short-term advantages for the Jews and treacherous Whites who form the ruling elites.

More often than not, the fate of nations, including our own, hinges upon the average, an average which under the kind of soul-trying situations which litter every page of the history books in our fallen world engulfs and assimilates (or destroys if it can’t) those beautiful exceptions that liberal and normiecon idealists pin their hope upon; this is why true nations endure and empires crumble. And even outside of such interesting (in the alleged Chinese curse sense) times, the average can at the very least make or break a nation’s ability to live up to its full potential.

When the exceptions are as extreme and deadly as they are with the criminal segment of the Black population, they actually become the rule in terms of behavioral influence; they act as a kind of inverse of the role that apex predators play in the trophic cascade of their ecosystem: sharks protect their ecosystem from the destruction that would result from their prey (such as sea turtles) overfeeding on the kelp forests that so many other species depend on for survival and thus keep the whole thing in balance, not by the number of turtles they eat but by the fearful behavior that they induce in all turtles, since if the price of gorging yourself on the tastiest kelp is getting yourself eaten, no turtle will eat too much at once at any time; inversely, that relatively small number of criminal Blacks has the potential for throwing the entire human ecosystem off kilter by the behavioral changes it induces in all Whites, and even most Blacks for that matter—the money they could have spent on the kind of innovations that made the US the most powerful nation on earth when it was mostly White now goes to such expenditures as buying higher-priced suburban real estate and paying private-school tuition that enable them to flee Blacks, since (as I discussed earlier) even the noncriminal Blacks often provide a kind of milieu in which the worst Blacks can thrive and be protected from White attempts to stop their criminality. This wreaks havoc on the nation for all groups.

As Robert Putnam the author of Bowling Alone pointed out, diversity leads to individual isolation (even among co-ethnics), loss of trust, loss of social capital, and increased overall stress levels for all. A diverse society makes none except our depraved elites happy: this has always been and always will be the case when you mix peoples with incompatible epigenetic ranges of what is acceptable or not; unless the ranges are very wide and mixed with historic antagonism, you might not get the kind of gruesome bloodletting seen between Hindus and Moslems during the Partition of India, but you will get the kind of slow, grinding stress and misery that can under the right circumstances lead to violence. But even if it doesn’t, it will cause destruction and loss (if only a passive kind and in terms of potential) on a massive scale.

It is quite possible that the only reason those good exceptions are able to stand out as they do is if they have a White milieu in which they can feel comfortable straying from the average. To not keep society overwhelmingly White would be to destroy them as well as you—not that that should be foremost or even close to it in your mind. It is also possible that those fiendish exceptions are allowed the tolerance they receive among their own kind thanks only to their having White society angry at them. Were Blacks in isolation, where the “snitches get stitches” rule would be rendered moot, it’s likely they would simply kill many of the more egregious criminals in theirs ranks and in a way that is more in line with their temperament and tolerance for violence (and thus would get the desired result of discouraging that type of behavior). To give a real-life example[ii]: the eastern parts of Nigeria in 2000 through 2001 experienced such an epidemic of crime, one which the White imperialist-imported legal system (which under native control turned into just another racket of graft and incompetence) utterly failed to make a dent in. The result was that some locals who became known as the Bakassi Boys turned vigilante to deal with the problem, catching criminals and herding them into the middle of town before hacking them with machetes and finishing off any partial survivors with gasoline-filled tires set alight—and, voila, the problem of street crime virtually disappeared and the Boys became immensely popular with the local population!

This is not to say that such barbaric standards would be the norm with all Blacks were they to achieve separation from Whites, but if they find that such methods succeed where Western ones have failed, then more power to them to live according the ranges they desire or find acceptable. In all likelihood, we’re all epigenetically hardwired to various degrees to calibrate our competitive behavior to what we see to be at stake: When there’s nothing but our race around, we focus on differences in family ideology (like religion) and morality; on the other hand, if the competition is inter-racial, preservation of race often becomes the focus, sometimes to the detriment of the other concerns. In the case of highly ethnocentric groups such as Blacks, separation would put them in a situation in which they would see no reason to defend the scum within their ranks—and in that limited respect, White nationalism is actually to their benefit as well.

Under any universally applicable standard of morality, it would be unethical to force any group to endure the kind of slow grind that mixing epigenetically incompatible peoples leads to. To force the races together based on good and/or bad exceptions is both foolish and immoral; whereas allowing for and encouraging their voluntary separation in a way that minimizes the potential for loss of time, blood, and treasure would be to the ultimate benefit of both.

NAXALT is the mental wainscoting used to hide the deep fissures that form within any state that, from tragic circumstances or foolish or immoral leadership, has mixed those with too little epigenetic overlap to meld; it is the ultimately immoral cope of those whose sentimentalism or cowardice has led them to ignore the larger implications of focusing on exceptions rather than averages—exceptions which will either wreak havoc or be swallowed up in the chaos that arises when the forces of division and diversity finally overwhelm the ties that bind (at least for a time). Such diversity is attractive to people who do not realize that personal tragedies are the (unfortunate) price we must pay for preventing civilizational ones.

[i]https://thefishvet.com/2012/02/28/do-goldfish-grow-to-the-size-of-their-tank/

[ii] “30 No Condition Is Permanent.” The Fate of Africa: From the Hopes of Freedom to the Heart of Despair: A History of 50 Years of Independence, Public Affairs, New York, NY, 2005, pp. 584–584.

 

Josh Blackman at Reason.com: Comparing Trump’s Pardon of Arpaio and Biden’s Pardon of Biden

/2 Comments/in /by

This is the best article I have seen on Biden’s pardon. Who could be surprised that Biden would lie about pardoning Hunter? He’s lied his whole life. Successfully. Just another sociopathic American politician. But the good news is that it completely opens the door to freeing the J6 people. If Trump doesn’t free them, I would lose whatever confidence I have that he will ever do the right thing.

Comparing Trump’s Pardon of Arpaio and Biden’s Pardon of Biden

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

By Josh Blackman

Today, President Biden issued a pardon to his son, Hunter Biden. In many regards, President Biden’s pardon of his son resembles President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The headline from the New York Times says it all: “In Pardoning His Son, Biden Echoes Some of Trump’s Complaints.”

First, President Biden issued this pardon after Hunter was convicted, but before he was sentenced. Biden has short-circuited the judicial process, taken the case out of the hand of the district court judge, and foreclosed any opportunity for appellate review. It is worth noting that both Roger Clinton and Charles Kushner were pardoned long after they had served their sentences. Back in August 2017, President Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio after he was convicted before he was sentenced. At the time, I wrote that the pardon was “premature,” as the “preemptive pardon short-circuited the judicial process.” There was outrage at the time to Trump’s actions. It is enough to copy a paragraph from the Wikipedia page on the pardon:

In response to the pardon, The Washington Post said it was “a controversial decision, one that Trump critics labeled as an example of the president’s illiberal, rule-of-law violating, authoritarian impulses.” Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, the former solicitor general for Ronald Reagan, said Trump’s use of authority was specifically “to undermine the only weapon that a judge has in this kind of ultimate confrontation.” Another Harvard Law School professor, Noah Feldman, said the pardon “would express presidential contempt for the Constitution.” According to The New York Times, legal experts found the fact that Trump “used his constitutional power to block a federal judge’s effort to enforce the Constitution” to be the “most troubling aspect of the pardon”

Hunter should hope that the District Courts in Delaware and California promptly dismiss the case, and the Trump DOJ does not have an opportunity to continue litigating the matter. But there is adverse precedent. After the pardon of Arpaio, the district judge actually held proceedings about how to deal with the pardon. Lawyers even argued that the court should not accept the pardon! Ultimately, the district court accepted the pardon, thus preventing the sentencing, but did not vacate the conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Thus, at least in the California case, though Hunter was pardoned, under the Arpaio precedent, the conviction will stand. He will remain a convicted felon in the legal sense, even if he is pardoned.

Second, Trump’s pardon of Arpaio was criticized because he bypassed the DOJ Pardon Attorney. He unilaterally decided to issue the pardon. Hunter would have never qualified for a pardon set forth by the DOJ Pardon Attorney.

Chalk up another victory for the unitary executive.

Third, Trump was widely criticized for issuing a pardon to advance his personal interests. Arpaio was a big supporter of candidate and President Trump. The pardon was largely viewed as payback for a loyal supporter. Biden is in a similar position, though it is in many regards worse. This is not merely a political ally. It is his flesh and blood. Biden wrote, “I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.” Oh yes, we understand this decision quite well. Biden assured the public many times that he would not pardon his son. This promise was no doubt part of his appeal for the 2024 election. Biden ran for President (briefly) on the platform that he was honest, could be trusted, and would not put his personal concerns before the country. Historians can now judge whether Biden kept these promises.

Fourth, President Trump lobbied Attorney General Sessions to drop the Arpaio prosecution. These communications were viewed by critics as a breach of the “independence” between the Department of Justice and the President. Sessions declined to accede to Trump’s requests. In 2024, Politico reported that Biden told “confidants that Garland should not have eventually empowered a special counsel to look into his son, believing that he again was caving to outside pressure.” Sounds familiar? Biden said much the same in his pardon statement: “The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election.” It was Merrick Garland, Biden’s Attorney General, who appointed the special counsel, not Republicans in Congress.

I don’t see how Garland continues to serve. The President publicly declared that he has lost faith in his Attorney General. I would not be surprised to see Garland resign shortly. What a tragic figure, Garland is. He was nominated for the Supreme Court, never received a hearing, stepped down from the D.C. Circuit to become Attorney General, pledged to restore the rule of law, spent his entire administration enmeshed with special counsels and January 6 prosecutions, and all of those convictions have been, or will be pardoned. If Attorney General Meese was the most influential Attorney General in American history, where would Garland rank?

Fifth, Trump’s pardon was viewed as an attack of Judge Susan Bolton. Adam Liptak wrote in the Times, “It was the first act of outright defiance against the judiciary by a president who has not been shy about criticizing federal judges who ruled against his businesses and policies.” President Biden’s statement managed to criticize the federal judge in Delaware who presided over Hunter’s trial: “a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. ” This statement is flat-out false. The plea deal unraveled after it became clear the prosecution and defense did not agree how the plea agreement would be interpreted. Biden has no basis to insinuate that the District Court judge, who was supported by both Delaware senators, was politicized. Would Biden call Judge Norieka, who was appointed by President Trump, a “Trump Judge”? Cue Chief Justice Roberts.

Sixth, Trump’s pardon of Arpaio concerned his conviction, and “any other offenses under Chapter 21 of Title 18, United States Code that might arise, or be charged, in connection with Melendres v. Arpaio . . . in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.” In other words, this pardon would prevent a prosecutor from bringing future charges related to that case. Biden’s pardon of his son was far, far broader:

For those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C. Weiss in Docket No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and Docket No. 2:23-CR-00599-MCS-1 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

This pardon immunizes Hunter from prosecution for any conduct he committed between January 1, 2014. If Hunter shot someone on Fifth Avenue during that period, he could not be tried for murder in federal court. I haven’t studied pardons closely, but I am skeptical there has ever been such a broad, prophylactic pardon over the course of a decade. Even President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon was limited to offenses “committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.”

And President Andrew Johnson’s 1868 pardon and amnesty of former confederates was limited to the offenses of insurrection, rebellion, and treason, during the four-year long Civil War. (Johnson’s pardon had the effect of cutting short the pending appeal to the Supreme Court of the criminal prosecution of Jefferson Davis.) Finally, there is a longstanding debate about whether a pardon can be issued without enumerating a specific offense. Professor Phillip Kurland raised this issue after Ford pardoned Nixon. He said, “It is certainly not clear that the power to pardon an individual may properly, i.e. constitutionally, be invoked prior to indictment and conviction.”‘

Seventh, Trump’s pardon was part of a long-term campaign to charge that the DOJ was politicized. Here, Biden said “I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.” Again, this is Biden’s Attorney General. Biden’s remarks about the politicization of his own DOJ provide more credence to what Trump has said, and what he will do after January 20.

***

The more things change, the more things stay the same. For what it’s worth, this pardon does not prevent Hunter from facing charges in state court. Nor does it prevent the Department of Justice from prosecuting Joe Biden over his documents case. Remember, Ron Hur only declined to prosecute Biden for his “poor memory.” If Biden had continued to serve as President, I think that is an admission that he is competent to stand trial. I also think that the statute of limitations would be waived while Trump is in office. (The proceedings in New York with Justice Merchan will speak to this issue.)

The post Comparing Trump’s Pardon of Arpaio and Biden’s Pardon of Biden appeared first on Reason.com.

Another rigged Irish election?

/6 Comments/in /by

Ireland has voted more than 90% for parties that support mass migration. If you believe the election results. Turnout was 59.%, the lowest since 1923.

If the non-voters could be persuaded to vote, they would be the biggest party. At least some people don’t vote because they think the elections are rigged, or because all candidates are crooks.

The two big government parties lost some votes but gained seats: Fianna Fail up 10 seats to 48, Fine Gael up 3 to 38. It’s quite hard to find anyone who will publicly admit to voting for them, but the results say that 40% of us did.

The magic number for a majority is 87: FF and FG have 86 between them. All they need is two or three independents and they can spend five more years importing millions of foreigners and planning the next pandemic lockdowns.

The good news is that the Green Party lost 11 of its 12 seats. The bad news is that the worst of them all, Minister for Children and Refugees Roderick O’Gorman, has been re-elected. It doesn’t make sense: If people voted the rest of them out, why wouldn’t they vote out the worst of them?

The multi-cultural enthusiasts in Sinn Fein gained two seats to 39, though their vote is 5% down from the last election.. They have aggressively supported mass migration, but have started to mutter occasionally about deporting. An article in the Burkean.ie claims an unnamed senior Sinn Fein TD is disgusted at the mass migration and predicts they will start to oppose it. When the man is brave enough to say it in public we can believe it.

Although their vote is down from the last general election, it is strongly up from their 12% in the local elections a few months back. It’s hard to explain, except to say that they were not in government and have benefitted from dislike of the government. (Or that it was part of the scripted election… ) Sinn Fein have lost a dozen members in the last few months. Some were involved in sleazy under-18 gay sex scenarios, and the party tried to protect them. Others have resigned because of pressure to bow to the party’s pro-refugee stance.

One Sinn Fein TD alleges he was the victim of sexual blackmail by a female Sinn Fein member, after spending a night in a hotel room with her. She wanted 60,000, in three separate envelopes, to keep her from making a complaint. She’s still a member of Sinn Fein and the heterosexual Brian Stanley was re-elected in Laois as an independent, free from the pro-refugee restrictions he had as a party member, and with his marriage still intact. There’s a man who might put a spoke in the wheel of the woke agenda.

The various socialists and the one remaining Green have 27 seats.

The various independents and the Aontú party have 19 seats. Some in this group are migration critical. But there is almost nobody who is an open Remigration enthusiast.

There are 174 TDs, and close to 164 of them support more refugees and more work permits for foreigners.

The Aontú (unity) party are no longer a one man band: They got one extra TD..They can be called a “soft Remigration” party: they welcome more foreigners, whether refugees or work permits, and they don’t like ethno-nationalism but they do object to criminals and liars being granted permission to stay. They also raise objections to the location of specific refugee camps. The question is if they would actually implement this change if they got into Government.

Many of the independents are originally from Fianna Fail or Fine Gael, and will vote with them, even on mass migration. The big parties have long had a policy, when they notice they are unpopular, of getting one of their members to run as an independent. If elected, he will vote with the party. Some have suggested that supposed Independents are being financed to run by the big parties, purely with a view to dividing the vote and confusing voters.

Even the most unscrupulous Independent is more vulnerable to pressure from voters than the Party man. The party man can always blame the party leadership for voting the wrong way. The independent, if suitably pressured and if an election is near, can sometimes be persuaded to vote the right way. Marion Harkin, Sligo-Leitrim, gave a great example of this at the Family Referendum, a woke nonsense vote which was heavily defeated. Before the vote, she supported it, but when the result was announced, she jumped into her car and drove 200km to Dublin so she could join the celebrations when it was defeated.

The election result is suspicious for two reasons: One is that this enthusiasm for mass migration is contradicted by evidence that shows Paddy has had more than enough of playing Good Samaritan to people who don’t even have the courtesy to be thankful to us.

1.Opinion polls that say between 60% and 80% of us Irish think that “enough is enough.” It’s true that there is a more recent series of polls which reassure us that only 5% of us think immigration is an important issue.

2.Dozens of burnt out empty properties destined for refugee accommodation, certainly far more than any other Western country.

3.Hundreds of mostly peaceful protests all over the country, with a combined attendance in the hundreds of thousands. The most recent was an attendance of over a thousand in Athlone, where the protestors overwhelmed the small Garda presence and climbed over the barricades protecting the building site. You will not find much information about this protest on the MSM.

The other reason for suspicion is some irregularities in management of the votes, and some bizarrely aggressive and arrogant behaviour by supposedly impartial cops and election staff. If everything is kosher, why are some election workers so cranky?

For example, in the polling station in Killlanummery in north Leitrim, an official complaint has been made about the irregular transport of the ballot box to the count centre in Sligo.

This writer witnessed the presiding officer put the ballot box in her own private car, refuse to say where she was going and zoom off at high speed. There was no Garda escort and there was nobody else in the car with her. An hour and a half later, and the ballot box had still not arrived at the count centre in the Clayton Hotel in Sligo. Allowing a ballot box to be under the supervision of just one person is not best practice.

The Gardai have acknowledged receipt of this complaint, but the Sligo-Leitrim returning officer has not yet admitted receiving the complaint. Some complaints are more equal than others.

This writer, a candidate, was physically pushed out of the back door of the count centre in Sligo by a security guard who used vulgar language. A formal complaint has been made, but it is unlikely to result in a prosecution.

A lot of Our Guys object strongly to any talk of the elections being rigged. This is a little surprising. None of the “Honest Election Crew” were there at the polling station in the dark at 10:00pm when the ballot boxes were transported. None of them were at the counting centres at midnight to observe how the incoming ballots were handled. This writer was and what he saw was suspicious and culturally inappropriate. In a honest Irish election, you would expect smiles (cops, counters and drivers are all on juicy overtime rates) and good natured barbed banter, not snarls, curses, pushing and threats to arrest…

Some journalists, like Brendan O’Connor on RTÉ, openly boast that they played a role in ignoring public concern about immigration. They brag that Ireland is the only country in the Western world without an elected anti-migration rep at national level, though this is not really true.

One of the most symbolic events of the election was the exposure given to Fine Gael candidate Senator John McGahon. He escaped conviction for assault in the criminal courts, but in a civil case he was ordered to pay 39,000 in compensation to a man and wife. The facts of the case are that he saw a pretty married woman when he was at a bar. He approached the woman and her husband, and vulgarly suggested that he wanted to have sex with the woman. Both husband and wife refused. The politician then became aggressive and attacked the man. The video footage shows the man lying ón the ground and the Fine Gael senator thumping him in the head. Since when has it become acceptable to hit a man lying on the ground?

If the election results are to be believed, 4,000 people in County Louth felt he was their best choice, and gave him their number one vote. There were other Fine Gael candidates, and other Government candidates, so why would anyone give him a vote? Are there really that many stupid people in County Louth?

Another incident from the election campaign was an interaction between our handsome young Taoiseach, Simon “the Nose” Harris and a Cork woman named Charlotte Fallon. The incident has been viewed 2 million times online, about half the population.

Simon is moving fast through a shop, being filmed. He flashes a smile at her, extends his hand for shaking and mumbles, “Lovely to meet you.” Charlotte refuses to shake his hand and Simon moves on at speed. She calls him back and questions him about his lack of concern for people like her working as caregivers. He defends his government. She says to him: “Keep shaking hands and pretending you’re a good person”. Simon’s mask slips, and his dismay is visible in the video.

Any election rigging needs a good script.

One part of the script is the possibly rigged local election results this summer. Out of 949 Council seats, only five were filled by openly pro-Remigration candidates. The journalists use this result as an explanation for why migration is no longer an issue.

The journalists never stop telling us that immigration is no longer an issue, and that the heat has gone out of the migration issue. They tell us that the new number one issue is housing. They blandly assure us that the arrival of close to 400,000 people to our shores since Covid has nothing to do with the housing crisis. Some people, including our Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, have the brass neck to tell us that we need to import more foreigners to build houses for the two million foreigners who are here already. Is this some kind of joke?

Two big stories dominated the headlines during the election. Conor MacGregor and his buddy were in a civil court case where they were accused of sexual assault. (The jury believed the woman that Conor raped her, but they didn’t believe her when she said his friend raped her…) Conor has had some of the snappiest one-liners in the migration debate: Evaporate the buildings…This is war., etc. He has not been charged with any of his statements, although they could be construed as incitement to violence. There is also no evidence that he has ever personally burnt a refugee centre or thrown a punch at a foreign security guard.

The timing of the court case was perfect to associate Remigration candidates with cocaine-fueled sex and ugly, gold digging groupies. Was it planned?

The other big story was the anniversary of the Dublin Stabbing Riots. An Algerian man has been accused of stabbing a teacher and some children in Parnell Square. Spectacular riots and looting followed. The looters included Blacks and Asians, according to MSM reports.

In the middle of the election campaign, the Gardai issued photos of 100 people they wished to interview. Why did they wait so long?

A number of people have already been charged and convicted of the riots. One chap got six years jail. He was not accused of hurting any person, just of burning an empty police car.

But the alleged Algerian stabber has not yet had his trial. Over at Freepress.ie and on Gemma O’Doherty’s site, you will see some very perplexing questions about the stabbing and the riots. The photos show a remarkable lack of blood on the ground. The apparently random strangers on the scene appear to be wearing colour-coordinated clothes. A bossy English woman is strutting around. Various journalists and politicians were on the scene remarkably quickly. One politician (then Senator Marie Sherlock of the Labour Party) seems to be actually smirking as she records her piece to camera. Is it a case of Duper’s Delight?

The brown-skinned Brazilian hero, Caio Benecio is also suspicious. He supposedly used his motorbike helmet to batter the Algerian into a three week coma. He made hundreds of thousands in spontaneous donations from the public. He got a private meeting with our then Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Leo Varadkar. He even returned from Brazil to run in the local elections in Dublin at the personal invitation of Fianna Fail leader Michael “the Nose” Martin.

This contrasts with the treatment of two other men who helped restrain the Algerian. Wayne “the belly” and the little Frenchman. Both say – and nobody has contradicted them – that they played their part in restraining the Algerian and removing the knife, as any decent Dubliner or Frenchman would do. No publicity, no hundreds of thousands in donations, no invites to tea with Leo or invites to run in the election. Is it because they are White?

These two stories reflect poorly on the Remigration movement. Is it entirely a coincidence that they were reported on so widely during the election campaign, or was this carefully planned months ago?

Some good news: Alan Shatter, a former Minister for Justice who boasts of his role in mass migration and just happens to be Jewish, polled poorly – just 3.6% in Dublin Rathdown. His leaflet says he is for Truth, Integrity and Wisdom, against racism and anti-Semitism and apparently he is even against justifying atrocities committed abroad. He himself enthusiastically supports the Israeli killings in Gaza and everywhere else.

Bizarrely huge votes for the worst of the politicians:

Simon Harris topped the poll in Wicklow with almost 17,000 votes (29.5%). He only got 12% in the 2020 election. What did he do to double his popularity: his role in Covid or his role in mass migration? It doesn’t make sense.

Health Minister, Stephen Donnelly, lost his seat in Wicklow, but officially he got 6% of the vote. If you like conspiracies, check out Freepress.ie and what they say about his previous career as a management consultant. They call him the Manchurian Candidate.

Meanwhile, Helen McEntee, who is as bad a Justice Minister as Donnelly was Health, gets rewarded with 20% and 10,000 votes.

Candidates who had a realistic chance but didn’t make it:

In Dublin Central, former criminal – but never a drug dealer – Gerard “The Monk” Hutch narrowly missed election. Remigration activist, former Workers Party man and lawyer Malachi Steenson says that Hutch was encouraged to run by State forces, to take votes away from him. Steenson has been prominent in ongoing refugee protests in Dublin’s East Wall district.

It is certainly true that Hutch made some some pro-migration statements, but he also criticised freeloading refugees and said: “Migrants must come ready to work.” The Internet tells us that he owns some properties that are rented for migrant accommodation. He says himself that he was in contact with a pro-refugee Social Democrat politician before deciding to run as an independent.

The one thing that was always said about Hutch was that he never dirtied his hands with the drugs trade, unlike other criminals, businessmen and even politicians. He grew up in the inner city and saw the damage heroin did. He has accused the authorities of being involved in the illegal drugs trade. As recently as last year, while he was enjoying the State’s hospitality in Cloverhill Prison, he publicly expressed surprise and annoyance that the prison authorities were allowing drugs to be smuggled into the prison. It’s widely known in Dublin, that there is many a man who went to prison clean, and came out as a raging junkie.

If he had been elected and if he spoke out, he might have been able to do what no Minister for Justice could do until now: stop drugs coming into prisons.

It’s hard to believe that Mary Lou MacDonald, Sinn Fein leader, actually topped the poll in this area.

In Kildare, Tom McDonnell was elected the Council in the summer. According to media reports he admires the beauty of Black women, urges White Irish women to have more babies so we don’t die out and bitches about Khazarian Jews. That sounds like a popular platform to me, but not if we believe the vote. Getting elected to the council gives you a decent chance at the Dail, but not this time: he lost a couple of votes from his council run. Sitting TD Patricia Ryan left Sinn Fein after she criticised the Ukrainian refugees. She had previously criticised the official version of 9.11. It’s surprising that she only got 600 votes when she ran as an independent.

In Dublin West, Patrick Quinlan, the National Party’s first ever councillor, polled a decent 1,149 votes and another Remigration enthusiast Suzanne Delaney got 816. If those votes were added to Aontú’s 2,453, they would have been a thousand votes ahead of Roderick O’Gorman and he would have lost his seat. In quite a few areas, the combined Aontú and Remigration vote would have been close to taking a seat.

In Mayo, Stephen Kerr narrowly missed a council seat in the summer. He got almost 3,300 votes this time, but Aontú’s Paul Lawless took the last seat. Will Paul Lawless speak out against the mass migration?

In Galway West. Noel Thomas very narrowly missed election. He is a former Fianna Fail member. A refugee property in his area, owned by a charming Irish-American couple, was destroyed in a fire. His house was raided by Gardai and he was taken away for questioning. He was released without charge.

One piece of good news: It looks like all the TDs elected are White, barring a few crypto-Jews. No more Hazel Chu, no more Leo Varadkar. The bad news for readers in the US, is that they will probably move stateside and get big jobs there.

If any reader does come across Leo, here is the way to shut him up: Ask him to name Boy A and Boy B. Two young ethnic Irish thugs from wealthy families, part of a devil worship cult, raped and murdered poor Anastasia Kriegel, not far from Leo’s home base. Because they were under 18, it is a criminal offence to name them, under Irish law. But if you meet Leo in the US, he will not have that excuse… If you’re looking for Leo, try the gay bars, especially those with a bondage or S/M theme.

A final piece of good news is the re-election of Carol Nolan, the former Sinn Fein TD who was kicked out because of her pro-life views. She has spoken out against the Covid and the mass migration nonsense and the MSM very rarely even mention her. That’s usually a good sign. She topped the poll with 22% of the vote. It must be lonely, and a bit scary, to be an honest person in Dáil Éireann…

Beir Bua!