Africans

Tragic Lessons from the Life of Sally McNeil

/8 Comments/in , /by

Ambrose Kane
Jan 26, 2025

I recently watched the 2022 Netflix documentary, Killer Sally, which unfurls the tragic life of Sally McNeil (born Sally Dempsey in 1960) who murdered her husband, Ray McNeil (a black Mr. Olympia competitor), on Valentine’s Day in 1995.

Sally and Ray met while they were in the U.S. Marine Corps, and both had an obsession with bodybuilding. They dated for about two months before getting married in 1987 which was perhaps the first indicator that their marriage would not last. Sally’s first marriage to Anthony Lowden (a black marine she met at Parris Island) lasted about four years, and it produced two children – Shantina, John, and a third from another man. Sally claimed that toward the end of her marriage with Anthony, he became abusive toward her.

Thanks for reading Ambrose Kane ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

After marrying Ray, Sally became the main breadwinner in the family. Ray had left the marine corps to pursue full-time his passion for bodybuilding which was not lucrative enough to support either himself or his family.

Sally, then, took up a career performing on wrestling videos with various men for $300 an hour (a rather bizarre proclivity among some men even though no sexual contact occurs), taking on the moniker “Killer Sally.” As was common in the 90s bodybuilding scene, both Ray and Sally began to use steroids which only made their already volatile relationship even more so. Sometimes Sally would drive to Tijuana, Mexico with her two children to score steroids for herself as well as to sell to those at her gym. She conceded in the Netflix documentary that it was “bad parenting” on her part.

Sally’s children from her first marriage were alleged to have been routinely beaten by Ray using his belt. John said he began to hate Ray for the beatings he received, and Shantina was often terrified of him during his explosive outbursts or when she witnessed him brutally beat Sally which was a common occurrence in their home.

The local police were periodically dispatched to their Oceanside (CA) apartment for domestic violence incidents. According to Sally McNeil’s entry in Wikipedia, “Child services frequently visited her for reports of abuse to her children by her neighbors, teachers and family members. The children suffered from malnutrition, the apartment was unlivable, and they were both left alone for multiple days in a row while Sally would go to the gym, out of town, out of the state, and out of the Country.”

The marriage progressively got worse when Ray began seeing other women, and it wasn’t long before he began to make plans to leave Sally. Understandably, this drove Sally a bit off the deep end with jealousy and rage, and she threatened the woman who was dating Ray at the time.

On February 14th, 1995, Ray returned late in the evening to their apartment, and an argument ensued between the couple over his whereabouts. According to the investigative report, Ray “slapped her, pushed her down on the floor, and started choking her. McNeil squirmed away, ran into the bedroom, and took her sawed-off shotgun out of its case in the closet.” She then unloaded twice on Ray, striking him in his abdomen and in his jaw. He later died at the hospital. An autopsy revealed that Ray had five kinds of steroids in his body at the time of his death.

Although Sally argued during her trial that she was a victim of ongoing domestic violence by Ray (known as ‘battered wife syndrome’) and that she was only defending herself, she was convicted in 1996 of second-degree murder and sentenced to the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla. Sally was granted parole on May 29th, 2020, after having served 25 years in prison.

Sally’s competitive nature was evident from a young age. She was both athletic and physically strong. She was also impulsive and had a volatile temper that she seemingly had little control over. This was obvious during her time in the Marine Corps. Sally was demoted from her sergeant’s position because of poor behavioral performance, anger issues and violence. All of this eventually led to her to being discharged from military service.

Upon entering the civilian world, Sally appeared to have learned nothing from the disciplinary measures that were taken against her in the Marine Corps because the same sort of behavior continued: “McNeil was arrested in 1990, for brandishing a firearm at Lowden and smashing the windows of his vehicle with a metal bar. She had been arrested previously for assaulting a mailman who had slapped her son John after he had a fight with the mailman’s son. McNeil attacked one of Ray’s lovers at a bodybuilding show, pinning her to the floor and hitting her repeatedly. This resulted in the National Physique Committee suspending her for a year. It is thought she also physically took her anger out on her husband, pulling a gun on him for the first time before being pepper-sprayed by police officers. In 1993, Sally was confronted by a club bouncer for dancing on the tables. Drunk and not wanting to do what he told her, Sally kicked him in the face three times. When police arrived, she threatened to kill them” (Wikipedia).

In short, Sally McNeil was one crazy lady!

Yet, one of the things that most stood out for me about Sally’s life was how frequently she sought out black men as boyfriends and for marriage. For example, Sally got into trouble with her mother as a teenager when it was discovered that she was dating a black guy. Later, after she joined the military, she married a black man who she alleges had repeatedly abused her. Her second husband, another black man, not only physically beat her on many occasions, but did the same to her children!

You’d think that Sally would have learned by now to avoid black males altogether, especially ones who were violent and criminal. But her many years in a California prison, apparently, did little to sober her up to racial realities. When she was released in 2020, Sally went on to date and eventually marry another black man (Norfleet Stewart). Think about it: Sally literally brought enormous levels of dysfunction and violence upon herself and the lives of her children because she couldn’t stop chasing after black men!

I don’t know if the same pattern of violence will continue in this more recent marriage of hers or not, but for me it underscored yet again just how racially naive and foolish so many white women are to date and marry black men who have a long and documented history of domestic violence, rape, murdering their white spouses and white girlfriends, and of abandoning them and any offspring that’s produced.

It’s not that white men haven’t done the same, but the crime statistics show a hugely disproportionate number of violent and sexual crimes committed by black males.

These same white women utterly devalue themselves by pursuing black men, and they throw away their precious European genes to produce mongrel children who often don’t quite fit into either black society/culture or white society/culture. The threat that miscegenation poses to the future of European whites staggers the mind when one stops to think about it.

Large numbers of whites may speak positively about miscegenation in the presence of others, but in their personal lives they are determined never to do it. They know, perhaps instinctively, that it’s wrong or, at least, wrong for them. It would not be unusual for white males to be racially triggered at the sight of a black and white couple. I suspect it happens more often than people think. Our internal defense system, it seems to me, subconsciously recognizes when something is not right, and it would be a natural reaction to view such relationships as contrary to the natural order or perhaps even dangerous – particularly if one looks at the FBI crime statistics!

The 1933 film, King Kong, is considered by many to be one of the most iconic movies of all time. Moviegoers at the time were horrified by the sight of the beastly primate clinging to the Empire State Building while clutching in his swarthy hand a white lady (actress Faye Wray) after his destructive tour of Manhattan before finally being killed. The savage gorilla provided a sharp visual contrast to that of the beautiful white woman. King Kong is aesthetically ugly, violent and primitive. The white woman is aesthetically attractive, innocent, as well as socially and culturally civilized. One did not have to be told that the gorilla was physically abhorrent when compared to the white woman. It was patently obvious. The only ones who might deny it would be the blind, the mentally deficient, or shameless liars and propagandists.

It’s no stretch, then, in the minds of many people who experience a similar revulsion at the sight of a black male romantically involved with a white woman, particularly if any physical affection is displayed. Whites may claim to not be bothered by such unions, but I’m inclined to believe that such opinions are more the result of propaganda and the suppression of what they really think. No westerner wants to look like a bigot to others even though inwardly they may harbor what is considered by society to be bigoted opinions. We are all inclined to restrain ourselves from expressing what we really think or feel about such racial unions because we know the consequences for doing so.

Yet it doesn’t detract from the reality that most whites are not inclined to pursue a racially mixed marriage or relationship unless there is tremendous social and cultural pressure placed on them to do so. It doesn’t come easy, and this may explain why Hollywood and every media outlet does all in its power to glorify race mixing. They’re not content with suggesting it nor speaking in glowing terms of its virtues. No, they must constantly confront whites with it. Every television commercial must portray a racially mixed couple. The benefits of miscegenation must be extolled continually. Black and white unions must be ‘celebrated’ and universally deemed as ‘perfectly normal.’ Whites who choose to do otherwise and prefer those of their own race are labeled ‘xenophobic’ or ‘white supremacist.’ The Left must guilt and shame every last white person who fails to comply.

The push toward miscegenation isn’t a recent thing either. It can be traced to at least the 1967 film, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, starring Sidney Poitier, Katherine Hepburn, and Spencer Tracy.

Despite the push for unnatural unions, our Bolshevik elites are fighting an uphill battle at every turn. We are not as naturally inclined to date, marry and produce children outside of our own race. Yes, there are many whites who engage in this sort of thing (mostly white women), but it’s not as common as one might be led to believe. The greater number of white women, for instance, are not particularly drawn to Asian men. This could be due to the perception that they are viewed as less masculine than black and white males. I would tend to think their more reserved and seemingly less confident personas may conflict with what many women desire – namely, men who are tall, who possess strong masculine traits, and who exude social confidence. Granted, some Asian men do, but the general perception seems to be that Asian men are much too polite and reserved and this may cause them to be less desirable in the eyes of white women.

White males are not generally attracted to black women. These kinds of unions are comparably rare. I would even say that the greater number of them are repulsed by black females unless they are unusually attractive with light-skinned features (e.g., actress Halle Berry). But even then, it’s rare for white males to marry black women. Black women with very dark pigmentation, in fact, seem to be universally rejected by white males. The black wife of former mayor of NYC, Bill de Blasio, is typical of the kind of black woman I’m referring to. Everything about her is visually repugnant, and most men with good eyesight and sound judgment would not be inclined to produce children with such a beast. De Blasio’s marriage to Chirlane McCray, then, was both unusual and rare.

Many black men find even their own black women to be far less desirable compared to white women – a frequent complaint on the part of many black women. This is mostly the fault of the modern black woman who is often marked by an overly aggressive persona, seemingly high testosterone levels, foul-mouthed, morbidly obese, and often completely deficient of the most basic social graces and femininity. Is it any wonder why so many black men turn to women outside of their own race?

Black women are outclassed in every conceivable way when compared to the infinitely more attractive white woman (assuming they are not obese nor afflicted with same problems as black women in terms of being brutish, loud-mouthed, rude, or lacking femininity) and Asian woman. Russian and eastern European women seem to have what a lot of men want in that they are trim, very feminine, genuinely seek marriage and motherhood, and appear not to have been poisoned by ‘woke’ rhetoric nor the kind of radical feminism that prevails in the West.

The kind of white woman, generally, who seeks out black men tend to be young and racially naïve. White college girls often fall into this trap as they are aggressively pursued by smooth-talking black bucks. For some, it’s a form of rebellion against their conservative father. Most of these white girls engage in dating outside their race for the simple reason that they’ve been endlessly propagandized by racial ‘diversity’ lies and see nothing wrong with it. They have no reason to date or marry only those among their own race. They see no benefit to it. They haven’t the foggiest notion about racial realities nor understand the importance of preserving one’s racial ancestry. They don’t even have a framework in which to make sense of such matters even if it were carefully explained to them.

A good many of these white women who mix with black males are morbidly obese. Walk through any big city in America, and you’ll witness it for yourself. Although they’re generally rejected by white males, they’re gladly welcomed by black men who practically worship their rotund bodies, ginormous buttocks, and all the jiggling cellulite that one could straddle.

Perhaps it may be due to a greater acceptance among American blacks of fat people? Or maybe it’s just a widespread preference among black males for larger women? Although I wouldn’t rule out such possibilities, I’m inclined to think that when black males secure for themselves a white woman – even a repulsive ham-beast as previously described – it’s seen as a step up for them. It improves their lot in life (or so it seems) and increases their status among other black males. Consider, for example, how many black male celebrities and sports stars surround themselves with white women and end up marrying one too. Much of this is due to the superior beauty of white women, no doubt, but there may also be a signaling of one’s wealth and status to others as well.

Yet, for the white woman, it devalues her. It’s a step down, not a step up. She throws away her genes, including her racial heritage. Truth is, it’s a huge turn off when white guys discover that their girlfriend had previously dated or slept with black guys. As the saying goes, “Once you go black, we don’t want you back!” Contrary to current thinking, a normal guy doesn’t want to wife-up a woman who has a high bed notch, especially if those same notches came by way of the typical pants saggin’ black ghetto thug!

White women who date black men place themselves in a precariously dangerous relationship as Sally McNeil discovered. The number of news reports of black men severely beating, disfiguring and even murdering their white girlfriends is at astonishing levels. Mainstream media outlets, as one might expect, do their best to downplay such stories or ignore them altogether. For instance, a simple Google or Duck Duck Go search of “Black man murders White girlfriend” will instead provide page after page documenting occasions where white women killed their black boyfriends or white men who murdered black males because they made sexual advances toward their wives or girlfriends. Rather than finding precise articles about black-on-white female violence, one is instead bombarded with articles on the history of lynching in America, the death of Emmett Till, or stories about ‘Central Park Karen,’ etc. This is not meant to deny that white women have on occasion killed their black boyfriends, but it’s comparatively rare when one considers the staggering number of white females who have been ruthlessly beaten and murdered by their black lovers.

If one wants to find reliable and detailed information on the rising crime statistics of black males who have murdered their white girlfriends, the American Renaissance website edited by Jared Taylor is a good source. Paul Kersey has written a plethora of sobering articles on the skyrocketing levels of violence committed by black men against white females.

The danger that dating black men presents lies in the nature of blacks themselves. Having on average much lower intelligence compared to whites and Asians and coupled with high testosterone levels, including a persistent pattern of neglecting to consider the consequences of their actions (known to those in the human bio-diversity community as ‘poor future time orientation’), far too many black men in America have proven to be emotionally volatile and are easily triggered into violent fits of rage against their white wives or girlfriends when things don’t quite turn the way they want.

Black men also have a long history of abandoning their wives and children. The common notion of the missing black father or black children raised by a single mother with no father in sight is not ‘racist’ mythology as the Left would want us to believe. It’s evident in the astronomical numbers that plague every community or inner city where blacks live in the U.S. In the cities I worked in as a police officer, it was rare indeed to encounter an intact black family with an involved father. Most of the black women were single mothers and they complained constantly at the lack of financial support they receive from their ‘baby Daddies.’

Entire generations of American blacks have been raised on government welfare and absent fathers is nothing new. This explains, at least in part, why a hugely disproportionate amount of the ‘wilding,’ looting, and murders that occurs in our cities is committed by young black males. They have no fathers present in the home to teach them about such things as integrity and basic morality nor to model such qualities before them. The greater number of them are being raised by impoverished single mothers (or grandmothers) who have no real influence or guiding hand on their sons.

This problem is evident even in the animal kingdom, and there are lessons we can learn here as well. Several years ago, for instance, 60 Minutes investigated the serious problem of young male elephant delinquencies in the Pilanesburg National Park (a game reserve in South Africa). The young elephant males and their mothers were separated from their fathers who remained at the Kruger National Park because of a growing population that the park could not sustain. What seemed like a simple solution turned out to be a nightmare.

In a fascinating account of what occurred, Fr. Gordon J. MacRae, writes: “Rangers at Pilanesburg began finding the dead bodies of endangered white rhinoceros. At first, poachers were suspected, but the huge rhinos had not died of gunshot wounds, and their precious horns were left intact. The rhinos appeared to be killed violently, with deep puncture wounds. Not much in the wild can kill a rhino, so rangers set up hidden cameras throughout the park. The result was shocking. The culprits turned out to be marauding bands of aggressive juvenile male elephants, the very elephants relocated from Kruger National Park a few years earlier. The young males were caught on camera chasing down the rhinos, knocking them over, and stomping and goring them to death with their tusks. The juvenile elephants were terrorizing other animals in the park as well. Such behavior was very rare among elephants. Something had gone terribly wrong. Some of the park rangers settled on a theory. What had been missing from the relocated herd was the presence of the large dominant bulls that remained at Kruger. In natural circumstances, the adult bulls provide modeling behaviors for younger elephants, keeping them in line. Juvenile male elephants, Dr. Horn pointed out, experience ‘musth,’ a state of frenzy triggered by mating season and increases in testosterone. Normally, dominant bulls manage and contain the testosterone-induced frenzy in the younger males. Left without elephant modeling, the rangers theorized, the younger elephants were missing the civilizing influence of their elders as nature and pachyderm protocol intended” (“In the Absence of Fathers: A Story of Elephants and Men,” Beyond These Walls, 6/20/2013).

If the same problem of fatherless boys exists in America’s Black communities – a significantly deeper and wider problem than that of rogue elephants on a game reserve in South Africa – how likely is it that racially naïve white women will choose a black man as their mate who isn’t also a criminal thug or who hasn’t been previously incarcerated? If a healthy marriage was never modeled before him by his own parents, what are the chances of having a functional marriage with such a person? Since character and personal integrity plays no meaningful role in the lives of a hugely disproportionate number of American blacks as is evident in their crime statistics and incarceration rates, what sense does it make for any white woman to look to them for a potential life partner?

Black males become particularly volatile when it dawns on them that they are about to lose their white princess, especially so if he realizes that he will never again snag such a pretty white woman. This reality provokes many of them to savagely beat and in some not-so-rare instances to brutally murder their white lovers. Why any white woman would want to take such risks in dating a black man is beyond me. But most of them know little or nothing about racial differences nor the unstable and eruptive nature of black men in America. Modern ‘diversity’ lies, then, help to keep our women blind to the real and ever-present danger that black males in America pose.

Finally, there is an entire set of unique problems that producing racially mixed children brings. Offspring from a black and white couple tend to be racially confused as they grow older, especially in their later teens as they try to figure out just who they are. As mulattos, they don’t quite fit into either a black or white racial paradigm. Often, they feel inferior or inauthentic. Though they tend to favor their ‘black side’ in terms of culture, music or personal identity, they are not always seen as ‘truly black’ by their black peers. This often results in a mission to prove their ‘blackness’ which may explain why mulattos are seemingly always out to show to their racial kin that they’re ‘down for the cause.’ Many of them turn out to be radically pro-black and determined to prove that they’re the ‘blackest’ of the blacks. I’m not a psychologist, but it sure smacks of some kind of identity crisis that they’re undergoing.

Finally, there’s evidence that mixed-race people have higher rates of mental health issues, including that of substance abuse. For instance, a multi-authored article published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence concluded that “multiracial youth were found to have higher levels of mental health issues than their monoracial minority and majority peers. Specifically, multiracial youth had higher levels of depressive symptoms than their African American and Caucasian counterparts. Multiracial and Caucasian youth had similar levels of anxiety, but these levels were significantly higher than African Americans” (“Examining Multiracial Youth in Context: Ethnic Identity Development and Mental Health Outcomes,” 8/7/2014).

Thanks for reading Ambrose Kane ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

TPC interview with Drue Lackey on Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King

/4 Comments/in , /by

What follows is a transcript of a TPC radio interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards and former co-host Bill Rolen with Drue Lackey before his death in 2016 at the age of 90. Lackey served as the former Chief of Police of Montgomery, Alabama, and is featured in the iconic photograph fingerprinting Rosa Parks after her arrest.

Chief Lackey’s book, Another View of the Civil Rights Movement, recounts his time as a police officer in Montgomery in the 1950s and ‘60s and his personal interactions with Parks, Martin Luther King, and others. This historically significant interview has never before appeared in print online. We revisit it now in light of this week’s federal holiday.

* * *

TPC: The Civil Rights Movement was hardly the saintly march and holy crusade that has been portrayed by the schoolbooks and by the media over the years. In brief, what is your view? What was the view that you had back in the 1960s when the South was being put through the Civil Rights Movement?

Drue Lackey: Well, my view was that this so-called Civil Rights Movement, headed by Martin Luther King, was really a farce. He was using the civil rights issue to raise money and further his personal cause to have parties and do his womanizing throughout the country. And, in my opinion, he was more interested in tearing America down than he was in the plight of his own people.

TPC: When Rosa Parks was arrested for violating the segregation laws in Alabama, she was participating in an orchestrated event staged by her handlers. She refused to give up her seat on the bus, but we don’t really know anything about the man for whom she refused to move. Who was this man and why was he trying to take that seat in particular?

Lackey: He was an elderly man and very feeble, and he couldn’t stand too well and really needed to sit down.

TPC: So, she wasn’t being bullied by somebody trying to provoke her into civil disobedience. This was a legitimate reason for her to give up her seat to an old man who was obviously at least semi-disabled.

Lackey: That’s correct. That’s right.

TPC: Before Rosa Parks’ arrest, had any city like Montgomery or Birmingham had problems with blacks violating the segregation codes like that, or did this just suddenly come out of nowhere? Because after her arrest, this seems to just take fire and suddenly, it’s a big civil rights issue?

Lackey: Well, to my knowledge we didn’t have any problems. Prior to Rosa Parks’ arrest, we had two other women who were arrested for the same violation. One was arrested in March of 1955, and then the other one was in October of ‘55, and then Rosa was in December of ‘55. Of course, we all know that she was hand-picked. She was the secretary of the NAACP here in Montgomery. She had lunch with her attorney, Fred Grey, the day that she was arrested, and she attended the Communist school in Tennessee, where Martin Luther King attended, and Ralph Abernathy and others. So, it was a hand-picked deal from the word go.

TPC: And, of course, other events came out of that. The picture that’s on the cover of your book, the famous picture, was not taken after her arrest for taking the seat on the bus but was actually taken after she participated in the Montgomery bus boycott. What was she doing to get arrested during that boycott?

Lackey: She was one of the people indicted for violating the boycott law and interfering with public transportation. The deputy sheriff of Montgomery County called me and asked me if I would be willing to help him the next day, because they had these 90 people coming in, and I agreed to go up and help him. And that’s where and when they took that picture.

TPC: It always seemed interesting to me that Martin Luther King and some of the other civil rights activists always seemed to be one phone call away from the White House. It seemed like they had access to the highest offices of power when they needed it. And yet in the South, we were struggling against riots and violence caused by these people. What is your opinion on that? Why do you think they had such ready access to John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bobby Kennedy?

Lackey: Well, they were helping back this movement. And you’re correct, they had a direct line to Bobby Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and President Kennedy. During the Freedom Rider episode that happened in Montgomery, I picked up John Seigenthaler out of the street and took him to the hospital about two blocks away, possibly saving his life. And he immediately called Bobby Kennedy at Hyannisport and he had a list in his pocket of all the Freedom Riders that were on that bus. So, Bobby Kennedy and others in the administration were behind it, helped sponsor it, and saw that it was followed up.

TPC: That’s fascinating that the call he makes from the emergency room of a hospital was to Bobby Kennedy. It’s almost scary to think about people who are that crazed. I want to ask you about some of the media propaganda at the time. I always thought it was so incredible that the so-called civil rights activists were presented as peaceful demonstrators. According to the network news footage of the time, these peaceful black activists would come into town, and the mean-spirited police officers would unleash the hounds and the water hoses for no good reason. Is that the way it was, or was the truth of the matter a little bit different than what people have seen on television?

Lackey: It was a lot different than what you saw on television. I mean, the Civil Rights Movement attracted every kind of criminal that you can think of — revolutionaries and every thug that you could come in contact with. And they would curse the police, spit on the police, and do everything they could to try to incite a riot. Martin Luther King used what I called a big lie technique. He’d go around saying he was preaching non-violence, but violence followed him everywhere he went. You never heard of King ever chastising any of those rioters and looters. It happened all over this country, and I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that gives people the right to burn, loot, and do things that they did and be protected under the so-called civil rights banner.

TPC: Did you and the Montgomery Police Department feel as though there was a very real threat that these so-called activists would burn down the city? Do you think that was their intention and would they have gotten away with it if you had not acted accordingly?

Lackey: That was their intention. To come in and burn the town down. I believe if we hadn’t taken the action that we did, this would have happened. But we took an oath to protect the lives and property of this city and use that force necessary. And it was unfortunate that we killed a couple of arsonists that were teenagers. But we had no way of knowing their age. One of them was 16, one was 17. After that happened, we got a lot of calls that they were going to come in by the busload and burn the town down, and of course, I let them know that we were going to use the force necessary to protect our city. And they could leave like those other two in a box.

TPC: Tell us a little bit more about the Freedom Riders. What do you recall about their behavior while they were under your jurisdiction, or on your watch?

Lackey: They were very belligerent, and it was apparent that they were looking to have some kind of conflict with the police or with other people. Their mannerisms and their speech and everything indicated that they wanted to stir up a conflict. This is one of King’s tactics. I think he trained his people to have these conflicts with the police and then when it was all over, he would blame us for causing the riots.

TPC: Then he would charge police brutality when you put the riot down, or brought order back to the city?

Lackey: Yeah, that was his favorite — police brutality. And if you go back to Fidel Castro, he started using the same technique when the Communists were taking over Cuba. And, of course, Martin Luther King was knee-deep in with the Communist Party. They came to Montgomery. We knew who they were when they came in, and we usually would put a tail on them, to follow them. We did have some luck with the black leadership talking to them about getting these people out of Montgomery. They weren’t really there to help them, you know.

TPC: I noticed in your book that you wrote about not only the arrest of troublemakers in the Civil Rights Movement but also other troublemakers who were opposing it. The fact that you were not partial when it came to stopping lawbreakers doesn’t seem to be covered very much by the history books or by the media either.

Lackey: That is correct. The news media didn’t give us any coverage on that, and we had to make some arrests of Klansmen, too, you know. Our job was to keep law and order, and we couldn’t pick and choose. But we got very little coverage regarding that.

TPC: You met with Martin Luther King to coordinate security. What can you tell us about that?

Lackey: Yes, I had a meeting with him and even booked him once in 1956. But in the later meeting, I discussed with King some things that we needed to do, and that he needed to do. At first, he turned down any security but changed his mind before I left. And I told him we would like to give him security. We couldn’t guarantee a hundred percent, but we could cut down the odds on it. He admitted that he could not control his people, and he had some people in there who were going to get out of line and so forth, and he said, “I just can’t control all my people.”

TPC: I see here you have a copy of the newspaper article from that time where Martin Luther King, while preaching non-violence, actually tried to get a permit for a gun.

Lackey: Yeah, he tried to get a permit for a pistol, and he was turned down. His so-called peaceful movement was not what it was cracked up to be. The way that he got sympathizers and the money coming into his organization was by having conflict. When they would be marching on the streets and sidewalks, some of the males in his group would break off and go and urinate or defecate on a white person’s lawn. I mean, that’s trying to have a conflict. If it was my house, I’d be coming out of there with a shotgun.

TPC: It is so important to have eyewitness testimony like this. Is this what led you to write your book so many decades later? Why is it important to you that people understand the truth about the Civil Rights Movement?

Lackey: After I retired from the police force, to read and hear these people talking about how great King was and not have any balance whatsoever, I decided it’s time to unveil.

TPC: But it is more than that. The myth of King is propaganda. Your book is an actual factual document. Am I right?

Lackey: That is right. It’s correct. And don’t forget that Coretta King had those FBI files and the tapes sealed until 2027.

TPC: Do you think that in 2027 they’ll be released even then?

Lackey: I don’t think they will. I tried to get in there and get them released, but I didn’t have any luck on that, and I don’t think they will be released. If we could have gotten them released, you would have seen a lot of politicians running for cover.

TPC: The standard excuse for not releasing the files on King was that it would ruin his reputation. I think that’s what Coretta Scott King said when she testified before Congress about sealing the records.

Lackey: The liberal politicians and the liberal news media flocked to him. And he had them eating out of his hand. It was sickening when you saw it happen, that these politicians would run over each other to try to get to him. And then later, every year when they have that march over Edmund Pettus Bridge, you still see them lined up, arm-in-arm to get in on the act.

TPC: Now it’s almost like bragging you’ve won the Congressional Medal of Honor if you can say that you marched with Martin Luther King. But certainly, those people, when they were there and among King’s stooges and thugs must have seen some of the same behavior that you saw. Did you ever have any of them come up to you and say that they were wrong about Martin Luther King and the tactics they employed?

Lackey: I never had one of them come to me and say that.

TPC: What was the worst day for you during the Civil Rights Movement? What day do you recall as being the most frightening or the most disturbing from a policeman’s point of view?

Lackey: This particular day that I recall, Abernathy had organized a group, and they were meeting at King’s church. King wasn’t there, but they were going to march from his church to the capitol and they’d already put this out to the news media and everybody else.

When I arrived, the white people were all over the lawns up there at the capitol. It was at least, I’d say ten or twelve thousand, in the neighborhood of the capitol complex buildings. I sent some plainclothes officers to check it out. It was a kind of a cool day, and they had on overcoats and the majority of them had shotguns, pistols, you name it. I mean, it was an arsenal there on the grounds.

I called Abernathy out of the church to talk to him personally and showed him what he was up against, and what we were up against. And I said, “There ain’t no way that we can give you protection with all these people, and them armed like they are. And I’m gonna ask you to call off the march.” And he said, “No, we had this planned and we’re going to stick with it.”

Of course, the national news media was there to cover this thing because they announced it several days prior to. So, they came out of the church and started across the street there, Decatur Street, toward the capitol. And when they did, all these white people started rushing down. So, I called my men to put them back in the church and we made Abernathy and all these groups get back in church. And then I told him I would let them leave there, maybe six to eight at a time, and give them the streets they were to walk down so we could furnish protection. But that was a close call there because we could have had a blood bath very easily. Montgomery was a powder keg. For some time, the least little spark could have set it off. We had to really stay on our toes trying to keep the lid on it.

TPC: Did the white crowd disperse once the civil rights marchers were out of sight and removed from the scene? Or did you have any trouble with them after that?

Lackey: No. They started dispersing.

TPC: They didn’t throw bags of feces on you or spit on you or anything like that?

Lackey: No, we didn’t have any of that. It was the other side who would do that.

TPC: So you saved Abernathy’s life, in all likelihood, and the lives of some of those marchers?

Lackey: Yeah.

TPC: But they never expressed any appreciation for that, I suppose?

Lackey: Oh, no. No, they didn’t ever express any appreciation for anything we did. You know it’s good though.

TPC: Well, I think it’s certainly apparent that you did your duty, Chief Lackey. During those very difficult and incendiary times, you showed integrity and a spirit of righteousness. The ability for us to personally speak with someone who was a first-hand witness to this history from our point of view is an opportunity very rarely afforded to anyone.

Lackey: It was an honor.

Rosa Parks getting fingerprinted by Drue Lackey after her arrest in 1956
Martin Luther King being booked by Drue Lackey.
When not interviewing newsmakers, James Edwards has often found himself in the spotlight as a commentator, including many national television appearances. Over the past 20 years, his radio work has been featured in hundreds of newspapers and magazines worldwide. Media Matters has listed Edwards as a “right-wing media fixture” and Hillary Clinton personally named him as an “extremist” who would shape our country.

Another Take on the Causes of Black Family Dysfunction

/4 Comments/in , /by

Who Lost America? Why the United States Went ‘Communist’ and What To Do About It
Stephen Baskerville
Arktos Media, 2024

Back in July my friend Roger Devlin posted an extended and largely favorable review of Stephen Baskerville’s Who Lost America?[1] I recently read this book and had quite a different reaction. To be very generous, Baskerville’s book is a glass half full.

To his credit the author is a harsh critic of establishment conservatism, although perceptive leaders of the authentic Right long ago realized that the conservative approach to combating the Left was a losing proposition.[2] The critique of Conservative Inc. has certainly intensified in recent years with the rise of Trumpism and the Alt Right/Dissident Right. Yet, while keeping a lower profile of late, Ryan/Romney conservatism is quite resistant to change, and is ready to again take full control of the establishment Right after the Trump era is over.

Among Baskerville’s complaints about the Right include a lack of leadership, creativity, and energy. In contrast the Left is innovative. It has “reinvented itself repeatedly” while the establishment Right is content to dog whistle to their constituents while protecting vested economic interests. “Conservatives seem temperamentally incapable of arousing themselves . . . . [T]hey seem habituated to apathy” (67). The Right is “devoid of ideas and intellectual depth . . . . the Right still produces few intellectuals of any stature, no universities of any quality, no ideas of any value” (119). Okay, this appears to be the case, but I do not believe that conservatives are inherently stupid or lazy. Their retreat is a maladaptive response to political and social conditions. The master manipulators on the Left have exploited the individualism of Western culture. More on that later.

Another telling point made by Baskerville is the centrality of the radical sexual revolution—feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism—to the Left’s agenda. It is part of an effort by the Left to blur all distinctions between cultures, races, and sexes. The author’s main concern is the prevalence of fatherless families, but this issue must be viewed within a wider context.

Credit Professor Baskerville with tamping down on conspiracy theories. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they “can foster a defeatist mentality of . . . helpless resignation. The conspirators become so evil and all-powerful that opposition is pointless” (xxv). Often those who posit such theories assume the status of savvy and sophisticated analysts who can see through the smoke and mirrors, and the smart money is on the sidelines. Later in the book, however, the author will indulge in some “black pilling” of his own.

Baskerville is also on the mark in Chapter 5 “Flirting with Nuclear War.” Here he laments “the needless carnage in Ukraine” (121). Apparently, “the negotiating table is off limits” (123). And “Russia is not the only hegemon playing power politics at Ukraine’s expense. We—the US, NATO, the EU—have cynically manipulated Ukraine as a pawn to augment our own position” (133). There is no mention of the carnage in the Middle East. Baskerville does not address the Jewish question in this book, but elsewhere he has supported Judeo-Christian values.

So, if Who Lost America? is a glass half full, it must also be a glass half empty. It is a work with serious analytical flaws.

To begin with a minor point of terminology: The word communist in the subtitle is in quotes so we understand that it is used a bit ironically. But Baskerville refers several times to a Leftist coup occurring in early 2020. Although I follow the news fairly closely, I missed that event.  A widely accepted definition of a coup is a sudden violent overthrow of the existing government by a small group. At the risk of seeming pedantic, rather than a coup, what we saw in 2020 was the approaching end of the “Long March through the Institutions.”  The term was coined in 1967 or 1968 by German communist Rudi Dutschke. The long march is, in part, a reference to the Chinese Communist Party’s retreat inland during the 1930s. But to simplify things quite a bit, the core concept originated with Antonio Gramsci and György Lukács in post- World War I Europe. After the failure to replicate the Bolshevik Revolution in other European countries a segment of the Left reinvented itself, abandoning violent revolution to work within, but against, society’s institutions. The strategy was imported to America in the 1930s and ultimately led to the Frankfort School’s critical theory and the domination of academic and media culture by the left.

It has taken time, but this technique has succeeded in making cultural Marxism the dominate ideology in government bureaucracies, education, the news and entertainment media, the judiciary, Christian churches, and even in the military and corporations. Not to belabor the point, but there has been no coup. As a professor of political science, one might think that Baskerville would be more precise in his terminology.

The author’s overriding concern is fatherless families. He states that it is an “irrefutable fact that every major social pathology is directly attributable to fatherless homes” (30). The professor is given to making sweeping generalizations without documentation. A family of children living with their married biological parents is best and should be the norm, but why weaken a valid point by overstatement? The author attributes the weakening of family structure, especially among Blacks, to the welfare “reforms” of the 1960s which made men, particularly Black men superfluous. It was during the 1960s that all the markers of family dysfunction—single parenting, teenage childbearing, and divorce) began their inexorable rise.

Baskerville is a rare bird indeed—a rightwing negrophile. “The young African American male is truly an extraordinary figure. His culture in large measure distinguishes that of the United States itself, and he has spread it all over the world—in music, films, sports, religion, and politics—where it inspires widespread imitation” (159). Two points come to mind: The ascendency of Black culture did not happen by chance, but was heavily promoted by the Left, especially the Jewish Left. And yet, despite this cultural dynamism, the author would have us believe that Black men have no agency when it comes to welfare policies. You cannot have it both ways.

In fact, modern welfare policies have been designed to accommodate the Black family structure. The well-known French anthropologist and historian Emmanuel Todd wrote a seminal work on the influence that family structures have on social systems, especially political ideologies.[3] Todd found that: “Family relationships—those between parents and children, between husband and wife—provide a model for political systems and serve to define the relationships between the individual and authority.” He identified seven different family systems distributed across various geographic and environmental regions. Yet the African system, originating in the sub-Saharan region, was unique. Its main characteristics were “instability of the household [and] polygyny.” One of the subheadings in the African chapter is “A fatherless world?” In the African family “the primordial family relationship is between brothers rather than that between father and son.” There is “a lax attitude toward paternal authority, African society does not respond well to discipline. It has trouble forming states.”

Todd is not a racialist. There is no explicit genetic determinism in his argument. He is, however, identified with the Annales School of historiography. The Annalistes are interested in what they describe as cultural continuities of long duration. Thus, while negatively impacted by New World slavery and modern welfare policies, the looser African family structure predates those institutions.

When discussing welfare, it should be noted that modern social welfare originated under German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, hardly a bleeding-heart liberal. During this same period rural America had county poor farms that cared for the indigent, including single mothers, but excluding “rogues” and other unworthies. Both the German and American systems were government-supported, augmented by private charity. My brief stint as a volunteer with the Salvation Army reinforced my belief that the Victorians were right to distinguish the deserving poor from the irredeemables.

In considering relations between the sexes Baskerville believes that “men are too cowed and frightened—too emasculated even to discuss honestly what is wrong” (147). Radical sexual ideologies, the Left’s cutting edge, have feminized society. “Where did all this begin? Here we must return once again, to that pivotal character in the American tragedy: the neglected, demonized, and manipulated black male” (159).  Well, here again, as in welfare policy, Baskerville has things backwards. Second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution, which the author so detests, had its genesis in the “civil rights” movement. The chronology is clear. Mainstream historians agree with feminist journalist and woman of color Anna Holmes: “Correctly contextualized second wave feminism [was] a direct outgrowth of the civil rights movement.”[4] And both are products of the culture of critique.

Forced racial integration meant that the White men could no longer defend their communal interests, diminishing their leadership role. The traditional defenders of the community were men, especially young men, now emasculated and no longer permitted to protect the tribe. What happens if White men assume that role? Consider the fate of Daniel Penny the New Yok subway rider, Marine Corp vet, and architectural student, who stood up to protect his fellow passengers from a psychotic Black criminal. The confrontation ended with the Black miscreant dead. Some called Mr. Penny a Good Samaritan, others called him a hero. The Black Manhattan district attorney called him a criminal and charged him with manslaughter. European-Americans have paid a high price for diversity.

Baskerville has a valid point regarding “the myth of female innocence.” Many White men especially conservatives, engage in the “sentimentalization of women” (157). This is not true in other societies. It is another example of the Left manipulating a Western cultural characteristic to their advantage. Tacitus, in his ethnographic study Germania, notes the high status of women among the northern tribes. Some social historians trace the concept of romantic love to the medieval aristocratic culture articulated by troubadours of twelfth century Aquitaine and Provence, but may well have much deeper roots in Western culture.[5] The present “woke” society is so alienating that many young people find it difficult to make the social/sexual bonds needed for family formation.

The church is another institution that the Left has marched through. Christianity, a universalist and essentially egalitarian faith concerned with individual salvation has been exploited by every outgroup—racial, sexual, and mental—to guilt trip Whites into acquiescing to their demands. In some Whites, the urge to virtue signal has mutated into ethno-masochism where they actually gain pleasure from witnessing the diminishment of their own people and culture. The terrible sectarian conflicts our people have had in the past argues strongly for religion to be a matter of personal belief. But no creed should be permitted to advocate socially destructive policies. A new Western religion would require the emergence of what Wilmot Robertson called “a mind-blowing prophet.” One might hope that a science-based naturalist religion with an element of faith might gain currency in the future.

What is the creation story of the feeble Right? One of the most cogent explanations for the flaccid state of American conservatism was written by a liberal academic Kevin Kruse. His book White Flight is a case study of racial integration in post-war Atlanta.[6] Kruse describes pre-civil rights era White working-class neighborhoods of that city as taking a great deal of pride in their parks, schools, and civic associations. Integration broke up these neighborhoods along with their collective identities. What replaced this communal integrity was an “every man for himself” individualism which translated politically into a shallow, defensive conservatism that retreated from the public sphere into the private sphere. This process was repeated in hundreds of communities across America.

This rise of the enervated Right, which Baskerville complains about, developed in the absence of a confident, collective ethnocultural identity. This psychological manipulation was made possible because Western peoples, especially the Anglo-Keltic branch, tend to be very individualistic. They are likely to seek individual solutions to social problems: A deteriorating neighborhood? Move to the suburbs. Poor schools? Home school or parochial school. Public parks and playing fields no longer conducive to recreation? Join a private club. Once again, a cultural characteristic was exploited by those hostile to our people.

With this in mind we can see why Baskerville’s last chapter, “Conclusion—The Way Out” is way off the mark. The author believes “the true antithesis of leftist ideology is not rightist ideology. It is no ideology—the default state that existed throughout the world until modern times” (198). Wrong and wrong. Terminology matters. While some may argue that ideologies grew out of the French Revolution, in fact an ideology—root word ‘idea’—is simply a set of beliefs about how society should be run. All societies are ruled by an ideology. Premodern ideologies included rule by aristocratic warriors or by the divine right of king or priests. What the Right needs is an ideology more radical and dynamic than the Left.

In the conclusion Baskerville again rides his hobby horse. The solution to our present societal crisis is to repeal “no-fault” divorce laws and “reimpose a presumption of father custody over children” (203). Yes, divorce is bad, it is an admission of failure, but it is not always the woman’s fault. Yes, there is clear evidence that the divorce rate increased after many states instituted no-fault laws, but there were other social factors involved. Plus, many studies have shown that infidelity/adultery is the leading cause for divorce. Desertion is another leading cause. Presumably these are not considered no-fault. If you can believe the CDC statistics the divorce rate peaked in the 1980s at close to 50 percent and has since slowly declined. Presently, 41 percent of first marriages end in divorce, still way too high. The author’s solution is for men to “boycott women and marriage until laws are changed” (204). A men’s revolt “is a key takeaway of this book” (205).

There is a lot to unpack here. This is just a guess, but one might suppose that the author has personally experienced a bitter divorce and custody battle that has skewed his perceptions. If young White men did “boycott” the young women of their race, then we will know that the life force has truly left our people and all is lost. The more important and immediate problem is the low White birthrate, and the need for pro-natalist policies. If the European-American ethny had a collective voice it would encourage marriage. There are no guarantees in life other than death and taxes. Starting a business, entering a profession, starting a family are all risky. What if an army recruiter emphasized the dangers of military service, highlighting whose who came home grievously wounded or in a body bag. How many recruits would enlist? In any case, the battle of the sexes has been waged for millennia, consider Aristophanes Lysistrata or Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew.

In the end, Baskerville’s criticisms of conservatives, while valid, rings somewhat hollow. He singles out Victor David Hanson’s “10 Steps to Save America” as an example of “the pointless wish lists dreamed up by frustrated conservatives” (207). That is a bit ironic because Baskerville’s ideas on citizenship are somewhat similar to Hanson’s non-ethnic civic nationalism. In fact, Who Lost America? could be summarized as an amalgamation of libertarianism, Hanson’s ideas on citizenship, and the men’s rights movement.  But in the end Baskerville is a reactionary. His answer to the failure of conservatism is radical reaction reaching back to the nineteenth century for some of his policy proposals.

After being so critical of the professor I would be amiss not to offer an alternative. Strong communities are key; they support and strengthen marriages, increase birthrates, and contribute to the overall quality of life. A while back, I made some suggestions for forming White communities even during these trying times.[7] My vision of citizenship differs from both Hanson’s civic nationalism and Baskerville’s libertarian-influenced radical traditionalism. The professor warned us about being “black pilled” by conspiracy theories, yet Baskerville dismisses my idea of building “local communities and parallel structures. . . . As if the totalitarians are going to permit this” (xxvi).  Properly conceived, it would be difficult for any authority to prevent the building of European-American communities and parallel structures, as in the case of Orania in South Africa. If there is a remedy for our decadent society, it begins with recreating a strong ethnic and cultural identity. Opposition to such an idea unites Baskerville with the woke Left and the establishment Right.

[1] F. Roger Devlin, “Courage Cannot Be Outsourced,” A Review Essay on Stephen Baskerville’s Who Lost America? The Occidental Quarterly 24, no. 3 (Fall, 2024): 3–23..

[2] See, for example, William Pierce’s essay “Why Conservatives Can’t Win,” Attack!, no.4 (1971); reposted in National Vanguard (September 22, 2010). https://nationalvanguard.org/2010/09/why-conservatives-cant-win/

See also: Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (H. Allen, 1981).

[3] The quotes below are from: Emmanuel Todd, The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure and Social Systems. Translated by David Garrioch. (NY: Basil Blackwell, Ltd. 1985) 6,7,191-195.

[4] Anna Holms, “The Second Wave,” New York Times Book Review, 09/15/24, 10.

[5] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolution, History, and Prospects for the Future (CreateSpace, 2019).

[6] Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism. (Princeton University Press, 2005).

[7] Eric Paulson, “Nine Reasons for an Ingathering” The Occidental Observer (11/03/2010).

 

Mbogba’s Machete: More on Blacks Blighting Whites

/8 Comments/in , /by

I’m the creator of the universe. And so are you. There’s a huge and immensely complex universe, crammed with color, sound, taste, scent and sensation, that exists only because of me. It’s the universe of my personal experience, brought into being by my brain, even (or especially) when that brain is asleep.

Pseudo-mystical leftist nonsense

Meanwhile, your brain is bringing another huge and immensely complex universe into being. And so is the brain of every other sentient human. But I’m a White male, so there’s nothing special about my brain-born universe. However, if you’re not White or not male, there is something special about yours. If you’re Black, your brain-born universe is very special indeed. If you’re a Black woman or (gasp) a Black transwoman, it’s so special that Whites should bow before its creatrix in awestruck worship. That’s what leftists think, anyway. I’ve argued elsewhere that this creation-by-consciousness helps explain why leftists regard even the most minor Black presence in Western history as deeply significant. How so? Because any Black who was present in, say, Tudor England or the Roman empire was, in a sense, creating Tudor England or the Roman empire by being conscious of it. A Black brain contained the world of that time and thereby, in leftist eyes, was creating and sustaining the world.

That’s pseudo-mystical leftist nonsense, of course, but leftists have never asked for truth and logic in their ideologies. They ask only that their ideologies grant them power, feed their narcissism, and assuage their neuroses. For a good example of this, let’s take a look at an article about “Black British” history in the Guardian from 2023. It’s exceptionally dishonest and stupid even by the Guardian’s standards. Here’s a highlight:

Although people with dark skin first came to Britain about 12,000 years ago, with the first known people to come directly from Africa settling approximately 2,000 years ago, more than a third (36%) of Britons surveyed believed that the first Black people migrated to Britain only in the past 200 years, with a further 29% not sure. One in four (25%) believed that it was within the past 100 years and only 9% thought that it was more than 1,500 years ago. (“Half of Britons can’t name a Black British historical figure, survey finds,” The Guardian, 26th October 2023)

Leftists constantly complain about right-wingers “erasing” the rich identity and complex experiences of non-Whites. But that paragraph contains two blatant acts of erasure against non-White identity and experience. The “people with dark skin” who came to Britain 12,000 years ago were not “Black.” That is, they were not sub-Saharan Africans and were not ancestral to modern Black groups like Nigerians or Kenyans. Nor were the vast majority of people “to come directly from Africa” in Roman times. The emperor Septimius Severus (145–211 AD) is often described as “Black British” because he was born in north Africa and lived in Britain. But north Africa was (and is) inhabited by groups like Berbers and Arabs, not by Blacks, and surviving images of Severus clearly show that he wasn’t Black.

White Romans denigrated Black skin

The same is true of the Roman governor Quintus Lollius Urbicus (fl. 140 AD) and the “Aurelian Moors” once stationed on Hadrian’s Wall. They too came from North Africa and they too were not Black. Yes, there is reference in Roman history to an “Ethiopian” soldier meeting Septimius Severus in Britain, so genuine Blacks were very likely present here 2,000 years ago. But guess what? Severus recoiled at the color of the Ethiopian’s skin, which he regarded as an unlucky omen. So the Romans were racist against Blacks! They denigrated Black skin. “Denigrate” is the mot juste: its literal meaning in Latin is “blacken completely.”

And when modern leftists celebrate Roman Britain as “diverse” and “multicultural,” they don’t explain why the empire had a policy of stationing troops from distant provinces in Britain. What is the explanation? It’s simple: the Romans knew that those foreign troops had no kinship with and would feel no sympathy for the indigenous Celts of Britain, who had been brutally conquered and were being harshly exploited. In other words, leftists are celebrating imperialism, colonialism and enslavement when they celebrate Roman Britain. After all, the very words “empire,” “colony,” and “slave” come to us from Latin. So-called Blacks like Septimius Severus and real Blacks like the Ethiopian soldier were only in Britain because of brutal imperialism by Rome. If you want a good example of that brutal imperialism, here’s the Roman historian Tacitus (c. 56–117 A.D.):

Prasutagus King of the Iceni, celebrated for his long prosperity, had named the emperor his heir, together with his two daughters, in an act of deference that he thought would place his kingdom and household beyond the risk of injury. The result [after his death] was contrary — so much so that his kingdom was pillaged by centurions and his household by slaves as though they had been prizes of war. As a beginning, his wife Boudicca was flogged and his daughters raped; all the chief men of the Iceni were stripped of their family estates; and the relatives of the king were treated as slaves. Impelled by this outrage and the dread of worse to come, for they had now been reduced to the status of a province, they flew to arms and incited to rebellion the Trinobantes and others, who, still unbroken by servitude, had entered into a secret and treasonable compact to resume their independence (Tacitus, Annals, Book XIV, 31)

Queen Boudicca led the native British in rebellion against the foreign invaders who had imposed “diversity” and “multiculturalism” on them at sword-point. The rebellion was bloodily suppressed: Tacitus reports that 80,000 Britons were slaughtered in the final and decisive battle. By leftist standards, the imperialist enslaving Romans were guilty of horrible crimes against the indigenous Celtic natives of Britain. So why are leftists so desperate to shoehorn Blacks into Roman history and pretend that Blacks were an important part of Roman civilization? Again, it’s simple: because leftists care about power and prestige, not about truth and logic. They want Blacks to be associated with the grandeur and great achievements of Rome, while reserving the bad parts of Roman history strictly for Whites.

Leftists portray Blacks as proud Roman soldiers in a brutally imperialistic army of unrepentant enslavers (images by the BBC)

That’s why leftists love to portray Blacks as Roman soldiers in the splendor of scarlet cloaks and gilded armor. But you can be sure that leftists would never use Blacks as Roman soldiers in any modern portrayal of Queen Boudicca being flogged and her daughters being raped. The same applies to the leftist shoehorning of Blacks into more recent Western history. Again, leftists want Blacks to have the prestige of the West while reserving the sins strictly for Whites. For example, leftists often proclaim that “Black history is British history” and that Blacks resident in Britain are thereby completely and authentically British. Does that mean that these completely British Blacks share any responsibility for the imperialism, colonialism and enslavement so wickedly practised in “British history” by “the British”? Of course not. Blacks are to be associated only with the positive aspects of British history, while the negative aspects are reserved strictly for Whites. Indeed, leftists want to pretend that the positive aspects of Britain and the West exist only because of Blacks and other non-Whites.

“The grave concerns of Black Londoners”

Blacks are the most important racial group in leftism, of course. But that isn’t because leftists value Blacks in themselves. No, it’s because they value Blacks as anti-Whites, that is, as the group most distant in appearance, behavior and achievement from Whites, and therefore most harmful to White civilization. If a White nation imports Blacks, it inevitably imports violent crime and educational failure. But for leftists that’s a feature, not a bug, of Black immigration, because they can blame all Black pathologies on White racism. Meanwhile, they do their best to ignore the numerous White victims of Black crime. For example, I pointed out in “Blacks Blight Britain” that there has been no feminist response since the Black Muslim Mohamed Iidow (sic) was found guilty of killing the White woman Natalie Shotter. Shotter was lying unconscious on a park-bench in London when Iidow repeatedly committed “oral rape” against her. He “overstimulated the nerves at the back of her throat” and induced “a cardiac arrest.”

Feminists have not condemned this horrific example of toxic masculinity and rape-culture. And the non-White leftist mayor of London, the Pakistani Muslim Sadiq Khan, has not issued any stern statement to the media, condemning male violence against women and vowing to fight even harder for women’s safety. Mohamed Iidow is Black, Natalie Shotter was White, therefore the rape-killing does not advance the pro-Black, anti-White agenda of leftism and leftists are silent. But Sadiq Khan did issue stern official statements about the fatal shooting of a 23-year-old Black man, Chris Kaba, by a White police marksman called Martyn Blake in September 2022. Khan lamented the “young life cut short” and acknowledged “the grave concerns and impact of Chris’s death on black Londoners across our city and the anger, pain and fear it has caused — as well as the desire for justice and change.” He was advancing the cause of leftism, you see, and promoting the lie that innocent Blacks are the perennial victims of racist Whites in the police.

Leftists bewail the death of Black thug Chris Kaba (image from Stop Hate UK)

The cause of leftism was further advanced when the leftists of the Crown Prosecution Service decided to put the White marksman on trial for “the murder” of Kaba. It was a misguided and malicious prosecution that placed Martyn Blake and his family under immense strain as they waited for and then endured the trial. Leftists were trying to create an anti-White martyr-cult around Kaba to match that of George Floyd in America. But they didn’t get the verdict they wanted. In the same week in 2024 as Mohamed Iidow was found guilty of killing Natalie Shotter, Martyn Blake was found not guilty of murdering Chris Kaba. Leftists have ignored the death of Natalie Shotter and once again lamented the death of Chris Kaba.

Kaba’s colorful contributions

Indeed, it seemed likely that those lamenting leftists would successfully incite Blacks in London to riot in protest at the not-guilty verdict. But the judge in the case forestalled that by allowing hitherto concealed details of Kaba’s contributions to Britain to be made public. Kaba was not the innocent Black victim portrayed in leftist propaganda. He was a violent career criminal who would have gone on trial for the attempted murder of another Black if he had not been killed by the police. Leftists have constantly described Kaba as “unarmed” when he was shot. In fact, he was armed with a large and powerful car when, having received clear instructions to surrender to armed police, he tried to batter his way out of a police road-block and was shot by Martyn Blake, who rightly feared for the lives of himself and his fellow police.

Leftist propaganda has also portrayed Kaba as a young musician who was expecting his first child when his life was brutally ended by White racism. In fact, the “drill rap” he performed with a gang called 67 can only loosely be described as music and he was subject to a restraining order after committing “domestic violence” against the mother of his child. In one of his crime-celebrating videos, Kaba issued this auto-prophetic Afro-apophthegm: “Fuck around and get smoked.” Well, he was 13 when he is first known to have begun “fucking around,” that is, committing violent crime. It was entirely predictable that he would one day “get smoked,” that is, die by violence.

Fascinating names from far-off climes

It was also much more likely that another Black thug would kill him, rather than a White policeman. In the same month as leftists have ignored the entirely horrific killing of Natalie Shotter and lamented the entirely justified killing of Chris Kaba, another story about violent death has been in the news. Like so many similar stories from modern Britain, it’s what I call a feast for phoneticians, because it contains fascinating names from far-off climes:

A group of four attackers who used a “fearsome” machete to murder a teenager in east London have been given life sentences. Wazabakana Elenda Jordan Kukabu, known as Jordan, died after he was stabbed in the heart outside Dagenham Heathway Underground station in May 2023.

Michael Tommy-Mbogba, 21, and Toluwaslase Odunewu, 18, as well as a two teenagers aged 17 and 16 — who cannot be identified due to their age — were all found guilty of murder following a trial at the Old Bailey. During sentencing, Mr Kukabu’s mother, Tantine Kukabu, said she never thought she would lose her son, “let alone in such a brutal and painful way”. The trial heard Mr Kukabu had arrived at the station with two associates when they were confronted by a heavily-armed group. Their car was surrounded as Mr Kukabu and his colleague Matthew Adekoya, 20, tried to escape.

Mr Adekoya was chased and stabbed by the 17-year-old defendant, but managed to drive away. Mr Kukabu collapsed and died at the scene after being stabbed by Mbogba, the court heard. … The court heard [the killers] were identified after one man had seen the defendants sitting on the top deck of a bus after the murder, re-enacting the fatal attack they had just carried out. (“Four jailed over ‘beautiful’ teen’s machete murder,” BBC News, 16th October 2024)

Machete-mensches Michael Mbogba (left) and Toluwaslase Odunewu (right)

By “re-enacting,” the leftist BBC means “laughing and celebrating.” It was a very stupid thing to do in public, but that makes the murder like the rape-killing of Natalie Shotter. They’re examples of a very simple equation: Bestial + Bustable = Black. That is, the worse the crime and the easier it is to solve, the likelier it is that the criminal is Black. Despite that brutality and stupidity, leftists would insist that the machete-mensch Michael Mbogba is “British.” After all, it’s probable that he was born on the magic dirt of Britain, just as Chris Kaba was before him. But in reality, as opposed to leftist fantasy, Blacks like Kaba and Mbogba are not British at all. Kaba was born to parents from the Congo and Mbogba was probably born to parents from Cameroon. That’s where his phonetically fascinating name comes from. It’s not a White British name: it’s a Black African name. And when Black Africans come to White Britain, they don’t bring only their un-British names. No, they also bring their un-British genetics and culture, both forged in the un-British environment of sub-Saharan Africa. That’s why Blacks blight Britain and don’t belong in Britain.

Smiling traitors in Poland

But it’s precisely because Blacks blight Britain and don’t belong in Britain that leftists are so eager to import Blacks, privilege Blacks, and prevent the effective policing of Black behavior. Blacks create crime and chaos wherever they go, and leftists use that crime and chaos to advance leftism. The same is true of all other White nations. Britain has been blighted by the Black Chris Kaba and Portugal has just been blighted by another Black: “Two nights of disturbances have shaken outskirts of the Portuguese capital Lisbon following the fatal police shooting of a Black man.” Like Chris Kaba, the dead Black in Lisbon seems to have been a thuggish criminal: “According to a police statement, the shooting victim had fled and crashed a car after seeing a police vehicle. When officers approached, he tried to attack them with a blade, before being shot and dying in hospital.”

“The smiler with the knife under the cloak”: Polish traitor Szymon Hołownia smiles in happy anticipation of non-White crime and chaos (photo Notes from Poland)

I would once have contrasted ethno-enriched Britain and Portugal in western Europe with un-ethno-enriched Poland in eastern Europe. Up until now, Poland has not suffered from the non-White crime and chaos so prevalent in Britain and Portugal. But Poland has a traitorous leftist government that wants to blight Polish Whites with Blacks and other ethnic enrichers: “The Polish government is setting up 49 Foreigners’ Integration Centres (CICs) across the country, aimed at helping newly arrived migrants integrate into Polish society, the European Commission announced this week.” In fact, the non-White migrants will not “integrate into” but attack Polish society. That is, they will commit rape, murder and other crimes against Polish Whites, and provide traitorous leftists with home-grown versions of George Floyd and Chris Kaba. The White traitor you can see in the photo above is smiling in anticipation of this crime and chaos. He’s called Szymon Hołownia and is the speaker of the Polish parliament or Sejm.

It’s no coincidence that Black-welcoming Hołownia once issued a parliamentary exclusion and stern rebuke to a patriotic Polish MP called Grzegorz Braun, who had used a fire-extinguisher to douse a “Chanukah menorah” erected by Hasidic Jews in the Sejm. Braun rightly denounced the menorah as symbolic of rasistowskiego, plemiennego, dzikiego, talmudycznego kultu – a “racist, tribal, savage Talmudic cult.” Braun also described the menorah as “Satanic.” And he disrupted and denounced a lecture devoted to the Jewish Holocaust cult. He’s fighting on behalf of Whites and Christianity; Szymon Hołownia is fighting against Whites and Christianity. That’s why Hołownia performs the goy-grovel before Jews and welcomes the arrival of Blacks in Poland. Just as the menorah is symbolic of Satanic Judaism, so Mbogba’s machete is symbolic of Black crime and chaos. That machete is already swinging in London and Lisbon. Soon it will be swinging in Poland too.

Blacks Blight Britain: An Obvious Truth That’s Officially Unspeakable

/17 Comments/in , /by

Here’s the shocking headline: “MAN RAPED AND KILLED UNCONSCIOUS WOMAN.”

Here’s the feminist response:   .

No, that isn’t a typo. There has been no feminist response. Bestial male violence has been greeted with stubborn feminist silence. There have been no hard-hitting polemics in the Guardian or at the BBC, raging righteously against the horrors of toxic masculinity. A helpless woman was raped to death in public by a lethally entitled man and feminists are saying nothing. But why the silence? Because feminists do not genuinely care about protecting women from rape and other forms of male violence. Instead, they care about protecting their insane and evil ideology from reality. Like all other leftists, feminists cannot admit the truth about which kinds of men pose the worst threat to women. It’s non-White men, of course, and Blacks in particular:

Bestial Black rapist Mohamed Noor Iidow (sic), imported by leftists to harm Whites

A vile predator who killed an NHS worker by repeatedly orally raping her as she lay unconscious on a park bench was today [18th October 2024] convicted of manslaughter. Jurors at the Old Bailey wept as they were shown horrifying footage of the vile attack carried out by 35-year-old Mohamed Noor Iidow. Iidow had been prowling Southall Park in west London looking for women to assault when he found mother-of-three Natalie Shotter, 37, lying on a bench. The fiend overstimulated the nerves at the back of her throat in the horrific attack on July 17, 2021 and caused her to have a cardiac arrest. Ms Shotter, who was a little more than five foot tall and weighed just 95lb, lay dead for hours before finally being found by a passer-by. (“Pictured: Vile predator who killed NHS worker mother-of-three, 37, by repeatedly orally raping her as she lay unconscious on park bench,” The Daily Mail, 18th October 2024)

No photo of Mohamed Noor Iidow was published before he was found guilty, but no-one needed to see his photo or know his name to predict what race he would be. As I said in “Mo with the Flow,” it was always likely that the crime would prove yet another example of a very simple equation: Bestial + Bustable = Black. That is, the worse the crime and the easier it is to solve, the likelier it is that the criminal is Black. The rape of Natalie Shotter was both bestial and bustable, and the rapist did indeed prove to be Black.

A Muslim’s meteor-murder

But that’s precisely why there has been no righteous response by feminists to this horrific example of repulsive rape culture. Leftists preach equality but practise hierarchy. Mohamed Noor Iidow belongs to two groups that sit at the top of the leftist hierarchy, far above Whites like Natalie Shotter. He’s both Black and Muslim. After all, he’s named after the founder of Islam, who consummated marriage with a nine-year-old and told his followers that God approved the taking of sex-slaves. Iidow’s middle name, Noor, is Arabic for “light,” but he’s been a blight to Britain, not a light. And light is the last thing leftists want to shed on his behavior. Just as I confidently predicted that he would be Black, so I now confidently predict that he has committed a meteor murder. That is, his horrible crime will flash through the headlines and then disappear for ever from the mainstream media. There will be no martyr cult for Natalie Shotter, just as there has been no martyr cult for Susan Hawkey.

What will happen if you import violent, stupid, rape-friendly non-Whites into the White West?

Who was Susan Hawkey? She was a 71-year-old White woman whose death provided another example of that very simple equation: Bestial + Bustable = Black. Susan Hawkey was tortured and murdered in 2023 by two Blacks, Xyaire Howard and his girlfriend Chelsea Grant. She was also very likely raped by Howard, because a used condom was found with her corpse and all her lower clothing had been removed. Yes, Howard left a used condom at the scene of a horrific murder. Like Mohamed Iidow, he’s both highly dangerous and deeply stupid. Like Iidow, he should never have been allowed to live in a White nation like Britain. Nor should Leroy Campbell, the Black who raped and murdered a White nurse in 2017 after serving a “life sentence” for other rapes. Nor should Valdo Calocane, the Black who murdered three Whites in Nottingham in 2023. Nor should Axel Rudakubana, the Black who murdered three young White girls in Southport earlier in 2024.

Consigning Whites to violent death

I could go on and on listing bestial Black crimes and innocent White victims. And I could do that not just for Britain, but for every Western nation that permits Blacks to live on its territory. As the late great Jewish writer Larry Auster once said: “To import a black population into a previously all-white country is to consign a large number of whites in that country, year after year, generation after generation, to violent death at the hands of blacks.” Faced with that irrefutable truth, leftists across the West have worked tirelessly to import Blacks, privilege Blacks, and prevent effective policing of Black crime. In short, they’ve unleashed beasts on ordinary Whites. And when ordinary Whites have resisted that Black bestiality, leftists have demonized them as racists and used the full force of the law against them. For example, in 1958, ordinary Whites in London rioted in protest against Black migration into Britain and the Black crime that inevitably followed.

Jews import Blacks, Blacks rape and murder Whites #1: Jewish overlords Cyril Salmon and Barbara Roche

 

Jews import Blacks, Blacks rape and murder Whites #2: Bestial Blacks Mohamed Iidow and Xyaire Howard

 

Jews import Blacks, Blacks rape and murder Whites #3: Dead Whites Natalie Shotter and Susan Hawkey

If Britain were a democracy, three things would automatically have followed that White riot in London. The concerns of those ordinary Whites would have been heard; Blacks would have been sent back where they belonged; and all the Black murders and rapes I listed above would never have happened. A clear majority of Britain’s White population opposed non-White immigration in the 1950s and wanted non-Whites deported. That majority was ignored, because Britain isn’t a democracy. Instead, it’s a Judeocracy where Jewish money controls politics and Jewish ideologies control race relations. That’s why the White rioters in 1958 found themselves up in court before a Jewish judge called Cyril Salmon (1903-99), who imposed harsh sentences on them pour encourager les autres. The same thing has happened to the Whites who rioted in 2024 after that Black savagely murdered three White girls in Southport. They got harsh sentences for resisting non-White violence.

Britain is not a democracy: it is a Judeocracy. Cyril Salmon was one Judeocrat; Barbara Roche is another. She was the immigration minister who told the Guardian in 2001 that she “entered politics — she still emphasises this today — to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” As part of her combat, Roche opened Britain’s borders to the Third World during the Blair government. As the Daily Mail noted in 2016, among the Third-World newcomers were “more than 200,000” Somalis: “Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry.” But Roche struck a blow against xenophobia and “granted [them] ‘exceptional leave to remain’.”

Roche’s enrichers

Mohamed Iidow, who raped a White woman to death in 2021, seems to be one of Roche’s enrichers. He looks like a Somali and has a Somali surname. One day Barbara Roche will go on trial for committing war-crimes against British Whites. So will many other leftists. And I think that one of the witnesses for the prosecution should be a Jewish writer called Anne Applebaum. She’s recently condemned Donald Trump for “speaking like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini.” Trump is speaking the truth about non-White migrants, you see, and Applebaum doesn’t like the truth:

If you connect your opponents with disease, illness, and poisoned blood, if you dehumanize them as insects or animals, if you speak of squashing them or cleansing them as if they were pests or bacteria, then you can much more easily arrest them, deprive them of rights, exclude them, or even kill them. If they are parasites, they aren’t human. If they are vermin, they don’t get to enjoy freedom of speech, or freedoms of any kind. And if you squash them, you won’t be held accountable. (“Trump Is Speaking Like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini,” The Atlantic, 18th October 2024)

The Jew Anne Applebaum doesn’t like Trump speaking the truth about the harm done by non-White migrants. She’s very concerned about rhetoric “connect[ing] your opponents with disease” in order to justify harm against them. That’s why she will make an excellent witness against the leftists responsible for an advert that was running on British television while Mohamed Iidow was on trial for raping a White woman to death. The advert shows a Black man snacking on nuts at a party. He doesn’t know that a small and malevolent-looking blonde White girl has been sucking chocolate off the nuts before he eats them. The blonde girl has a cold and infects the Black man, who then has to visit a pharmacist where a Black woman gives him medicine to cure his White-imposed disease. The advert pretends to be light-hearted, but the message is clear: “Innocent Blacks bless Britain, disease-ridden Whites harm Britain!”

An innocent Black man is infected by an ignoble blonde White

Just imagine if the races had been reversed in that advert and a blond man had been infected by a malevolent-looking Black child before visiting a pharmacist where a blonde woman gave him medicine to cure a Black-imposed disease. Leftists would have shrieked in outrage, the advert would have been vanished from the screen, and everyone responsible for it would have been hunted down, demonized and disemployed. Indeed, it’s entirely possible that those responsible would have been prosecuted for “inciting racial hatred.”

But an advert about Blacks harming Whites would never appear in the current West, because leftists control advertising and leftism loves lies. The truth is that Blacks blight Britain and every other White nation that permits them residence. Leftists not only censor that truth: they invert it and promote the lie that Blacks bless Britain. Sooner or later, leftists will answer for that lie.

Jews Are Rewarding Black Criminality

/4 Comments/in , , /by

“Seeking justice for these serious offenses was complicated by violations to the Racial Justice Act.”
D.A. Diana Becton

 “I don’t give a shit about no racist shit! What about my son?” Thus spoke Brandi Griffin, the mother of Arnold Marcel Hawkins, 22, who was shot dead on March 9, 2021, in what police allege was a gang-related drive-by shooting in Contra Costa, California. Hawkins was Black, as were the four defendants charged with his murder — Keyshawn McGee, Trent Allen, Eric Windom and Terryonn Pugh. The shooting, during which over 40 shots were fired from one vehicle into another, was allegedly part of a long-running feud between two East Bay gangs, and the arrests of the men were heralded by East Bay law enforcement as a meaningful step toward reducing gun and gang violence in the area. The four were part of the arrests of 48 gang members and associates during a complex, six-month investigation involving 24 agencies, for murder, attempted murder and illegal guns. The effort removed 40 firearms, including 15 “ghost guns” off the streets and over $100,000 in cash. Evidence was overwhelming and everything about the case seemed straightforward. That is, until California’s new Racial Justice Act and accusations of institutional racism became the centerpiece of the entire investigation, prompting the outburst that opens this essay.

The Racial Justice Act 2020

On February 5, Judge David Goldstein, a former public defender and past chair of the Diversity/Bench-Bar Outreach committee, removed all gang enhancements that could have resulted in life without parole sentences for the four men charged with the murder on the basis that the case was tainted by racism.  It was the second time Goldstein ruled that anti-Black bias had shaped elements of the case, and by the time it was concluded, he’d also removed special circumstance allegations and firearm enhancements. Facing radically reduced sentences and charges, all four defendants quickly made no contest to the charges and the case was brought to a sudden end. Goldstein’s actions, which follow the introduction of California’s Racial Justice Act, essentially set a precedent for a two-tiered justice system in which non-Whites can have aggravating factors in their criminal behavior, often the defining factor of the crime itself (e.g. gang motivation), ignored in court. The very concept of justice is therefore made subservient to a new need to protect non-White criminals and, in the longer term, to ensure they spend less time behind bars.

The idea for a Racial Justice Act was first introduced in 2019 by California state assembly member Marc Levine, former Chairman of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus and current Regional Director of ADL Central Pacific. In 2015, Levine already exhibited his Jewish activist credentials when he contributed to a legislative package titled “Immigrants Shape California.” He drafted legislation providing $3 million in legal aid for undocumented immigrants, and publicly announced “immigrants are welcome and we will do everything we can to help them achieve legal status.” In 2019, with “AB 1798, the California Racial Justice Act,” Levine proposed that death penalty sentences on non-White criminals be postponed until it was determined “if race resulted in a sentence of capital punishment.” Levine’s bill failed, but he re-emerged as co-author of a more expansive proposal a year later, along with Jewish assembly members Scott Weiner and Laura Friedman, and several non-White assembly members.

Marc Levine

The new bill, which was later signed into law as the Racial Justice Act 2020, marked a radical departure from legal precedent set by McClesky vs Kemp (1986), in which it was established that in order to challenge a charge or conviction, a defendant must “prove that the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose” and cannot for example rely solely on statistical studies that he alleges show “institutional racism” or discrimination more broadly. In 1978, Warren McCleskey, a Black man, was convicted of armed robbery and murder in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. Following the jury’s recommendation, the court sentenced McCleskey to death. His appeal eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. His primary claim was that “the Georgia capital sentencing process is administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” To support his claim, McCleskey offered a statistical study that showed racial disparities in death penalty sentencing in Georgia (but without any qualitative evidence that may have shown the presence of more aggravating factors in the murders committed by Blacks).

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts and rejected his claim, holding that a criminal defendant alleging an equal protection violation must not only prove there was purposeful discrimination, but that the purposeful discrimination had a discriminatory effect on him. The Court found that McCleskey offered “no evidence specific to his own case that would support an inference that racial considerations played a part in his sentence.” This decision effectively denied a defendant’s ability to use statistical evidence of racial disparities related to but not directly involving their case to establish an equal protection violation. The decision in McClesky vs Kemp, for example, meant that although statistical evidence could show Blacks to be incarcerated for gang violence at a higher rate than Whites, this was irrelevant to whether the individual in a given case was a gang member and certainly not grounds for a more lenient sentence.

One of the most prominent legal critics of McClesky vs Kemp is Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and founding member of the Progressive Jewish Alliance. Chemerinsky, who provided much of the intellectual basis for the revision of McClesky, has accused the Supreme Court of a “dismal record on issues of race throughout American history. The Court enforced the institution of slavery, upheld “separate but equal,” and consistently failed to deal with systemic racism and racial inequalities.” Chemerinsky alleged that McClesky set an almost impossible evidential standard for a defendant to prove racism was involved in his prosecution, and called for a much wider basis for challenging a case in which racism “may” have played a part.

Erwin Chemerinsky

Borrowing from the initial activism of Marc Levine, and incorporating the critique devised by Erwin Chemerinsky, the Racial Justice Act 2020, allowed racial data, and related concepts of “institutional racism” and unconscious bias, to be brought into the criminal justice arena. As one commentary describes it, the RJA “dramatically expand the ways a defendant can show discrimination. Under the RJA, defendants in California no longer need to prove intentional discrimination in their case to bring a claim of racial bias, as McCleskey required. Instead, defendants can now establish racial bias by relying on statistical data showing racial disparities in the charging, conviction, or sentencing process of other defendants who share their race.”

It allows judges to discount any evidence if it appears to be based on racial bias. In Contra Costa, David Goldstein said there was a “significant statistical disparity,” which shows “gang charges are more often filed against Black people.” He said he used data from prosecutors and defense attorneys “largely agreed upon that showed that Black people were from six to eight percent more likely to be charged with ‘special circumstance gang enhancements’ than people who weren’t Black. Those enhancements, alleging gang membership and added on top of the underlying criminal charges at issue in a case, can greatly increase the sentence a defendant receives.” As well as removing these enhancements in this particular case, Goldstein said his decision clears the way for “any Black person who has faced or is facing those charges in Contra Costa over the past decade to challenge them in court.” In other words, every convicted Black gang criminal in the area can now apply to have his sentence radically reduced. In fact, $2 million has been granted by the legislature to fund precisely that course of action for any non-White criminal who wishes to allege that he was the victim of a racist legal system.

Judge David Goldstein 

Goldstein’s actions, and the case in general, are now seen as a primer for what will soon unfold across the entire criminal justice system in California. Several other cases involving the RJA are already pending. For example, in 2022, a San Diego police officer stopped Tommy Bonds III, a Black man, and cited him for misdemeanor possession of a concealed weapon. In San Diego Superior Court, Bonds invoked the RJA, believing he was pulled over because of his race. However, the judge ruled that the officer did not show bias in his interaction with Bonds. Bonds appealed, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the Superior Court judge “fail(ed) to address the abundant evidence suggesting that the traffic stop may have been the product of unintended racial bias.” Although the officer had previously testified that he did not see the driver’s race before deciding to stop him, he did say that “the person was wearing a hooded sweatshirt with the hood up.” The appeals court said “it was not necessary that [the officer] had verified the occupants were Black before he stopped their vehicle, because he may well have subconsciously assumed they were based on their clothing, their presence in the neighborhood, or other subtle factors.” This extremely broad level of evidential consideration is precisely in line with that advocated by Chemerinsky as a ‘corrective’ to McClesky vs Kemp.

One of the major sponsors and lobbyists for the Act was the League of Women Voters of California, the prominent member in relation to the RJA being its Jewish Deputy Director, Dora Rose. Rose greeted the passing of the RJA by saying

The bottom line is that we can’t keep having trials with all white juries. We can’t continue to allow racially coded language that triggers bias in the courtroom. And we must stop the systemically disproportionate arrest and sentencing that is tearing up our Black communities. The Racial Justice Act will help us accomplish those ends.

Dora Rose 

Unequal Justice for Victims and Discrimination Against Whites

Ironically, while the Racial Justice Act is being touted as a major leap forward for the Black population, it is likely to compound its misery. This is more than abundant in the blunt but apt protest from the mother of Arnold Marcel Hawkins: “I don’t give a shit about no racist shit! What about my son?” What we are really seeing play out here is not a crusade on behalf of innocent Blacks, but a crusade by Jews and a motley of non-White politico-intellectuals in the service of diminishing White safety and achieving the further demoralization and decay of stable White societies. Ultimately, Blacks are unconcerned with contrived and, to them, often complex theories of institutional racism unless it appears to immediately benefit them in form of a lesser prison sentence or the granting of immediate material benefits. Like any mother, Brandi Griffin wants the four men who killed her son to go to prison for the longest possible term, even if I am certain that if she were the mother of one of the defendants she would most definitely “give a shit about the racist shit.” Blacks will be individualist opportunists in such scenarios, while the intellectual and political heavy lifting is done “on their behalf” by Jews who pose as their saviours.

Those looking at the statistical data with honesty reach the similar conclusions. Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has argued that the RJA “will produce unequal justice for victims as well as offenders.” MacDonald points out that racial disparities in incarceration reflect disparities in who is more likely to commit criminal offenses. Citing police department data, MacDonald said, “In Los Angeles, Blacks are 21 times as likely as Whites to commit a violent crime, 36 times as likely to commit a robbery, and 57 times as likely to commit a homicide.” She further argued that the RJA will have a disproportionate impact on Black victims, stating that the victims and witnesses who contribute to police department data are “themselves disproportionately Black . . . [and] are 17 times as likely to be homicide victims as Whites.” One of the primary impacts of the RJA will therefore be that a lot of Black victims will not see the justice they expect to be served. Dora Rose claims she is preventing the “tearing up of our Black communities,” but that’s exactly what she is going to worsen — for Blacks and everyone around them. Blacks are being fed a fantasy by Jewish intellectuals that their liberation will be found in the reduction of incarcerations, but as one legal commentator has argued:

The Reparations Task Force in California, a state that fought on the side of the Union in the Civil War and in which no person lives today who was either slave or master when the practice was still legal in parts of the U.S., has also recommended that the state shutter 10 prisons in five years, repurposing the facilities to benefit African Americans. But it’s clear that California’s prisons do benefit its Black citizens – by protecting them and all the state’s residents from violent criminals. Black Americans number just under 14% of the population but suffered 53% of homicides in 2020, up 32% from the year before the advent of defund-the-police, Black Lives Matter, and widespread urban unrest – with 2,457 more murder victims compared to the year before. In a typical year, 9 in 10 people who murder a Black American are themselves Black, meaning going even easier on violent felons in California will most likely end up resulting in more dead Black Californians.

Whites will be massively disadvantaged under the new system. Chuck DeVore, the Chief National Initiatives Officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, has argued the RJA gives preferential treatment to individuals of certain races and “extending preferential treatment to a criminal based on their race wrongly punishes individuals not benefiting from that leniency.” Black and Latino defendants, because their groups are disproportionately prosecuted and incarcerated, may be able to bring claims under the RJA that would be unavailable to White defendants. As a thought experiment, we could assume a Black and White person who together commit the same crime, and are charged exactly the same—both with more serious offenses than others who commit a similar crime. Under the RJA, the Black defendant may be able to use statistical data to argue that the prosecution more frequently sought these types of convictions against other Black defendants, while that argument might be unavailable for the White defendant if the same disparity doesn’t exist for other White defendants. In this scenario, although the Black defendant would be entitled to remedies under the RJA, the White defendant would not—even though they were both charged with the same crime. In other words, Black criminals will benefit from the fact their race commits disproportionately more crimes — Black criminality is thus rewarded, at the expense of victims of all ethnic backgrounds.

As well as being an ethical disaster, the Racial Justice Act will be a drain on taxpayers and public finance. Millions of dollars have already been allocated to reassessing historical cases for hints of racism. More serious, however, will be the future cost. An entire industry will essentially be built upon the probes and investigations that will now take place every time an RJA protest is lodged at the outset of a criminal case. Everything from text messages sent between police officers, to passing comments by prosecutors, will be assessed and reassessed to see if they in any way constitute something that could vaguely be construed as racial. As seen above, every mention of a hooded sweatshirt or other “subtle factors” will now be brought into play to ensure that even the most appalling and obvious murderers are not seen through a racial lens. Lisa Romo, an attorney at the Office of the State Public Defender, complained, “There’s not enough money; we have defenders who are overwhelmed and not enough staff to process all the requests coming in. We desperately need more resources. The legislature just appropriated $2 million just for retroactive RJA claims, which is appreciated, but that’s just a drop in the bucket.”

Conclusion

Chuck DeVore points out at the conclusion of his remarks on the RJA that “when logic and reason die, people soon after get robbed, raped and murdered.” These are certain outcomes, along with the death of justice and the bankrupting of the public purse at the behest of stunning and brave “racial allies” like Levine, Friedman, Weiner, Goldstein, Chemerinsky, Rose and so many others working behind the scenes on initiatives like the RJA in California and beyond.

 

THE MEDIA GUIDE TO SHOOTING JOGGERS

/4 Comments/in , , /by
THE MEDIA GUIDE TO SHOOTING JOGGERS

I did not think I could hate The New York Times more.

But thanks to Gregory Mantell’s amazing new book, “Special Victim Status, The Era of Woke Journalism,” I do! Mantell’s carefully researched book provides hundreds of new facts about the press’s fanatical propaganda on race.

Coincidentally, this week is the four-year anniversary of George Floyd’s death, and I think the traditional gift is paper. You know what would make a great anniversary gift?  This book.

Nothing shocked me more than Chapter 3 on the Ahmaud Arbery case.

If you follow the news, you know that Arbery was the innocent Black jogger chased down by three racist rednecks in Georgia and shot dead merely for “jogging while black.”

Arbery’s killers, Travis and Gregory McMichael, were convicted in about six minutes and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Plus 20 years, just to be safe. Eight months later, they got bonus life sentences in separate federal hate crimes prosecutions. A neighbor, William “Roddie” Bryan Jr., who happened to be there, got 35 years (state) plus life (federal).

Quite a turnabout for a case that three prosecutors refused to take after concluding there was no crime. But our media can perform miracles!

Mantell contrasts the media’s treatment of Arbery’s killing with their take on the murder of Christopher Lane, a White jogger shot and killed by a Black man in Oklahoma.

Arbery: RACIST HATE CRIME, COMMITTED BY HATEFUL RACISTS!

Lane:

— “the simplest of motives — boredom.” — The Washington Post

— “a tale about teenagers from broken families, lives complicated by drugs and poverty, who seemed idle.” — The New York Times

The facts of the Lane shooting are pretty simple:

Lane, a 22-year-old Australian studying at East Central University in Oklahoma on a baseball scholarship, went for an afternoon run on Aug. 16, 2013, in a town that’s 2.5% black, and was shot in the back by a black teen, Chancey Luna, driving by in a car with two other boys. Lane died, blood gushing from his mouth, before the ambulance arrived.

Days earlier, one of the teens charged with Lane’s murder tweeted, “With my n*ggas when it’s time to start taken life’s.”

The facts of Arbery’s shooting are also simple, only made complicated by the media’s lies.

Mantell writes:

“The McMichaels said they attempted to make a citizen’s arrest to take Arbery into custody [after catching him again trespassing in neighbor Larry English’s house late at night]. Bryan, who followed behind the McMichaels in his own truck, caught part of the incident on his cellphone camera. In the video, Arbery punched Travis, and they fought over the gun; during the struggle, Travis shot and killed Arbery.”

But “from the start, both the Times and the Post pushed the false narrative by Arbery’s family and attorney (who were not present during the incident) that Arbery had simply been out jogging through the neighborhood …”

Indeed, a Times reporter wrote that “even if Arbery had been trespassing in the house, it doesn’t justify his shooting.” (Say, can we get Malachy Browne to write an article on Officer Michael Byrd’s deadly shooting of Ashli Babbitt for trespassing at the Capitol on Jan. 6?)

Mantell notes a few omissions from the Times’ and Washington Post’s “jogging while black” accounts:

— “Convenience store employees reported Arbery was known as ‘the jogger’ because he would stretch and pretend to warm up outside the store and then run in and out quickly, stealing stuff. … The employees said they tried to have police give the man a criminal trespass warning, but he always ran off before they could.”

— “On August 21, 2018, according to Burke County witness reports and Burke County Sheriff bodycam video, a Black woman who was married to a sheriff deputy called for help after seeing Arbery in her backyard and looking in her car windows. Sheriff deputies also later mentioned he was trying to steal a dog from the same house … When officers arrived to give Arbery a warning about criminal trespassing, Arbery claimed he had been out jogging and threatened to ‘whoop the officer’s ass.’”

— “On October 23, 2018, a Black woman called Burke County Sheriff deputies when she saw Arbery go into a vacant mobile home across from her house … When the sheriff arrived, Arbery ran away from deputies and falsely claimed he had been out jogging.”

— “Arbery was arrested and charged with ‘misdemeanor obstruction for running when given lawful commands to stop.’”

Following his pattern, before “jogging” the night he was shot, Arbery had apparently been burgling English’s house.

But “both the Times and the Post (and other media) continued to falsely report claims that nothing had ever been taken from English’s house in which Arbery had been caught on video trespassing on multiple occasions.”

In fact, Mantell says, “the Post and the Times knew about several 911 calls made in October and November 2019 which directly contradicted those claims … In one [of several calls] English told the dispatcher, ‘we had some stuff stolen from there’ in the last incident … The first time they stole everything out of the boat ‘that wasn’t tied down.’ The next night, November 18, 2019, English called 911 again, reporting that the same black guy who was there about a week or a week and a half ago was back.”

The media simply treated as gospel English’s post-hoc, not-under-oath, scared-stiff statement that nothing had been stolen. More likely, English noticed what had happened to the Atlanta Wendy’s where police had shot a black man in the parking lot in June 2020.  (Reuters: “Protesters burn down Wendy’s in Atlanta after police shooting.”)

Tellingly, English “admitted in court he had been greatly troubled by death threats he received.”

No matter. The only relevant fact to the media was this:

“[T]he neighbor Bryan accused Travis McMichael of calling Arbery a ‘fucking n*gger’ after killing him — and when racist messages were found on Travis’ cellphone — both papers devoted breathless headlines and stories to the news. This was reported as absolute proof that the killing of Arbery was racially motivated.”

But, oddly, the media had zero interest in the racist tweets posted by James Edwards, one of the Black teens involved in Lane’s shooting, such as:

“90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM.”

“Ayeee I knocced out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!:) lol sh*t ima keep sleepin sh*t!#ayeeee.” (“Wood” is a racial epithet for a white person.)

Another discrepancy noted by Mantell:

“[W]hile the Times pointed out that Lane’s killer had white friends, it didn’t worry about whether the McMichaels or Bryan had any black friends, though Travis McMichael had risked his own life years earlier to save a black man from drowning (according to a later “48 Hours” report).”

Yeah, “later” — after the media’s propaganda campaign had successfully led to multiple life sentences.

There’s much, much more in this chapter alone, but I’ll end with one more proof of what Mantell means by “special victim status”:

“As of January 15, 2023, Arbery was mentioned in 773 articles in the Post and 955 in the Times. … [O]n May 8, 2020 … the Times ran 14 articles and the Post ran 13 articles about Arbery on that single day. That was more coverage than the Times and the Post gave to Lane’s killing in two years — from his murder to the sentencing of his killers.”

[NOTE: THE AUTHOR, GREG MANTELL WILL BE INTERVIEWED ON MY SUBSTACK ON JUNE 1!]

COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER