Jenab's Fireside Chats

[sticky post]Bill Cosby, alleged serial rapist.
Total number of accusers so far: 47

At least 39 woman recently have accused Bill Cosby of sexually assaulting them, and 8 more have accused him of sexual harassment, unwanted sexual advances, or other inappropriate conduct. Here's the list, as I have it so far, in approximate chronological order of when the alleged assaults occurred:

1. Kristina Ruehli (white, age 22 at the time, 1965)
2. Sunni Wells (white, age 17 at the time, mid-1960s)
3. Joan Tarshis (white, age 19 at the time, 1969)
4. Cindra Ladd (white, age 21 at the time, 1969)
5. Linda Brown (white, age 21 at the time, 1969)
6. Linda Joy Traitz (white, age 19 at the time, 1970)
7. Victoria Valentino (white, age 25 at the time, 1970)
8. Autumn Burns (white, 20 years old at the time, 1970)
9. Louisa Moritz (white, age 25 at the time, 1971)
10. Donna Motsinger (white, age 30 at the time, 1971)
11. Kathleen McKee (white, age ~22 at the time, ~1971)
12. Shawn Byers-Brown (white, age 21 at the time, 1973)
13. Judy Huth (white, age 15 at the time, 1974)
14. Tamara Lucier-Green (white or Jewish, 1975)
15. Margie Shapiro (white or Jewish, 1975)
16. Marcella Tate (white, 27 years old at the time, 1975)
17. Therese Serignese (white, age 19 at the time, 1976)
18. Patricia (last name unknown, 1978 and again in 1980)
19. P.J. Masten (white, age 29 at the time, 1979)
20. Joyce Emmons (white, aprox age 37 at the time, 1979 or 1980)
21. Linda Kirkpatrick (white, age 25 at the time, 1981)
22. Janice Dickinson (white, age 27 at the time, 1982)
23. Janice Baker Kinney (white, 24 years old at the time, 1982)
24. Lynn Neal (white, in her 20s at the time, 1982 or 1983)
25. Renita Chaney Hill (mixed race, ages 15-19 at the time, 1982-1986)
26. Beth Ferrier (white, age 25 at the time, 1984)
27. Heidi Thomas (white, 24 years old at the time, 1984)
28. Barbara Bowman (white, age 17 at the time, 1985)
29. Sammy Mays (white, ~1985)
30. Chelan [last name unknown] (white, age 17 at the time, 1986)
31. Lisa Jones (white or mixed, age 17 at the time, 1986)
32. Jewell Allison (black, in her 20s at the time, late 1980s)
33. Jennifer K. "Kaya" Thompson (black, 17 at the time, 1988)
34. Lise-Lotte Lublin (black, age 23 at the time, 1989)
35. Lili Bernard (black, ~1991)
36. Angela Leslie (black, age 30 at the time, 1992)
37. "Kacey" (white, 1996).
38. Lachele Covington (black, age 20 at the time, 2000)
39. Andrea Constand (white, age 31 at the time, 2004)

Statistics for Bill Cosby's alleged sexual assault victims.
RACE. White 28. Black 6. Other, Mixed, or Uncertain 5.
AGE at first victimization. N=33, x̄=22.76, σ=5.12
Most common ages of victims in descending order: 17,25,(19,21),24,(15,20,22,27,30)
Statistics for Bill Cosby's alleged victims at all levels of abuse.
RACE. White 30. Black 8. Other, Mixed, or Uncertain 7.
AGE at first victimization. N=39, x̄=22.95, σ=5.43
Most common ages of victims in descending order: (17,19),(21,25),24,(15,20,22,27,30)

Bill Cosby has even more women accusing him of rape than Bill Clinton does. [Former US President Bill Clinton (D) had three women accuse him of rape: Juanita Broaddrick, Eileen Wellstone, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen. Five more women accused him of sexual assault other than rape. And at least three other women have accused Clinton of unwelcome sexual advances.]

Carla Ferrigno (white), presently the wife of actor Lou Ferrigno, says that Bill Cosby used a game of pool as a pretext to get her alone, whereupon he grabbed her forcefully and roughly kissed her. She said that he tried to persuade her to have a drink, but she declined. She was 19 at the time, which was in the year 1967.

• Another woman, actress Michelle Hurd (black) said that Bill Cosby used "acting lessons" as an excuse to fondle her body and attempted to lure her to his apartment, but, fortunately for her, she suspected his intentions and refused to go. This happened about 2000, when Hurd would have been about age 34.

• Former Playboy model Sarita Butterfield (mixed race) asserts that Bill Cosby cornered her at a Christmas party on 24 December 1974 (when she was 19 or 20) and grabbed at her breasts. Butterfield said that Cosby tried it again in 1977.

• Another woman, Helen Hayes (white, not the deceased actress) said that Bill Cosby stalked her at a celebrity tennis tournament in Pebble Beach, California, in 1973 and at a restaurant he reached around from behind her and grabbed her breast.

• Actress and model Beverly Johnson (black) said that Bill Cosby lured her to his home about 1985 (when she would have been about 33 years old) on a pretext of hearing her read the lines of a minor character in The Cosby Show. Once there, Cosby brewed some cappuccino and gave her a cup of it. Because she was very familiar with spiked drinks, she said that she noticed that her beverage had been drugged by the second sip. She started feeling woozy, but she did not become unconscious. She said that she prevented Cosby from raping her by making him angry enough, with verbal abuse, to throw her out of his home.

• Model Chloe Goins (white) said that Bill Cosby gave her a drugged drink at the Playboy Mansion in 2008, when she was 18 years old. She said that Cosby didn't have time to rape her while she was passed out because he woke her up by sucking on her toes.

• Another woman, Lisa [last name unknown] (black) said that Bill Cosby gave her a drugged drink, which she drank and passed out. She says that she doesn't know what happened after that. She was 21 at the time, which was in 1988.

* Actress Helen Gumpel accused Bill Cobsy of sexually harassing her in the late 1980s, claiming that Cosby invited her to his dressing room on the set of the Cosby Show, where he gave her a drink, told her to sit on a couch, and then stood with his crotch uncomfortably close to her face. After she refused to give him sexual favors, she said, Cosby arranged to terminate her career.

And all this time, you thought that Bill Cosby was the Nice Black Man, the exception, who proved that you can't judge a book by its cover. I can't remember how many times someone told me, after I'd criticized the black race in general for its vulgarity and for its violence, "You can't judge a whole race! Look at Bill Cosby — such a nice black man is he."

It doesn't look as if Bill Cosby will be cited in that particular way anymore. Of course, some of the accusations might not be true. I admit that I am skeptical about the accounts of some of the women. But the others, I think, probably aren't lying. As time goes by, additional women will be "coming forward" with embellished tales in which rude conduct by Bill Cosby is represented as sexual assault. That's what happens to people who lose status rapidly: enemies proliferate exponentially and accusations avalanche. (You can see that same behavioral trend in other primate species.) Still, I do think that many of the accusers tell a truthful tale and that Cosby probably raped some of the women.

This is how Cosby's Nice-Guy image was built up over the years.

Bill Cosby is starting to sound like an exceptionally nasty fellow. How can one guy rape so many women for so many years and get away with it? Well, for one thing, he's a prominent black man, and so the controlled media were on his side. But now it's possible that the Jews figure that they can exploit Bill Cosby and rake in profits from his undoing. Or else maybe the pressure from the women whom Cosby abused just got to the point where the Jews couldn't keep the lid on it anymore.

I'm inclined to think the latter because the Jewish moguls of network television are bringing forth ostensible "legal experts" to assure the television audience that it doesn't matter whether Bill Cosby committed the rapes, or not, because the statute of limitations has expired on them. However, this is not necessarily true. Those "legal experts" had better double check. Some crimes are not covered by any statute of limitations.

Wyoming, for example, has no statute of limitations for any kind of sexual assault. If Bill Cosby has ever committed rape or other sexual assault within Wyoming, then he can still be prosecuted.

In some states, Class A Felony Rape has no statute of limitations. Indiana is one of those states, and drug-facilitated rape is defined by Indiana as Class A Felony Rape. If Bill Cosby has ever used drugs to enable him to rape a woman in Indiana, he can still be prosecuted 30, 40, or even 50 years later.

These states have no statute of limitations (whatsoever) for rape or sexual assault: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming.

These states have no statute of limitations for Class A Felony Rape or First Degree Rape: Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin.

That makes 27 states in which Bill Cosby could still be prosecuted for rapes he committed "long ago," and it is obvious that Laurie Levenson (Jew) was either lying to us on television, or else she isn't really a "legal expert" as NBC News said she was.

So the idea that any old rapes that Bill Cosby might have perpetrated are today non-prosecutable is not something to be assumed. It depends on what laws were in effect in the states in which the offenses occurred. The media's spotlighting of legal experts who say otherwise suggests that their Jewish bosses may be trying to do their Borg "Resistance Is Futile" thing on American minds again.

On the other hand, TV Guide News has published "Why No One Should Be Surprised By the Bill Cosby Rape Allegations: A Timeline of His Bad Behavior."

But, look: Bill Cosby's trail-of-slime goes back all the way to 1965. That was before any of us became familiar with him as Mr. Nice. So throughout all of the time we were watching Bill Cosby on TV, voicing Fat Albert and his animated friends, making guest appearances on Sesame Street, and portraying the amiable Dr. Huxtable, he was allegedly raping unconscious or intimidated women behind closed doors.

I think that we're likely to see a repeat of the O.J. Simpson Effect, in which someone's fame, in combination with racial politics, circumvents justice.

It occurs to me that another famous black man, with a glorious public image, also had a very sordid private life of boozing, playing with prostitutes, stealing money, plagiarizing other people's speeches and written work, and consorting with communists during the Cold War. His name was Michael King, but you probably know him as Martin Luther King, Jr.

I happened to wander on to Sesame Street one evening about a week ago. It was about a half hour before sunset, after the buses had taken the kids away and the Children's Television Workshop team had gone home. The muppets had gathered in front of the building where Gordon and Maria had their apartments back in the day to discuss whether Mr. Cosby had any hope of continuing his career.

All of them, including Elmo, Miss Piggy, and the Snuffleupagus, were there. Since there weren't any children (or employers) around, they felt free to discuss the adult-themed subjects that concerned them. They were pretty bummed out over the fact that someone who had seemed to be a friend of theirs had been accused of terrible crimes. As I stood on the corner by the street sign, I happened to hear some of their conversation.

Count Von Count: Did anybody count the number of women who have accused him? No? Then I shall do so. One! Carla Ferrigno! Two! Joan Tarshis! Three! Linda Joy Traitz! Four! Victoria Valentin—

Bert: Hey, Count, can we do that later?

Ernie: He missed Kristina Ruehli anyway.

Kermit: Mm-hm. But so did SLATE for a while.

Cookie Monster: Maybe somebody will give Bill Cosby a part in a movie about Uncle Ream-us. Ha ha ha. Hoo boy.

Grover: I don't think it would be an A movie, nor a B movie, either.

Big Bird: Probably one of the letters further down the alphabet would have to be used.

Oscar (popping up out of his trash can): It happened on one of dem rape-it-dee-doo-dah days. Now that's the kinda day when you can't open your mouth without Bill Cosby trying to put some kinda drug into it.

All together (singing): ♫♩ Rape uh dee doo dah, rape uh dee ayy. My oh my what a rape-it-dee day. Quaaludes and laud'num comin' my way... ♬♪

While the others sang the song, Oscar noticed me standing there between the streetlights. He turned toward me and said in a confidential tone of voice: "I bet the Scottsboro boys were guilty as sin, too. Heh. Heh." And down into the trash can he went slamming the lid closed behind him, while the muppets sang "Wonderful feeling! Wonderful day!"

After the song was finished, a Cute Little Girl Muppet pushed her way to the front of the crowd. Everyone else became very quiet.

Cute Little Girl Muppet: What does 'rape' mean?

All the other muppets did a horrified inhaling GASP.

Janice, the female musician muppet from The Muppet Show ran up and grabbed the Cute Little Girl Muppet.

Janice: Listen, young lady! What are you doing out of bed? It's way past your bed time, and you have to go to school tomorrow.

Cute Little Girl Muppet: But it's only five thirty... (voice trails off as Janice hauls the Cute Little Girl Muppet away).

The remaining muppets muttered in an uncomfortable fashion.

Miss Piggy: What is she doing here?

Bert: She got out of bed to check us out.

Ernie: We were singing kind of loudly.

Miss Piggy: NO! I mean Janice! Not her daughter.

Kermit: I remember her telling me, back in LA, about going to visit relatives on the east coast. I didn't know they lived here though.

Cookie Monster: But.. But did you notice that the little girl did not ask what are Quaaludes and laudanum?

Cookie Monster stares over his furry shoulder in the direction Janice had gone.

It was starting to get dark, so I turned and began walking back toward my car.

Part 2. Religious shenanigans among black Africans.

I considered blurring or blocking out the women's butts, but in the end I decided to leave the picture alone. Whereas you might regard what these people are doing as objectionable, you do no wrong in striving to have a complete and accurate understanding of events. Just be sure that you don't join the sinners in their sinning. On the assumption that you are as mature and as resilient as I am, then, have a look at some Christian-style TNB, below.

A black blessing

The average IQ of black Africans is only 70. And it shows. A black preacher convinced himself that he was serving God by gratifying his own lust. And a big bunch of black women were dumb enough to think that their preacher's intentions, as he kissed and nuzzled their labia and their anuses, were holy ones.

Someone at Facebook, after viewing the image, commented on the size of the buttocks of the black women. I've seen (early, pre-Boas) anthropological photographs of African women whose buttocks were so far extended that their rearmost point was about two feet behind the smalls of their backs. The scientific term for this anatomical oddity is steatopygia.

The evolutionary rationale for this peculiar deposition of body fat is likely that it is used as an emergency source of metabolic energy during times of severe food shortage. Other races, having larger brains and hence a better ability to foresee bad times, adopted a cultural practice of exosomatic preparation: cellars, cold pantries, preserved foods, and so on. The big butt wasn't needed anymore, so it eventually went away. As an ancillary benefit, the women of the non-African races are able to clean themselves better after a visit to the restroom, and they don't smell as bad down there.

Steatopygia is normal among many African peoples and is often accompanied, in females, by an extreme elongation of the labia minorae, which have been observed to hang down from the vulva by as much as four inches. (I've heard rumors of six-inch hangers.) They pee and menstruate through this length of tissue. By contrast, non-African women are much tidier and cleaner in their private parts.

Part 3. The "other" Ferguson MO police officer.

In Ferguson, Missouri, a white police officer named Darren Wilson waits to learn whether a grand jury will indict him for murder because he used his service weapon to defend himself from a violent attack by a high-on-drugs black thief named Michael Brown.

You knew that, of course. But here's something that you might not have heard.

At this same time, a black police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, has been criminally charged with corruption and sexual assault on a pregnant woman who was in his custody. His name is Jeris Hayden.

Jeris Hayden

The then 3-months-pregnant woman, who is called J.W. in court records, had been arrested for driving with an expired license tag and for giving a false name. Jeris Hayden had offered her a deal in which he would let her go free from jail in exchange for sex. She tried to decline the deal, so he raped her. Then he took her out of jail and told her to get lost. J.W. is suing the city for what amounts to pain-and-suffering plus various manifestations of post traumatic stress disorder.

Jaris Hayden was arrested and charged with corruption, sexual contact with a prisoner, and abetting an escape. For all these felonies, he was let out of jail after paying only $10,000 bail.

The criminal charges against Jaris Hayden do not include rape. He is charged with:

1. Acceding to corruption
2. Sexual contact with an inmate x 2
3. Permitting escape

I think what we're looking at in these charges is the usual tendency of society to exculpate blacks insofar as is possible. Hence, we read "Acceding to corruption," which gives the impression that, instead of Hayden raping J.W., the sexual contacts were a trade of sex for freedom, and that it had been J.W.'s idea.

The false notion of consensuality is carried further by the pair of charges of "sexual contact with an inmate." This isn't rape. If the prosecutor had meant rape, then he would have said rape, and not "sexual contact."

Each of the four charges is a class D felony. Aggravated rape (e.g., rape aggravated by the fact that the perpetrator had official authority over the victim) is a class A felony. Class A felonies are usually punished by a prison sentence between 10 and 30 years. Class D felonies are punished by a prison sentence from 1 to 4 years.

Do you see the nigger in the woodpile now?

Furthermore, the woman's lawyer is being either opportunistic or sneaky, or both. He's trying to bring in the unrelated case of Officer Darren Wilson as a means of showing what a rotten city Ferguson is.

This is the kind of irrelevant tie-in that the Jewish organizations frequently do. For example, you have probably seen these words before: "Police learned that the suspect had read The Turner Diaries, the book that inspired Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Oklahoma City federal building."

Tim McVeigh had been a US combat engineer. Blowing up buildings during Operation Desert Storm was among the things that he used to do professionally. He would not need the inspiration of a fictional novel for this idea to occur to him. He would not need the instruction of a fictional novel to learn how to carry out such a bombing. Why do the Jews commonly link the Oklahoma City bombing to The Turner Diaries, and not to any other sample of war fiction that Tim McVeigh might have read? Because Dr. William Pierce wrote that particular book, and the Jews hated Dr. Pierce because Dr. Pierce frequently exposed their dirty schemes on his "American Dissident Voices" radio broadcast.

So I recognize the ruse, now that I'm seeing it again. The attorney for the raped pregnant woman (J.W.) is using his case to bring infamy to Officer Wilson and the City of Ferguson by alleging that the rape is a part of a continuing pattern of citizen abuse by its police officers, although in fact Darren Wilson's shooting of Michael Brown was an act of self-defense and does not lend itself to the perception of any such pattern.

The virtuous combination of chocolate ice cream and peach yogurt
Try it. With or without a split banana. It shouldn't be necessary to add chocolate syrup for extra chocolatiness, but beware of cheap chocolate ice creams that are brown-colored but essentially tasteless. You have to get the good chocolate ice cream to produce the harmonious resonance with the taste of the peach yogurt. Proceed as follows. Let the chocolate ice cream get creamy soft, but definitely not melted. Then dip some of it on a spoon and drag it through the peach yogurt. Eat it. Yum? You bet. Repeat until finished.

Part 2. The Bulk Composition of Pluto and Charon.
Reference: @ 51:56.

Alan Stern says that the New Horizons team had not been able to get a new mass estimate for Pluto. That isn't correct. They certainly did.

As New Horizons approached Pluto, it increased the precision in the measurement of the two quantities needed to calculate the mass by Kepler's laws: the sidereal period of the Pluto-Charon orbit and the separations of Pluto and Charon from their mutual barycenter. With that done, an improved estimate of the masses of Pluto and Charon became possible.

The subsequent precise measurement of their radii made possible improved estimates of their average densities, which allowed better estimates of the ice- and rock-fractions for each body.

The calculation goes like this. Let subscript 1 denote Pluto. Let subscript 2 denote Charon. d is the distance to the Pluto-Charon barycenter. P is the sidereal period. M is mass. R is radius.

d₁ = 2035 km
d₂ = 17536 km
P = 6.387230 days = 551856.7 sec
G = 6.67384e-11 m³ kg⁻¹ sec⁻²
M₁+M₂ = 4π²(d₁+d₂)³/(GP²) = 1.45603e22 kg
M₁ = (M₁+M₂) d₂ / (d₁+d₂) = 1.3046e22 kg
M₂ = (M₁+M₂) d₁ / (d₁+d₂) = 1.5140e21 kg
R₁ = 1186000 m
ρ₁ = 3M₁/(4πR₁³) = 1.867 g cm⁻³
R₂ = 603500 m
ρ₂ = 3M₁/(4πR₂³) = 1.644 g cm⁻³
b = density of rock = 3 g cm⁻³
a = density of ice = 1 g cm⁻³
fraction ice by volume = (b−ρ)/(b−a) = (3−ρ)/2
→ Pluto: 0.5665
→ Charon: 0.6778
fraction ice by mass = a(b/ρ − 1)/(b−a) = (3/ρ − 1)/2
→ Pluto: 0.3034
→ Charon: 0.4122

If that was done correctly, then Pluto probably has a rocky core with a 897.6 km radius, overlaid by an icy shell of 288.4 km thickness. And Charon has a rocky core with a 413.7 km radius, overlaid by an icy shell of 189.8 km thickness.

I kept the general form of the density calculation visible in case someone wants to adjust the values of a and b. Methane ice has a density of about 1.35 g cm⁻³ and nitrogen ice has a density of about 1.25 g cm⁻³ at Pluto temperatures. Water ice's density is about 0.94 g cm⁻³. Pick the mix of water, nitrogen, and methane ices that you think is the right one, figure its density, and assign that value to a.

Similarly, maybe you think there's a small metal core inside the rocky core, which would increase the value of b. (Earth's moon's average density is 3.34 g cm⁻³ because it has a metal inner core.)

Then refigure the fractions of ice for Pluto and for Charon by mass and by volume.

Part 3. On the Blacks and Their Lies.
Reference: Panic in Pittsburgh: Media Struggling to Ignore Black Mob Violence.

You can't imagine the nonsense that political correctness has some people believing. Or pretending to believe. I'll try to explain it clearly, difficult though it will be due to the sheer outrageousness of the aforesaid pretenses.

Blacks have always been a race distinguished, very conspicuously, by the violence of its members. You've heard the expression "chip on the shoulder"? Most blacks have chips on their shoulders. Blacks aren't a courageous race; they haven't produced their share of persons willing to defy long odds for a good cause. Instead, blacks are savages, always looking to attack someone who can't fight back, for an excuse to stomp on someone smaller than themselves, or to gang up on someone who is by himself.

That's why urban areas with a high population density and high black demographic percentages always, without exception, have higher rates for murder, rape, arson, assault, and robbery than anywhere else. Blacks are violent and vulgar by hereditary predilection, and no amount of ostensibly remedial socialism will ever change their basic nature.

But blacks don't like people noticing the worthlessness of their sadistic inner character, so they manufacture a torrent of lies to explain their violence in ways that make them seem blameless, or, indeed, seem to be victims of oppression.

In 2011, black leaders in Pittsburg PA came up with one of these self-serving, bogus "explanations" in which, they said, the reason blacks are so violent is that the media keep calling attention to episodes of black violence. The theory is that drawing attention to black crime causes more black crime to happen, "which draws more attention, which creates more crime. And so on until black crime is six, ten, 50, 100 times greater than white and Asian crime. Where it is today."

Mind, this works only with blacks. Calling attention to the crimes of other races doesn't seem to have this vicious cycle of positive feedback.

The civil rights laws versus the Freedom of Association
The people who are saying that an impartial application of the civil rights laws would not require a gay bake to bake a "God Hates Gays" cake are wrong. Gays don't get to set limits on the rights of other people to hold religious beliefs. They think that they do. But they do not.

It can be a religious belief for someone to think that God hates gays. The people who attend the Westboro Baptist Church probably do hold this particular belief. If a religious group with that religious belief asks a gay baker to bake a "God Hates Gays" cake, and the baker refuses because he holds contrary beliefs, then he is just as much liable to a legal action for redress, under the civil rights laws, as is a Christian baker who refuses to bake a cake saying "God Loves Gays."

The gays who say otherwise are spouting arrogant, politically motivated nonsense. If homosexuals can sue Christians for refusing to bake a cake that violates the Christians' beliefs, then so may Christians sue homosexuals for refusing to bake a cake that violates the homosexuals' beliefs. To interpret the civil rights laws in any other way would be to give one group more protection of the laws than the other group gets, and that would violate the "equal protection" clause in the 14th Amendment.

HOWEVER. There remains the question of whether the civil rights laws are bad laws in a general sense.

American government, as it was intended to work, is a government of limited powers, and one of the limitations is the First Amendment. That being so, the authority of our government to prevent discrimination is limited to the policies and practices of the government itself, to ensure that all citizens are equals before the law. The citizens themselves may discriminate all they want to, and the government has no constitutional authority to dictate contrarily. The government may not require that any person must treat all others equally. For that reason alone, the civil rights laws were laws made in error—namely, the error of a government exceeding its constitutional authority by making laws beyond the scope of that authority.

But there's more to be said along those lines of thinking. Not only does the government have no right to require or to forbid associations among citizens in disregard of their preferences, neither may it (constitutionally) lend its coercive powers to the predatory use of unscrupulous citizens who would abridge the freedom of association of their fellow citizens.

Let us suppose that I want to have sex with you, but you don't want to have sex with me. You have, or ought to have, the right to refuse. It doesn't matter what your reasons are. You don't have to tell me why not. You don't have to "explain yourself" to anybody at all. You are not liable to a legal action for redress on account of your choice to avoid the association that I wanted to have with you. If I do sue you, then the jury should laugh at me, and the judge should dismiss my lawsuit with prejudice and maybe fine me for filing a frivolous legal action.

Does the principle change when the association involves a business proposition instead of a sexual one? No. Why should your opening a business, i.e., initiating a relationship with other people so that you can gain money, differ in principle with initiating an intimate relationship with other people so that you can gain in another way? As well as I can judge, it doesn't.

If I want to hire you, but you don't want to work for me, then you can say no, and I must accept your choice whether I like it or not. Your reasons for not wanting to work for me don't matter. They may not be questioned. It is sufficient that you have made your choice of your own free will.

If I want to work for you (as your employee), then I may ask you for a job. I may submit an application. But I can't force you to hire me. You can refuse. It does not matter what your reasons are: they don't depend anyone else's approval. It is sufficient that you have made your choice of your own free will.

The freedom abrogated by the anti-discrimination parts of the civil rights laws is the freedom of association, by which no contract can exist without the free consent all the parties to it. The freedom of association is the same right whether its application is a business relationship or an intimate one. The establishment of either sort of relationship morally requires the free consent of all parties to it. No one may be coerced, whether by force, or by the fear of harm, or by the threat of legal penalty, into an unwanted relationship. If the law requires you to have sex with someone, it's still rape even though it has the color of law. If the law requires you to trade with someone, it's still extortion (or slavery) even though it has the color of law.

Remember that slavery was once legal. The reason it isn't legal now is that the law began to recognize the freedom of association for blacks.

And that is a further reason for why the civil rights laws are laws made in error: they violate the fundamental political rights of man.

Part 2. The Real Family: Man, Woman, Children.

We've all seen the rainbow colored Flag for Fags. The Moscow city branch of the parliamentary majority United Russia party has created a flag for straights, which they want to use it in their campaign in defense of traditional values against aggressive LGBT propaganda. I took their idea and produced a different version of the flag, keeping the Russian national colors and the Russian word Ηастоящаясемья, pronounced NAS-toh-ya-scha-ya-SEEM-ya, which means "A real family."

Straight Flag.png

Black Lies
Part 1. Invalid Generalizations in Black Revisionist History.

Quotes from "Aspects of the Family and Public Life of Antoine Dubuclet: Louisiana's Black State Treasurer, 1868-1878," by Charles Vincent, published in The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 66, No. 1, Spring, 1981.

"Until recently, Reconstruction scholarship has treated with much severity the black Reconstructionist. Black office holders, such as in Claude Bower's Tragic Era, have most often been seen as the cause, in large part, as well as the effect of a time of gross mismanagement, misrule, and moral qualifications always consistently demeaned."

Heh. Correctly so, for the most part. The Journal of Negro History is a black publication that will delve as much as it must into pseudo-scholarship in order to revise black history into something that isn't absurd and disgusting.

That black Reconstructionist-era state officers abused their powers and stole money isn't at all a surprise, since that's what we've found black politicians doing in our own times to an extent that surpassed similar misconduct by white officers by several orders of magnitude. This is true worldwide, not merely in the United States alone. Wherever you find blacks in charge, whether in Louisiana, or Haiti, or an African country (pick one), you find levels of corruption and vice so large as to be tragicomical: tragic if such malfeasance affects you, comical if you are at sufficient distance to laugh in ridicule from a position of safety.

"More current scholarship, however, has attempted to correct these unfortunate misconceptions."

Whitewash, Mr. Vincent. The proper term for most such exertions is whitewash.

"What follows — a brief review of the life and work of Antoine Dubuclet, a man of color highly praised for his work as State Treasurer not only by his own Republican Party, but by the Democratic opposition as well — is another endeavor in this very necessary task of revamping."

It only makes sense for someone attempting to create a "scholarly" work such as this one to scrutinize US history with as powerful a microscope as he can possibly get his hands hold of, and identify the finest example of black official rectitude as there is to be found, and use him as if he were the illustrative typical case, which of course he is not.

Nonetheless, the historical hoaxes perpetrated by Afrocentric scholars of later times shouldn't put a bad smell on any actual black historical personage who did manage to be honest in the conduct of a high public office. Even if he did own slaves.

Part 2. An Answer to Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer's "Open Letter to White Men in America"

My comments at 555 nanometers and in [brackets].


Dear White Men,



You are persons of privilege.

[We are not.

Since you think that we are, you should identify the source of those privileges. Who's privileging white people? Other than us, I mean. It isn't a privilege if we work and keep what we make. That's a right. It isn't a privilege if we earn, and then keep our earnings. That's a right, too.

Whites and non-whites should the same right and the same opportunity of doing things for themselves. And, to the extent that the rights are augmented by privileges, the favor is most definitely on the non-white side. Those non-white races are the ones privileged with official favor, with Affirmative Action, with welfare money, and with political correctness. The non-whites are persons of PRIVILEGE, the source of which are laws and governmental policies which, by right, should not exist.

The reason whites are still better off, despite not having the privileges that non-whites have, is that Whites are just better people.]


You didn't earn it.

[On the contrary. We did earn what we have. We still do. The non-white races are the races that get most of the benefits that they didn't earn. Such benefits are a privilege that require whites to labor, so that non-whites could enjoy.]


More than likely aren't yet prepared to either admit to it or lose it.

[Admitting to lies would make us liars like you. Why should we lose what we have earned? We already do lose (to the blacks) money that we have earned, but why shouldn't we act to redress the injustice of these robberies-under-color-of-law?]


This letter, written by one of you, is offered to invite you on a journey of insight, honesty, hard truth and just living.

[Your letter, whatever your race is, is pure deception, and you invite us on a journey though a pile of bullshit.]


Privilege can be hard to see, mostly because of what doesn't happen to us when we have it.

[Privilege, where it actually exists, can be easy to see. An EBT card, for example, is easy to see. The stuff you can buy with it, with money you didn't work to earn, is also easy to see. The reason so-called "white privilege" is hard to see is that it isn't there. It doesn't exist. The only privilege whites have is their own nature, which is distinguished from that of lesser races by being relatively more intelligent, more honest, more willing to delay gratification, and less violent.]


One of the four reasons James Cone offers in his landmark essay "Theology's Great Sin: Silence in the Face of White Supremacy" for why men of privilege remain silent in the face of so much racial injustice is: "They don't have to speak."

[This isn't one of theology's sins, and James Cone is a black radical preacher who has been very vocal in his resentment of white people. He thinks whites are privileged, but he is wrong. Nobody has privileged whites, unless it is God doing the privileging by making whites a better race in general. And God can do whatever He wants to do, even if it seems "racist" to those who don't like what He did.]


We aren't getting arrested at four times our population rate.

[We aren't committing murder, arson, rape, assault, and robbery at ten times our population rate, either.]


We aren't being followed when walking through a department store wearing a sweat shirt with a hood.

[Because experience has shown those who guard department stores that we aren't exceptionally likely to steal merchandise.]


Real estate agencies didn't write codes, rules and laws that kept us out of the high rent districts and middle class neighborhoods.

[Those rules were a good idea, while they lasted. It makes sense to distance oneself from groups who DO commit murder, arson, rape, assault, and robbery at ten times the population rate.

While we're on the subject of quality neighborhoods, there are some good questions to be asked and answered. First, who made the places where white people live nice places to be? The answer is: whites did. Second, who made the places where black people live awful places to be? The answer is: blacks. Whites aren't preventing blacks from doing what whites did to make their neighborhoods into nice places. The reason blacks aren't doing those things is that blacks and whites aren't equal in ability, nor do blacks behave as whites behave, and neither of those things is the fault of whites.]


Property values don't go down when more than 10 percent of our neighborhood is saturated with people of our race.

[The market price of housing in an area is not set by a conspiracy. It is set by how much people are willing to pay to buy a house in that area. If an area is saturated with people from a race whose per capita rate for committing violent crimes is ten times the population rate, then not many people will bid high for the right to live there. They'll bid higher to live in safer places. That isn't privilege. It's wisdom.]


Our children aren't sitting in classrooms with teachers who are likely not to have even a minor degree in the courses they are teaching.

[Then let non-white teachers get those degrees. Whites aren't stopping them. Non-whites are the ones with apparently no end of favor with providers of financial aid for college. If non-white teachers don't have degrees, then they probably don't have the brains required to get one. And that isn't any fault of white people. It's one of those grievances you'll have to take up with God, because He's the one who parceled out the IQ points to the races. White people didn't do it themselves.]


Young white men are not being gunned down by black police officers in epidemic numbers.

[Young white men aren't running around selling drugs, pimping hos, or doing drive-by gangsta shooting. Young white men aren't raping 18,000 black women each year. White people don't attack blacks at the slightest excuse, or with no excuse at all. Black police officers don't often find a reason to shoot young white men.

But young black men do run around selling drugs. Young black men do pimp hos. Young black men do perpetrate drive-by gangsta shootings. Young black men do rape 18,000 white women each year. Young black men do attack whites at the slightest excuse, or with no excuse at all. White police officers do sometimes find that they must, in self-defense, shoot a young black man.

The races aren't equals in their behavior. Any argument that implicitly depends on racial equality in behavior is an argument flawed by a false premise.]


... I invite the white men of America with me on this journey of discovery.

[What you do is brainwashing, not discovery. By the "journey" of repeatedly imputing undeserved guilt.]


Ask those who don't share your privilege to tell you what they see. It may not have escaped your attention that whether we are talking about Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, what whites see and what blacks see are not the same thing. There is a reason for that.

[Yes. Some people see more clearly than others do. Because some people are more intelligent than others are. There is no parity in the perspectives of whites and blacks regarding such persons as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. The whites are usually right, and what they say is usually the truth. The blacks are usually wrong, and what they say is usually lies. When a sharp disagreement occurs along racial lines, and you wish to know the truth, you will listen to the whites and tune out the blacks. The only time that doesn't work is in a movie, a TV-drama, or other fantasy whose script was written by blacks or by Jews. The idea that blacks are are truthful as whites is as fictional as a typical ghost story.]


Privilege comes at a price — and the price is the loss of a vision that admits facts that make accepting the privilege uncomfortable.

[Whites are not privileged. A privilege is something you get unearned. Whites earned what they have. If you're looking for privileges, then you'll find them wherever people are getting what they have not earned. EBT credit accounts and hiring quotas are good places to start looking.]


Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer
President of the United Church of Christ
Doctorate in White Privilege ← leftist theoretical trash
Shalom Award recipient for peace commitments ← favored by Jews

[David W. Sims]
[Random Facebook User]

An interpolative quantification of the main sequence
by David W. Sims

q = log₁₀(M)
p = log₁₀(T)

Part 1. Mass-Radius relationship.

if q is less than −0.142:
R = 10^(1.1655 q − 0.0344988)

if q is in [−0.142, 0]:
R = 10^(1.40845 q)

if q is in [0, 0.165]:
R = 10^(1.34545 q)

if q is in [0.165, 0.709]:
R = 10^(0.540441 q + 0.132827)

if q is greater than 0.709:
R = 10^(0.580311 q + 0.104560)

Part 2. Mass-Temperature relationship.

if q is less than −0.142:
T = 10^(0.266372 q² + 0.609559 q + 3.720186)

if q is in [−0.142, 0]:
T = 10^(0.866197 q + 3.761702)

if q is in [0, 0.254]:
T = 10^(0.421260 q + 3.761702)

if q is in [0.254, 0.725]:
T = 10^(0.828025 q + 3.659)

if q is greater than 0.725:
T = 10^(0.485161 q + 3.907)

Part 3. Bolometric Luminosity.

L = R² (T/5777K)⁴

Part 4. Time on main sequence.

If M≥0.5, then
t = (1e10 years) M/L

If M is in (0.5, 0.25), then
t = (1e9 years) { 5.10155782e-7 exp(34.779212 M) + 21395.6632 exp(−11.6197093 M) }

If M≤0.25, then
t = (8.905387e10 years) / M^1.8586791

Part 5. Assorted physical parameters.

average density = (1.4097 g cm⁻³) M/R³
bolometric absolute magnitude = 4.75 − 2.5 log₁₀(L)
Wien law maximum = (2.8977685e7 ÅK) / T

Part 6. Bolometric Correction.

if p is less than 3.491:
BC = no estimate

If p is in [3.491, 4.626]:
BC = −11.2500664076 p⁴
+ 192.4048438892 p³
− 1235.9125353454 p²
+ 3528.1474540115 p
− 3772.1906772446

if p is greater than 4.626:
BC = no estimate

Part 8. B-V color index.

if p is greater than 4.062320702:
B-V = −0.399087815 p + 1.500904665

if p ≤ 4.062320702:
B-V = −5.47272293 p⁴
+ 87.389982866 p³
− 519.014740792 p²
+ 1356.550874966 p
− 1313.930086483

References:, pages 26 and 27., page 41.

Ayelet Shaked
I'd like everyone, especially you evangelical Christians who support Israel, to understand what it is that you have been supporting. Benjamin Netanyahu recently made a young woman named Ayelet Shaked as the Israeli Minister of Justice. What appears to be her outstanding qualification? She absolutely despises Palestinians, regards all of them as enemies, and thinks that they should be exterminated.

In other words, she's a genocidal racist. She really is what the Jews in America slanderously claim that white nationalists are.

In June 2014, Ayelet Shaked wrote the following as part of a post on her Facebook website. It was deleted just before her nomination for Israeli Justice Minister, but there is an archived copy online. And now I have a local copy on my computer. Here's where you can find it (or could as I write this at 5:30 am Eastern Standard Time on 28 May 2015).

I have made an English translation of Shaked's post by unkinking Google's machine translation. However, I will show you, instead, the translation made by the Jewish webmasters of the blog Mondoweiss, according to whom Ayelet Shaked said:

"The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started...

"Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

Well now. Is that clear enough for you? Let us suppose that a US Attorney General explicitly called for the extermination of white people and the destruction of white mothers and children especially. Would that bother you at all? Because that is exactly what the Israeli Justice Minister is calling for, except she is demanding the genocide of Palestinians instead of white people, and it is also what Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is saying through her mouth.

Haven't you Christian evangelicals been STUPID LONG ENOUGH? How much longer will you let the likes of Zionist preacher John Hagee make fools of you?

Oh why do I even try? The treacherous attack by Israel on the USS Liberty in 1967 didn't teach you anything, and the murder of Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall by the Israeli army in 2003 didn't teach you anything, so I expect that nothing ever will. You Christian evangelicals, you who follow John Hagee and similar pulpit traitors, were born stupid and will be stupid forever.

Now let me say that I fully understand the position of people like Ayelet Shaked and Benjamin Netanyahu. They are in a race war, like the one multicultural America is heading for, and in a race war there is no quarter, not even for babies or pregnant women. There are no non-combatants. Both sides will seek to exterminate the other side utterly. That is true.

What isn't true is that Israel is the good guy. It isn't. The war started because the Jews used the British Empire as a lever to steal from the Palestinians their land in the 1940s. Most acts of organized violence in the Middle East since then stem from that Jewish theft of Palestinian land and resources. Israel has no legal right to exist. That is, Israel has no right to exist that is based upon civilized principles. It never has, and it never will. Its only justification is the right of conquest, the idea that might makes right, and when Israel loses its might then it will have no right left at all.

What also isn't true is that America has an obligation to help the Jews in general or Israel in particular. WE ARE BEING USED. And some of us are dumb enough to think that this is a good thing.

Personally, I don't care who owns the Middle East. What I don't like is anybody with a stake in the Middle East using us Americans to do their dirty work for them, or to pay for what their wars cost. Let them fight their own battles, and leave us out of it. But to the Jews, we are just another horse to ride, until we are worn out, and then they will eat us.

Ayelet Shaked also supports a policy of shipping the blacks back to Africa, and holding them in concentration camps in the desert until they can be deported. (Sounds like what Hitler did to the Jews, doesn't it?) I mention this not to criticize the policy as being unsound, since usually getting rid of blacks does only good things for the country that dumps them. But Jews are famous worldwide for insisting that all the white countries must import blacks for "multicultural enrichment." So while the policy might be good for Israel, it would be equally good for anybody else, and yet the Jews oppose it for every country except Israel.

What do you think that the Jews might be up to with that? Hm?

Part 2. Jewish Racial Chameleony.

Although most of the time Jews are careful to emphasize that they are not whites in order to gain the benefits of Affirmative Action, where there's some advantage to doing it Jews will pretend to be white. The last time I heard about a Jewess pretending to be white was an anti-white genocidal spew in which the kikette confirmed the truth of right-wing slogan that is gaining popular recognition: "anti-racist really means anti-white." She said that she was, furthermore, all in favor of the white race becoming extinct on account of its many alleged sins and uniquely evil nature. To give herself a patina of credibility, she said that she was white, herself. Her name? Emily Goldstein.

"First off, I am a white person myself, so allow me to get that out of the way. I’m extremely glad that the white race is dying, and you should be too. White people do not have a right to exist. Period. That may sound like a bold statement, but it’s entirely true... So, yes, white supremacists: diversity is indeed white genocide. And white genocide is exactly what the world needs more than anything else."

—Emily Goldstein
Posted on "Thought Catalog" on 26 May 2015.

Part 3. Racial Chameleony When Whites Do It.

Parents of Spokane NAACP President Rachel Dolezal claim she's not black.

Part 4. Free Association and Institutional Racism.

Fifty years ago, it wasn't uncommon for blacks whose skin color was much lighter than average for Negroes to "pass" as white to avoid discrimination by whites. But it is important to distinguish between that sort of discrimination, which is the result of an individual's choice about who he wants his associates to be, and official institutional discrimination, which is what Affirmative Action is.

Institutional racism does not exist except insofar as the government establishes it by law.

Institutional racism might be an evil. But racial discrimination by individuals is simply part of the rights of individuals that in the past were protected by the US Constitution. The right of the individual (but not the state) to discriminate for any reason at all comes from the freedom of association, which is protected by the First Amendment. Under that freedom, you may ASK to join any group, or to be included in any private endeavor, but the existing members of that group (or the owner of that endeavor) can refuse you. They can tell you no.

They don't have to say why they refused you, either. They can if they wish, but they have no obligation to do it. Their reason for refusing you is, under the right of free association, not subject to question.

The right of free association is the right which the civil rights laws destroy.

When the civil rights laws became dominant over the Bill of Rights, at least in practice, persons with "protected status" (like blacks) found that they could force white people to serve them, whether they whites wanted to be of service or not. Blacks discovered that they could demand a white person's labor, and get it at the point of a policeman's gun if necessary, and it did not matter whether the white person wanted to be hired or not. Blacks learned that they could usurp the property rights of white people, using white-owned buildings, tables, chairs, rental cars, machinery, food, and so on, whether or not the whites wanted to share them.

Banned from THE GUARDIAN, 20 May 2015. Here's the comment that did it.
Here is the comment that got me banned from THE GUARDIAN website...

Reading the article carefully, the problem seems to be that the board of directors for McDonald's is "close-knit," and not that it is engaged in any identifiable violations of the securities or trust laws.

Say, do you know what just occurred to me? I'll bet that an analysis of the boards of directors within the mass media would show an even stronger pattern of close-knit members, with the added feature that most of them belong to the same ethnic group (Jews), which makes relevant the concern that there is a racial or a cultural bias within the mass media for the selection of their top executives.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

The proposition that the media are in any way qualified to probe into possible personnel or fiduciary improprieties of other corporations is the most fanciful notion of them all.

A word about miscegenation.
The following was an answer of mine, posted to and subsequently censored from Yahoo Answers. Per my policy regarding censorship, when one of my comments is removed from one forum, it shall reappear on many others, so that it will gather MORE attention, rather than less.

A question had been asked about persons of mixed race. Here is how I answered.


Although Geoff is correct about almost everyone having a racial mix, it's still true that most "white" people count their ancestry mostly—almost entirely—from the white race, and only a very small fraction from all of the other races combined. For example, I am 97% white and 3% Cherokee, and I'm more heavily mixed than most of the people I know. A similar thing is true for Asians: although a few have mixed in marriage, the great bulk of them have not. Only a small proportion of living people belongs to one biracial cline or another.

Mixing races isn't a good idea. Both close inbreeding and far outbreeding can cause birth defects, though for different reasons. Close inbreeding can result in the reinforcement of recessive genetic abnormalities, which can then appear in a child as a handicap or an early death.

But races differ in the body proportions, and genetic inheritance does not occur as a smooth averaging of parental traits in a child's body. Rather, groups of tissues and organs are separately determined by the parents' haploid genes, and it is possible for a child to get a bad mix, which results in his body parts not fitting together well or not working together well. The difficulties might be mechanical, or they might be biochemical.

For example, if a man from a small race mates with a woman from a large race, it is possible that their child will grow up to be a large man with a small heart. The offspring, once out of his tender years, would have a heart that couldn't pump enough blood to meet his body's needs. He would be bedridden almost all of his life, and he would probably die young.

So beware this Jew-inspired fad of race-mixing. It isn't a good thing. It is unhealthy. And the Jews do not intend that we should do it for our benefit, but rather because they know it will be our undoing.

Geoff is also certainly correct about US-resident blacks. On the average, about a quarter of their ancestors are white people. That's why the average IQ of US-resident "blacks" is 85, whereas the average IQ of sub-Saharan African blacks is only 70. Blacks tend to mix more than other races do, and, for blacks, the danger of Mendelian mismatched parts might be the lesser worry; the greater one would be remaining black in—and poorly adapted to—a civilized world. Adaptive pressure would prompt blacks to "go white" when choosing mates, or, if white be out of reach, as light as possible.

It is a fact that the most of the relatively accomplished "blacks," the persons of whom the black race is the most proud, are mulattoes, rather than pure blacks. There is a distinct negative correlation among mulattoes with respect to percentage of black ancestry and IQ. The lighter a mulatto is, the smarter he is, usually.

That being so, one recognizes that the enabling genes in most of the relatively accomplished mulattoes (e.g. Jan Ernst Matzeliger) came from the white side of their family trees, not from the black side. I say "relatively accomplished" for a reason. Demagogues of the afrocentric school will automatically elevate any black or mulatto who earns a Ph.D. in math or physics to "great scientist" status, but this low-bar is never used for whites, among whom getting a doctorate is merely the barest first step on the way to a career that MIGHT, after a lifetime of work, confer that status upon him.

Part 2. The "Secret Details" about Freddie Gray's abuse

One of the standard deceptive practices that the Jewish-owned media use, to keep Americans confused about racial truth, is the abuse of emphasis and omission.

How many of you think that the police officers arrested in Baltimore for the killing of Freddie Gray are all white cops? They aren't. Three of them are white. And three of them are black.

How many of you thought that the officer charged with the murder of Freddie Gray is white? He isn't. He's a black cop named Caesar Goodson.

Arrested for offenses related to the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Maryland:

1. Caesar R. Goodson, BLACK, charged with second-degree depraved-heart murder, involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, manslaughter by vehicle (gross negligence), manslaughter by vehicle (criminal negligence).

2. Garrett E. Miller, WHITE, charged with 2nd-degree assault.

3. Edward M. Nero, WHITE, charged with 2nd-degree assault and false imprisonment.

4. William G. Porter, BLACK, charged with involuntary manslaughter and 2nd-degree assault.

5. Brian W. Rice, WHITE, charged with involuntary manslaughter and 2nd-degree assault.

6. Alicia D. White, BLACK, charged with involuntary manslaughter and 2nd-degree assault.

So the only cop accused of murder is black. Two of the three cops accused of involuntary manslaughter are blacks. Additionally, all six officers were charged with 2nd-degree assault and "misconduct in office."

You can see that the most egregious offender was Goodson, who is black. It also appears that the black police officers are accused of the majority of the relatively more serious crimes. So why is this, in the media, a story about "evil white racist cops"?

The media are high-profiling the white cops who were charged with assault, and neglecting to run news stories about the black ones. For example, the Jews have chosen to hold officer Brian Rice up as their poster-boy for official Baltimore badness by running as "news" some tidbits of information regarding his past behavior for which he was disciplined.

As far as I can tell, similar stories about any of the black cops do not exist. At least, I haven't found any so far.

The story about the black woman baker who got sued for not baking a cake for the KKK
I admit that I recently got suckered by a story that, I now believe, is probably an internet hoax.

While browsing the web, as I often do to find those local news stories about black-on-white crime that the Jewish-owned media won't ventilate nationally, I ran across this:

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: Black Bakery Owner Loses Lawsuit, Forced to Bake Racist KKK Cake

Not knowing that the Washington Weekly News is a spoof-news website, like The Onion, I believed that the story was true. According to the article, a black woman named Elaine Bailey, who owned a bakery in Georgia, had refused to bake a KKK-themed cake for a Klansman named Marshall Saxby, on the grounds that baking such a cake would offend her religion. Marshall Saxby then sued Elaine Bailey, on the grounds that her refusing to bake the cake had offended his religion.

It had previously been reported, in real news, that white Christians had been successfully sued by homosexuals for refusing to provide their services as a licensed business vendor because their religion required them to refuse. It had appeared reasonable, therefore, that somewhere a judge or three would apply the principle involved as if the civil rights laws actually were something fair rather than a political weapon in pursuit of the leftist agenda.

So my first written response was this:

HA HA HA HA HA! Here's an account of an amusing legal case about Unintended Consequences, lifted from the Washington Weekly News.

[Quote removed.]

So the Left has gotten a taste of its own medicine. Of course, for every right-wing group who uses the legal precedent successfully — the one in which "civil rights laws" are regarded as higher than the right of free association — a dozen or so leftists will use it to fine, jail, humiliate or otherwise oppress Christians and racial separatists. So on the whole, the precedent is a bad thing and should be dis-established, and Congress should repeal the civil rights laws make new laws that re-establish the freedom of association.

If you want something I have, or want me to do something for you, then I should have the right to say no, and it does not matter what my reasons are. If I don't like you because I think that your nose is too big, or I don't like your race or your religion, or I don't like how you behave in the bedroom, it doesn't matter. I can refuse to sell you my property, or do work for you, for any of those reasons, for any other reason, or for no reason at all. That's what free association means. Civil rights laws destroy that freedom.

In another place, I wrote:

While it is gratifying to see the Left get a taste of its own medicine, we should recognize that having "civil rights laws" that are treated in jurisprudence as if they were superior to the freedom of association is both stupid and legally invalid.

The freedom of association is protected by the Assembly Clause of the First Amendment [and by the rights of property in the Fifth], and it is therefore part of the Supreme Law of the United States. The civil rights laws are merely extrusions of various Acts of Congress, and these are inferior to, not superior to, the US Constitution as amended.

Sacrificing the freedom of association to civil rights laws, which (most of the time) are used to empower minorities and the leftist agenda, is also stupidly immoral. It compels one person to associate with another and to accede to the other's demand, whether or not he wants to. It requires a worker to put his labor in the service of someone he'd rather not work for, or share his property with someone he'd prefer not to share with, and his reasons for being unwilling to do the labor or to share the property are, or should be, irrelevant.

Whether I'd rather not build your house, or bake your cake, because I think your nose is too big, or because I don't like the gang you run with, or because I don't like your race or religion, or because I don't approve of your behavior in the bedroom, is not important. What is important is this: I don't want to work for you. I don't want to associate with you. I don't want you to touch my stuff. I should not be compelled by law to act contrary to my own will, provided that I do nothing to inflict harm on you. I should be able to conduct my own business as though you did not exist. I should have the right to ignore you and anything that you might demand of me.

You should not have any right to set foot on my property, or to sit in one of my chairs, if I don't want you to be there. It does not matter what permissions I might have given to other people. I should be able to pick whom I share with. I should have the right to choose whom I will work for.

Someone asked me whether the Jewish-owned media had a right to mislead the general public about what is happening in the world or to deceive voters regarding the names and qualifications of candidates in public elections. So I replied with this:

There are appropriate limits to the freedom of speech, and one of them is the prohibition on false advertising, which is usually lying about the nature or quality of a commercial product, but which can also be lying about the qualifications, the record, or the intentions of a political candidate.

A media that give to a candidate for high public office the treatment that they gave to Ron Paul during the Republican Primaries in 2012, have used the freedom of speech to harm people: not only the candidate, but also the public in general, by misleading them about the nature of the choices available to them.

If completeness, relevance, and accuracy are especially important, then deception by the media can also exceed the constitutional protection of free speech in another way: by presenting "a clear and present danger" to the people.

The media, in other words, can be a weapon. It can cause harm to many. And in the same way few gun-rights advocates would have qualms about denying violent felons the right to own or carry guns, likewise no gentile should have a problem with denying the Jews the right to own the mass media for news and entertainment.

And then it was brought to my attention that this story is probably a hoax. How embarrassing. Still, it had given me a launching pad for some good ideas. I wrote:

It does kind of make sense that the Jews would not allow their "equality" laws to be enforced upon, or on behalf of, all people equally. They aren't that careless. Civil rights legislation is and always has been a weapon against white people, invented by Jews to disempower us as a preliminary to eradicating us. So it would make sense that this story is a hoax.

This is the sort of news about which the blogs of the Jewish-owned TV networks and the New York Times would have their propaganda spinners working overtime to convince Americans that there's no special reason to accord the equal protection of the laws to people whose religious beliefs include opinions about race which leftists or minorities find offensive. But neither the TV networks nor the NYT have weighed in. Nor have the Jews' trained-pet Hollywood actors. Nor have the other major Jewish rags, such as the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. The silence from those quarters does indicate that this story is a hoax, which I was gullible enough to comment on as if members of the KKK had actually been accorded some civil rights.

Part 2. Trial's over for the CRCT Cheaters in Atlanta.

Finally, after FIVE FREAKIN' YEARS, a few of the cheating black school officials from the Atlanta Public Schools are convicted of their crimes. Probably several hundred blacks were guilty of felonies related to the CRCT cheating in 2009 and earlier. Of those, 178 were discovered by a state investigation. Of those 80 confessed to their crimes, while 98 denied the charges. Of the latter, only 35 were ever arrested. Of those, 21 pleaded guilty to lesser offenses and got turned loose on probation. Of the 14 remaining, two died of cancer before the end of the trial, one was acquitted, and 11 were found guilty of felony fraud, racketeering, falsifying documents, lying to law enforcement, and various other crimes.

The scandal was the result of a federal policy called No Child Left Behind, endorsed by former US President George Bush (the Younger). NCLB was based on the incorrect idea that the races are equal, but that racism in the schools kept blacks behind in the scores on standardized tests. Leftist psychologists went so far as to invent a new babble term for it: Stereotype Threat, a term that nobody had ever heard of prior to then.

But the policy backfired. No matter how much pressure was put on teachers, the black students could not keep up with the white students, unless the school authorities inflated the scores of black students dishonestly. And, wherever these authorities were black teachers and principals, that is exactly what happened. It did not happen so much where the school officials were white. Why not? Because the intelligence gap isn't the only gap between the races. There's a morality gap, too.

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I might be wrong, but I'm going to predict that we're about the see a bunch of 1-5 year sentences on these convictions that could bring down a 20-year sentence on each offender.

We should face the likelihood that the blacks who run city school districts, such as the Atlanta Public Schools, will go right back to cheating eventually. Why? Put yourself in their place. If you are set the impossible task of closing the racial gaps in education and you don't want to lose your career in education because you aren't qualified to work anywhere else, then you will assess the risk of cheating as the teachers in the Atlanta Public Education System did. What is that risk? If you cheat, you have (maybe) a 50% chance of ever being caught. If you are caught, and you decide not to confess or plea-bargain to get only a minor penalty, then your odds of being convicted and sent to prison are only 1 in 7. A lot of blacks will take a gamble with those odds.

So expect the test score fraud in mostly black public schools to continue.

Part 3. The Zionist Media's Racial Attention Gap.

The black male shown below is HIV positive. He is infected with the virus that causes AIDS. Keith Anthony Allen, age 27, has been charged with raping three girls, ages 12-14, in Columbus, Ohio. Reportedly, the 12-year-old victim became pregnant by the rapist. It is quite possible that none of the rape victims will survive to adulthood. This is one piece of the trash that we would like to clean out of America. We'd like you to help us do it.

Here's another one. Meet Philippe Lutete, age 29. He was out on bail-set-too-low for another rape when he raped the woman he got arrested for raping this time, in Los Angeles County, California. He reportedly got away with rape and general thuggery for years before he began paying any penalty for his behavior.

The only way that you might have previously heard about these two black rapists is if you happened to sample the local news media in Columbus OH or Los Angeles CA at the right moment, _OR_ you are in the habit of browsing white nationalist forums.

Meanwhile, it is being reported in the news media, internationally, that a white student at the University of South Carolina wrote the word "nigger" on a white-board with a dry erase marker.

Part 4. Definition: Negro Lottery.



A means of financial enrichment, involving...

(1) The abuse of civil court process, following upon the death of a relative.

(2) A deliberate provocation intended to elicit a reaction about which the provoker can file a legal complaint.

(3) An attempt to portray oneself as the victim of racism, when in fact one's troubles are all, or mostly, of one's own making.


1. If a policeman kills a black person in self-defense or in the line of duty, and he is subsequently found "not guilty" by a jury, or a grand jury refuses to indict him on any criminal charge, then the family of the dead black person plays the Negro lottery by filing a frivolous lawsuit against the city or against the police department, usually hoping for an out-of-court settlement. Threats of a black riot, should a monetary reward not result from this action, is sometimes used as a terroristic concomitant to the Negro lottery.

2. Examples of common provocations include insulting remarks or a long, continuous, unfriendly stare.

3. A black person, after being arrested by the police, might intentionally urinate in his clothing and afterward say that the police had "forced" that condition upon him, thus giving him grounds for suing the police department.

See also: Ghetto Payday.

Should you get a B.D. degree from Death University?
Death University's Core Curriculum.
(Required for Bachelor of Death.)

Dying 101. The inevitability of death.
Dying 102. Death customs through the ages.
Dying 103. What happens when you die? A look at corpse decay.
Dying 110. Freshman seminar relating watching someone else die.
Dying 201. The Basics of Dying.
Dying 202. Practical Dying.
Dying 203. Adventure Dying (advanced techniques).
Dying 210. Sophomore seminar relating a Near Death Experience.
Dying 301. The Art of Dying.
Dying 302. Dying for Profit.
Dying 303. Competitive Dying.
Dying 310. Junior seminar demonstrating prowess in dying.
Dying 401. (unassigned)
Dying 402. (unassigned)
Dying 403. (unassigned)
Nobody has yet graduated from Death University.

The senior year is said to be hell.
The final exam is a real killer.


Log in