Log in

No account? Create an account
The burning of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, France
How carefully everyone is avoiding saying the obvious about possible causes of the fire in the Notre Dame Cathedral in France. It began shortly after the workers went home. It spread quickly enough that it is reasonable to suppose that an accelerant was involved. It follows a significant uptick in arson/vandalism attacks on Catholic churches in France. And, well, certain recent arrivals in France have a history of setting things on fire: cars, buildings, etc. Also, don't the regulations require a fire-watch on any important construction site?

I really don't understand how the Paris police could "rule out" arson so quickly, before an investigation into the cause of the fire had even begun — unless they were following orders. Perhaps Emmanuel Macron does not want his immigration policies called into question.

Or maybe the French police have NOT ruled out arson. Maybe they have merely declined to give an opinion on the question, and the leftist media thereafter put words into their mouths, as we've seen them do so often in the past.

Yes! That is indeed the case. According to a timeline of events relating to the Notre Dame fire, which I found on the website of The Miami Herald...

At 7:30 (pm, local time), the French media quoted the Paris fire brigade saying the fire was "potentially linked" to the renovation work.

At 7:45, French authorities said that the fire could be linked to renovation work.

At 7:55, the police in Paris said that the cause of the massive fire enveloping the spire of Notre Dame Cathedral wasn't yet known.

At 8:05, the timeline repeated that the cause of the blaze wasn't yet known.

At 11:15, the Paris prosecutor's office said that the fire was being regarded as "an accident for now." It also said that they have "ruled out" arson in "Monday's fire."

By what evidence did the prosecutor's office (not the police) do that ruling out? The investigation could hardly have been concluded so quickly (i.e., within four hours). The declaration was obviously politically motivated, as it could not possibly have been the result of discovered facts.

The circumstantial evidence makes arson a very plausible explanation, and the Paris prosecutor's office has not had anywhere near enough time to make any determination to the contrary. The fact that the prosecutor did so anyway strongly implies a political motive for the declaration.

Notre Dame Burns!
Stefan Molyneux (video)

Notre Dame Cathedral Burns, Symbolizing Europe at Large
Styxhexenhammer666 (video)

Notre Dame Cathedral on Fire: Here's What We May Have Lost!
Steve Turley (video)

Notre Dame Cathedral Destroyed by Fire, A Dark Day for Europeans
Red Ice TV (video)

Notre Dame: Postmodern Synchronicity & Fragility
Black Pigeon Speaks (video)

Notre Dame In Flames: What Does It Symbolize?
Brittany Pettibone (video)

Made in 1250, destroyed in the fire of 15 April 2019, the north rose window of the Notre Dame Cathedral was ranked among the greatest artworks of Western Civilization. Have a last look.

Destroyed in the fire, the west rose window of the Notre Dame Cathedral.

Destroyed in the fire, the south rose window of the Notre Dame Cathedral.

French Christians, including Father Fournier, managed to save the Crown of Thorns, a relic that had been housed in the Notre Dame Cathedral. With flames all around them, a brigade of the faithful went into the reliquary and recovered the crown that (according to Catholic tradition) the Romans put on Jesus' head while he was dragging the Cross to Galgotha.

The mainstream media is promoting the conclusion that the Notre Dame fire was an accident. Stefan Molyneux gave reasons for why arson is an equally valid conclusion. Both "it was an accident" and "it was the result of arson" are conclusions. Neither of them is a default position. The default position, in the absence of evidence either way, is to say "I don't know." Full stop.

When someone promotes a conclusion for which there is no evidence, the first thing to suspect is that the promoter has a political motive.

Unless the accident-theorists can show pictures of spark-throwing bare electrical wires in proximity to dry wood in the attic of the cathedral, or some evidence of equivalent quality, then there is no good reason to suppose that the fire was an accident.

Unless the arson-theorists can show evidence that someone was in the cathedral after the fire started, or that traces of kerosene or some other accelerant was present in the cathedral attic, then there is no good reason to suppose that the fire was started by an arsonist.

Until evidence is found, the only proper attitude is "I don't know." That's as true for the accident-theorists as it is for the arson-theorists.

Did the French Government Lie?
RamzPaul (video)

Comment on YouTube from LaFrenchMademoiselle

You are right. I'm French and I watched the fire on live television. The French journalists were all pointing to the renovation work WHILE the Cathedral was burning, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Worse, some "historians" were already talking about the future of the Cathedral and about its restoration while watching it burning... A lot of evidence points now towards an intentional fire. But the official conclusions will obviously be an "accident".

Comment on YouTube from David Sims

@LaFrenchMademoiselle I agree. The haste with which the mainstream media and the government declared that the fire was an accident is very suspicious. That conclusion (if it is true) should have been the result of a fire marshal's investigation. The only way the media or the government would have any special knowledge about the cause of the fire, before an investigation was completed, is if they knew in advance that it would occur, in which case the fire certainly would not have been an accident. No one would have any information about the cause of the fire, so quickly after it started, if it were accidental.

A video posted by Hal Turner on YouTube shows someone dressed in what appears to be clerical vestments walking along a balcony of the Notre Dame Cathedral after the beginning of the fire. Although it was suggested that the person is the arsonist (and, furthermore, that he is a Muslim), the images in the video are not clear enough to prove that it is so. YouTube has put the video into limited state, behind a redirect page that warns the user that the content has been deemed "offensive."

Four companies were contracted to do the renovations at the Notre Dame Cathedral. Of those, only two of them had work in progress when the fire happened: (1) a scaffolding supplier called Europe Echafaudage and (2) an art conservation company called Socra. When the fire started, neither of the companies had workers on the site. Julien Le Bras, the CEO of Europe Echafaudages, said "There were absolutely no workers on site when the fire broke out, and there hadn't been for quite a while before the fire."

There were two fire alarms, separated by 23 minutes, before anyone noticed the fire, according to Paris Prosecutor Remy Heitz (whose name does not sound French).

Here are images of the attic of the Notre Dame Cathedral, made before the fire.

Male black from Somalia throws five-year-old white boy off third-floor at Mall of America
On 12 April 2019, at the Mall of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Emmanuel Deshawn Aranda (age 24), a black Somali immigrant, grabbed a little white boy (age 5) and threw him from the third floor down to the marble floor at the ground level, a fall of about forty feet. The boy didn't die, but he has been permanently injured and will require medical care for the rest of his life.

The thumbnail image for the video link shows the face of a Nigerian actor who appeared in a CBS commercial advocating violence against spokespersons for right-wing groups (possibly in violation of state and federal laws). Emmanuel Deshawn Aranda appears in the thumbnail image for the link below the video.

Read more:




The difference between nationalism and supremacism
A white nationalist is someone who wants a national homeland for white people: i.e., a white country. He doesn't want to harm persons of other races. He doesn't want to enslave other races, either. He wants for whites the same thing that the Jews have in Israel: a homeland, a place where whites govern themselves and control their own destiny, a place apart from persons of other races.

A white supremacist is someone (else) who wants his own race to dominate, to control, to enslave other races.

Although both white nationalists and white supremacists are, in a sense, "white racists," the nationalist has an entirely justified moral position, whereas the supremacist does not.

In regard to their relationship with other races, a nationalist is the OPPOSITE of a supremacist.

It is true, however, that white nationalists dream big.

Complete PDF edition of "Two Hundred Years Together" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Such interesting literature. I wonder how long it will be available for reading online. It's a complete PDF copy of "Two Hundred Years Together," by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. It's hard to find. Amazon doesn't sell it.

Two Hundred Years Together, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn

US House Judiciary Committee puts on a farcical discussion about white nationalism
On 9 April 2019, the House Judiciary Committee, a part of the US Congress, held a hearing on the alleged "problem" of white nationalism. It was headed by Jewish Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D) and hosted a panel of self-appointed "experts" composed of three Jews, three blacks, and a Muslim.

The first speaker was a representative of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, a Jewish organization that has been defaming white nationalists and white nationalist groups for the past half-century. There were speakers from Google and from Facebook, two social media monopolies that have been denying free speech to conservatives, and depriving right-wing voices of a platform for the past year and a half. The only conservative speaker was Candace Owens, a black conservative. There wasn't a single white nationalist on the panel to present the case for white nationalism or to declare the beliefs and goals of white nationalism.

Imagine a trial in which the accused is not permitted to make a case, a trial in which the prosecution does all of the talking. That's the sort of hearing this was.

If the subject had been Jewish nationalism (Zionism), would the same circumstances exist? Of course not.

One of the panelists was a Jew who discussed many things that had no bearing on the hearing's purpose. He discussed the (so-called) Holocaust, he discussed how violent the Palestinians are, how dangerous Muslims are, how often the Jews are trodden upon while never doing anything to cause their own troubles. He raved, and he went beyond his allotted time, but he was not cut off.

The speech of most of the other panelists focused on hate crimes committed by white people. They didn't mention the greater number of hate crimes committed by non-whites: by blacks, by Muslims, etc. They didn't mention the hate-crime hoaxes perpetrated by blacks, by Jews, etc. One of the panelists mentioned the KKK, but failed to acknowledge that the KKK was originally a creation of the Democratic Party. The entire Congressional hearing was a public exercise in mass agitation propaganda.

Candace Owens was the single exception. She denied that white nationalism is the cause of the problems that non-whites resident in the United States are having, but, instead, those problems result from the fear-mongering by, and a lust for power among, the Democrats. Ms. Owens was the nearest thing to a voice that white nationalism had, though, of course, she wasn't a satisfactory substitute for a white nationalist.

By the way, Candace also went over her allotted time. But when her time was up, she was promptly cut off by Rep. Nadler. Nadler had let the Jewish panelist who had spoken immediately prior to Candace Owens have an extra minute to speak, but Nadler denied the same courtesy to Ms. Owens.

Red Ice TV has made a video to comment on this leftist Congressional farce.

In the American Renaissance video presented by Jared Taylor, we can find the Anti-Defamation League representative Eileen Hershenov using the weasel-word "extremist" as a way of deceptively massaging her presentation of statistical information.

Nobody can credibly deny that the race having the highest per capita rate of murder perpetration is blacks, with mestizos coming in second place, while whites and Asians have the lowest per capita crime rates.

If we were to focus on organized groups within the races, rather than the races in their entirety, then nobody could credibly deny that black gangs kill more people in a typical week than all of the white nationalist groups combined kill in an entire year.

But by using the word "extremist," which she never defines, Ms. Hershenov transfers to white nationalism a degree of blameworthiness that it is nowhere near to deserving.

Then, in true Jewish form, Congressman Jerrold Nadler asks Hershenov an oh-so-convenient question (2:22 to 2:31 in the video) and hears Hershenov's oh-so-pat answer (2:32 to 2:44). This is absolutely typical of Jewish deception:

Nadler: "Ms. Hershenov, are we or anybody else manipulating statistics to increase the apparent prevalence of white nationalist hate crimes?"

Hershenov: "Ah, no Mr. Chairman. The ADL is data-driven. Right-wing extremism last year was responsible for all but one of the fifty domestic extremist murders."

That should tell anybody that the ADL has so defined the word extremist in such a way that it is difficult for anyone other than a "right-winger" to be one, and it should be obvious that the statistic she's using isn't really the statistic that is relevant to the national interest. Ms. Hershenov is merely pretending that it is the relevant statistic, and she's relying on her mendacious phrasing to pull it off.

By the way, who was Rep. Nadler referring to with his pronoun "we" in the quote? Was it we, the Congress? Was it we, the Democrats? Or was it we, the Jews? Eileen Hershenov, to whom Nadler's question was addressed, isn't herself a member of Congress, and I don't know whether she's a Democrat or not. But she is a Jewess. Certainly, she is that.

Once more: the nature of truth, the nature of man, and the worth of science & religion
The ideology of modernity might be partially correct. In one respect, it is the baby in the bathwater of globalism. Modernity holds that science is the best way by which the truth might become known.

The idea that truth is like the rain carving many channels in the mud, such that there's "my truth" and "your truth" and "their truth" is wrong. There is only the truth, and any opinion in conflict with it is simply false. Truth is discovered, not decided. It does not matter how many people hold a false opinion, nor what their cultural norms are: it remains a false opinion.

The most important question in this regard is:

How do you know when you are using a method for seeking the truth that actually does succeed in finding it?

To which the correct answer is:

You know that your method for seeking truth really works when it has a historical track record of giving to people powers that they did not have before.

Valid methods for seeking truth do that because useful truths are a subset of all truths, and it is a subset in which humans have a particular interest and to which they devote a considerable amount of their time. Any method for seeking truth that really works will discover useful truths often.

Science does that.

Religion does not do that.

If you were to try to prove the validity of logic with logic, then you would be using the well-understood fallacy of circular reasoning. Accordingly, the efficacy of logic (and, by extension, of science) manifests in a different way. An inferential way. We ask ourselves what the hallmarks of a successful truth-finding method of thought might be: how it would affect us. We predict that useful truths would occur among all of the truths that the method would discover, and that, as a result, mankind would grow in power, would become able to do things that were never possible in earlier times. And by that metric, science has emerged the champion with no close rivals.

Science has a historical track record for discovering ways to make a light spring forth and banish darkness, of healing the sick, of knowing what would otherwise have gone unnoticed because of distance or because of smallness (or for some other reason), of enabling people to communicate rapidly across thousands of miles, of empowering men to fly when men had never flown before, of sending probes to other planets in order to see what had never been seen before.

Religion has no similar record. It only makes claims that it never proves and spins engaging fantasies that comfort some people in the face of death.

But whereas science is infinitely superior to religion in finding truth, religion does have a place among men nevertheless. Why? Because our species, Homo sapiens, is, despite its Latin binomial, not entirely sapient. Rather, it straddles the boundary of what we are pleased to call humanity, with some of its members above the line, and some below.

Where is that line drawn? It certainly exists, such that our species can be sorted into human and sub-human categories, but where it is exactly is a judgment call. The definition for that line that I prefer is the ability to understand the exponential function. But I've heard alternatives, such as the ability of the individual to appreciate the wisdom of moral circumspection even when the fear of God/hellfire does not influence his judgment.

As long as we believe that we must carry along the sub-human part of our species, we must have some means by which to keep them out of trouble, and we must have a way to prevent them from making too much trouble. Religion is what usually plays that role; hence, religion has value.

The globalists are right when they aver that truth is universal, independent of the observer or the observer's culture. But that does not mean that the globalists are also correct about what the truth is, specifically. It is possible, and perhaps commonplace, for an ideologue to state the universality of truth, and be right as far as that goes, but afterward proceed to lie about what the universal truth is. And that is why globalism is a vile ideology, deserving to be eliminated from this world.

Being eaten last isn't good enough
There are two kinds of contemptible white people.

(1) The kind that thinks that they and their families will be safe forever in gated communities, while third-world immigrants trash the rest of the country. Here you find most of the rich elitist leftists.

(2) The kind that fantasizes about the efficacy of appeasement of third-world immigrants and laying low, hoping to be passed over when slaughter-time comes. Here you find most virtue-signaling, common leftists.

Neither of those strategies would work for a sheep in the butcher's pen. The butcher won't fail to find the very last sheep when he's ready to slaughter it. And the sheep can't appease him with any substitute that doesn't involve its death.

Likewise, neither strategy (hiding/appeasement) will save any white person, after the non-whites have taken over the reins of power in any country that was once white. It won't work in America. It won't work in Canada. It won't work in Britain or in Ireland. It won't work in Europe. And it won't work in Australia.

Just like it didn't work in Haiti or in Zimbabwe.

The only reward a leftist can hope for is the same reward that the Cyclops gave Jason, in Homer's story. Hoping to persuade the Cyclops to let himself and his men go free, Jason gave gifts of food and wine. But the Cyclops, after consuming these gifts, said that Jason had won from him merely the right to be eaten last.

And that's how things will really go.

But far too many whites engage in the fantasy that, if they just pretend not to notice the threat of national dispossession, then the threat will surely go away by itself. Eventually. And all they have to do is continue to deny the predatory reality.

Whites are failing nature's own IQ test, and the penalty for failure will be extinction. And, very probably, with the fall of the white race also falls any hope that the Life of Earth will outlive the sun under which it arose.

Necessary Doppler resolution to find habitable-zone Earth-mass planets
In order to resolve the Doppler shift of stars of spectral type G0 (M*/M☉=1.05), as they orbit the center of mass between themselves and an Earth-sized rocky planet in a circular orbit, having an inclination from edge-on of 45°, and having a radius that puts it at the outer edge of the classical habitable zone (with 55% of Earth's bolometric insolation), a spectrometer would need a resolution in radial velocity of 5.0 cm/sec.

The necessary Doppler resolution scales approximately linearly with the exoplanet's mass, all else being held constant, so if the exoplanet's mass were 0.5 Earths, the resolution needed would be ~2.5 cm/sec.

Of course, the star's rotation will broaden spectral features more than that. But it should be possible to measure the shifts of the blue and red edges of each spectral feature in the star's light.

For exoplanet having one Earth mass
For exoplanet in circular orbit seen edge-on
For exoplanet in the middle of the classical habitable zone

M*/M☉r (AU)P (days)V* (m/s)

This will give an idea about how finely the Doppler shift of an exoplanet will need to be resolved in order to detect Earth-mass planets orbiting near the middle of the classical habitable zones of main sequence stars of the sun's size or smaller.

Finding the mass of an exoplanet.

v₁ = the star's maximum radial speed − the star's average radial speed
v₁ is observed via the star's doppler shift.

r₁ is the radius of the star's orbit around the star-planet barycenter.
r₂ is the radius of the planet's orbit around the star-planet barycenter.
r₁ and r₂ are to be calculated.

M₁ is the star's mass, estimated from tables of the main sequence.
M₂ is the planet's mass, which is to be calculated.

P is the period of the planet's orbit around the star (observed).

The gravitational constant, G = 6.67408e-11 m³ kg⁻¹ sec⁻²

Assuming the orbit is circular,
r₁ = Pv₁/(2π)

First approximation.

Since M₂«M₁,
r₂ ≈ ∛[P²GM₁/(4π²)] − r₁
M₂ ≈ M₁r₁/r₂

Successive approximations.

r₂ ≈ ∛[P²G(M₁+M₂)/(4π²)] − r₁
M₂ ≈ M₁r₁/r₂

Star's spectral type: M4 (observed)
Star's mass: 0.25 solar masses (estimated from mass-luminosity relationship)
Star's radial velocity amplitude: 0.58 m/s (observed) ←
Exoplanet's orbital period: 22 days (observed)
Exoplanet transits star, hence orbit is seen edge-on.
Exoplanet mass: 1.01 Earths (calculated)
Exoplanet-star separation: 0.0968 AU (calculated)
Inner bound of classical habitable zone: 0.0813 AU (calculated estimate)
Outer bound of classical habitable zone: 0.116 AU (calculated estimate)

Star's spectral type: M0 (observed)
Star's mass: 0.52 solar masses (estimated from mass-luminosity relationship)
Star's radial velocity amplitude: 0.27 m/s (observed) ←
Exoplanet's orbital period: 50 days (observed)
Exoplanet transits star, hence orbit is seen edge-on.
Exoplanet mass: 1.01 Earths (calculated)
Exoplanet-star separation: 0.214 AU (calculated)
Inner bound of classical habitable zone: 0.189 AU (calculated estimate)
Outer bound of classical habitable zone: 0.269 AU (calculated estimate)

Star's spectral type: K3 (observed)
Star's mass: 0.75 solar masses (estimated from mass-luminosity relationship)
Star's radial velocity amplitude: 0.15 m/s (observed) ←
Exoplanet's orbital period: 150 days (observed)
Exoplanet transits star, hence orbit is seen edge-on.
Exoplanet mass: 1.03 Earths (calculated)
Exoplanet-star separation: 0.502 AU (calculated)
Inner bound of classical habitable zone: 0.414 AU (calculated estimate)
Outer bound of classical habitable zone: 0.588 AU (calculated estimate)

Star's spectral type: G2 (observed)
Star's mass: 1.0 solar masses (estimated from mass-luminosity relationship)
Star's radial velocity amplitude: 0.085 m/s (observed) ←
Exoplanet's orbital period: 450 days (observed)
Exoplanet transits star, hence orbit is seen edge-on.
Exoplanet mass: 1.02 Earths (calculated)
Exoplanet-star separation: 1.15 AU (calculated)
Inner bound of classical habitable zone: 0.95 AU (calculated estimate)
Outer bound of classical habitable zone: 1.35 AU (calculated estimate)

So... the Doppler measurements should be able to resolve radial velocity differences of about five centimeters per second (or better). It might be easier to try to measure the larger Doppler shifts from the exoplanet.

The latest deception campaign from the "fake news" mainstream media
The mainstream media have begun (suddenly, as of this morning) ventilating a new lie about how illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate than native-born US citizens do. They're saying that "research" proves it.

Nonsense. Or, rather, they're not telling you everything.

In every year, and in every jurisdiction, where the crimes of Mestizos (i.e. Hispanics from Mexico, Central America, and Puerto Rico) are tracked separately from those of white people, the Mestizos have had per capita crime rates higher than those of white people. That's true for both violent crimes and property crimes.

Keep that phrase "per capita" in mind. It's important. It refers to the rate per person, as opposed to the rate per time.

Blacks, of course and generally speaking, have per capita crime rates that are as much higher than those of Mestizos, as those of Mestizos are higher than are those of whites. But this post isn't about blacks.

The lying MSM are conflating rates-over-time with per capita rates, with respect to crime perpetration. (That is the approach that these deceivers usually take in this matter.) Whites are, still, the majority in the United States, outnumbering Mestizos by a factor of four, and outnumbering blacks by a factor of five. You would expect that white crimes would have a higher rate over time, simply because whites comprise the preponderance of the country's population.

However, even that isn't always true. In some years, blacks, who form 12.5% of the population, commit more than half of all murders in the United States. In those years, blacks have a higher rate-over-time for murder perpetration, as well as having a higher per capita rate. But, again, this post isn't about blacks.

Any media source that tells you that illegal immigrants are more law-abiding than American whites is lying to you. Any media source that appears to lead you to that incorrect belief, without quite stating it in clear language, is trying to trick you by the use of imprecise language and by the omission of important details.

Think a moment. You can apprehend that there is an organized propaganda push by the mainstream media when nearly all of their venues begin telling the same lies at the same time. When every pundit from CNN to NPR can be heard ventilating stories that contradict seventy years of national crime statistics in regard to which group is most likely to commit crimes, it's an easy and very reliable inference that the media conglomerates got together on it for propaganda purposes.

Long ago, under my pseudonym Jerry Abbott, I wrote that you can consider the whole edifice of the mainstream media to be as credible as a single perjured witness. It's true.

One of the attempts by leftists to "justify" immigration from Third World countries is that we need workers to support our aging white populations. But when they arrive, the immigrants mostly (70% of them) go on welfare. Taken as a whole, they worsen the economic situation. They don't make it better.

Five of my posts that were recently censored from Facebook
Here are five of my posts that were recently censored from Facebook.

Censored post 1.

(Reason stated: Hate Speech.)

I've been catching up on the alt-media presentations on YouTube, BitChute, and elsewhere. An overall picture can be put together, and I'll summarize it as follows:

Americans had better be damned happy that Donald Trump won the Presidential election in 2016, because, if Hillary Clinton had been our president now the United States would be full-on Soviet Union style Marxist repression.

Even with Trump as president, white men who committed no crime have been sent to prison for defending themselves and each other from violent leftists and from violent blacks.

Judges have looked at evidence videos — and then lied about what those videos revealed, in order to exonerate blacks who were guilty of aggravated assault. One of the blacks who was improperly acquitted was DeAndre Harris.

Biased juries have been created for the purpose of convicting white defendants of inflated criminal charges. A white man who might, perhaps, have been reasonably charged with negligent (vehicular) homicide was convicted of first degree murder by such a biased jury in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Attorneys have been credibly accused of sabotaging the defense of their own clients, when those clients were white nationalists.

Imagine how much worse things would be, if Hillary Clinton had been elected President of the United States in 2016. Yes, things are bad anyway. But at least we have in Donald Trump a president who won't actively take part in the evil perpetuated by Marxist leftists both in and out of government. Hillary, when she was well enough to function, would have been a Stalin.

Censored post 2.

(Reason stated: Hate Speech.)

In Houston, Texas, yesterday, after the press had been blaming "a white man" for four days for the murder of a black girl named Jazmine Barnes, the police arrested the killer— and he's a black man.

The blacks, the leftists, the Jews... they will do this every time.

Do you remember the Beltway Sniper (2002)? For weeks, the blacks, the leftists, the Jews were telling us all that the shooter was "a white man in a white van." Then it turned out that the shooters were two black men driving around in a Chevrolet car.

Do you remember the Atlanta Child Murderer (1982)? The blacks were saying it must be a white racist who was killing black children in the city. Then it turned out to be a black man named Wayne Williams.

But they'll blame whites every time that they think that they can get away with it. Tawana Brawley was a liar. Crystal Gail Mangum was a liar. The blacks lied about George Zimmerman, too — fortunately, the jury saw through those lies.

The FBI crime statistics say that in 2015 there were 498950 black-on-white crimes and 88050 white-on-black crimes (combined violent crimes and property crimes). The ratio of black crimes to white crimes was 5.667. The white to black population ratio, in the United States, is five. Therefore, the typical black is about 28 times more likely to commit a crime against a white person, as compared with the typical white committing a crime against a black person.

When considering violent crimes alone, apart from property crimes, we get a similar picture. When the interracial violent crimes from 2012 through 2015 are totaled, there were 540873 black-on-white violent crimes, but only 92706 white-on-black violent crimes. Blacks perpetrated 5.834 times more violent crimes against whites than whites did against blacks. The typical black was 29 times more likely to commit a violent attack on a white victim, as compared with the reverse.

Blacks are far, far more criminal-minded than are whites.

In case you're curious:

The typical mestizo "Hispanic" is 10.0 times more likely to attack a white victim, as compared with the reverse.

The typical black is 3.62 times more likely to attack a mestizo "Hispanic," as compared with the reverse.

A black is 15 times more likely than a white to be a member of a gang.

A mestizo "Hispanic" is 14 times more likely than a white to be a member of a gang.

Censored post 3.

(Reason stated: Hate Speech.)

If you missed it, Serena Williams chimped out during a US Women's Open tennis match. Her coach tried to give her advice (coaching), which is against the rules of that particular venue of the game. The umpire, per the rules, gave Serena Williams a mild penalty, a warning, for this first violation.

Serena Williams completely lost her composure and began ranting at the umpire. After losing a point to her opponent, Naomi Osaka, Williams slammed her racquet down on the court, which was another violation of the rules. The umpire accordingly gave Williams a point penalty for this second violation.

Serena Williams seemed to go crazy. She heaped verbal abuse and insults on the umpire, and called him a thief. The umpire accordingly gave Williams a game penalty for this third violation.

Serena Williams lost the match. Now she's saying that she was standing up for the rights of women against injustice, or some such thing.

Censored post 4.

(This one was posted on Facebook about three years ago. Reason stated: Nudity. I'd reposted a photo that was originally posted in the mainstream press of several African countries. It did contain some nudity.)

A black blessing. A black preacher in Africa convinced the unmarried women in his church that they would be more likely to get husbands if they undressed, knealt down with their butts raised, and let him kiss them between their buttocks.

The average IQ for black Africans is only 70. And it shows.

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 particular deposition of body fat is likely that it is used as an emergency source of bodily 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 though this length of tissue! By contrast, women of other races are much tidier and cleaner in their private parts.

Censored post 5.

(Reason stated: Hate Speech.)

Remember that when we compare races, we are comparing averages, or rather distributions that have means and standard deviations. We aren't comparing their individual members.

As a rule, whites are superior to blacks in intelligence. There are certain blacks who are smarter than a fraction of the white race. But the average white is smarter than is the average black.

The fraction, f, of a race having an average IQ of x̄ and a standard deviation in IQ of σ, which is above the minimum IQ of μ.

f(μ) = [σ√(2π)]⁻¹ ∫(μ,∞) exp{ −[(x−x̄)/σ]²/2 } dx

Taking advantage of the normal distribution's symmetry, we make it more easily integrable.

f(μ,x̄,σ) = ½ − [σ√(2π)]⁻¹ ∫(x̄,μ) exp{ −[(x−x̄)/σ]²/2 } dx

You can avoid integrating the probability density function if you have a handy error function to call.

f(μ,x̄,σ) = 1 − ½ { 1 + erf [(μ−x̄)/(σ√2)] }

For whites, x̄ = 102.2 and σ = 14.1
For blacks, x̄ = 85.0 and σ = 13.0

Let's suppose that an employer is hiring people to do a kind of work that requires an IQ of at least 130 for satisfactory performance: μ=130.

For whites, f(130, 102.2, 14.1) = 0.024325861
For blacks, f(130, 85.0, 13.0) = 0.000268549

Let's further suppose that the employer's place of business is in a demographically average part of the United States, where whites outnumber blacks by a ratio of five. We'll assume that everyone in the area submits an application and that everyone in the area takes an IQ test as a condition for having his application considered by the employer.

We can see that one white in each 41 whites will qualify for the job.
We can see that one black in each 3724 blacks will qualify for the job.

An average white will be 90.6 times more likely to be qualified for the job on the basis of measured intelligence, as compared with the average black.

Since there are five times more whites in the area than blacks, we can expect that the employer, were he to use no racism whatsoever, would hire about 453 times more whites than blacks.

Of course, being generally too stupid to do these calculations, not to mention being racist themselves, black advocacy groups will accuse the employer of racism. But they will be wrong. And no informed person should take those accusations seriously, because they are wrong.

IQ tests measure the ability of a person to solve problems for which intelligence is the primary advantage for success. Intelligence is exhibited by accomplishment.

However, beware of claims of accomplishment. Blacks often lie about the so-called inventions and discoveries and credentials of blacks in history. No, they didn't invent the electric street light. No, they didn't invent peanut butter. No, they didn't invent the gas mask. No, they didn't invent the refrigerator. Whereas a black person found a way to make these things, they were inferior copies of inventions that whites had already made.