Black Privilege strikes again

As I’ve pointed out before, progressives no longer pose as being on the side of the working man (and woman). To the contrary, they openly look upon him with the utmost contempt.

That was hammered home recently by an incident in that seething hive of enlightened White progressivism, Portland, Oregon, when a black “progressive equity activist” played a vicious little game at a Portland establishment called the “Back to Eden Bakery.”

Portland bakery fires employees for denying black woman service after closing

We’re talking about a place that, according to its website, won the award for “Best Gluten-Free Restaurant” in 2016 and 2017. It boasts about its involvement in accepted progressive causes, including the “Basic Rights Oregon Council,” the “Native America Rights Foundation,” the “Trans Women of Color Collective” (I’m not making that up), the “Farm Animal Rights Movement,” and dozens of other fashionable leftist institutions. Conspicuously missing, of course, is any indication of charity or good feelings toward ordinary white people.

The “equity activist” made a point of showing up after the establishment had closed.  Having worked at retail businesses many years ago, I remember that the policy was usually “serve the people who came in before closing time, even if it’s after closing time. If they come in after, turn them away politely with regrets.” That’s because if you keep serving people who come in after closing time, you’ll never close.

In one statement, “Back To Eden Bakery” says that according to its own surveillance video, a black woman named “Lillian”, who is well known in the area as a “professional equity activist”, entered at 9:06 p.m., after the bakery’s closing time. Employees had also turned off the “Open” sign, but several customers (all white) who had already ordered were still inside. Two other white women who went to the bakery two minutes before “Lillian”, and were also informed that the business was closed for the night.

The bakery says “Lillian” left the store briefly and began recording video.

So, we have a professional troublemaker who comes looking for trouble. She’s turned away, as was her goal, and uses that to make a stink. In a more civilized society, such an obvious provocateur  would be be treated given short shrift, regardless of her race. In Bizarro World, however, she has special privilege because she is black, and the poor employees she targeted, because they are white, deserve nothing but contempt:

The bakery’s statement says that even though it does not consider the employees to be racist and that they were following the business’s protocol of closing at 9 p.m., they were fired because “sometimes impact outweighs intent.”

The unfairness of being fired just for being caught in the scheme of an unscrupulous race hustler doesn’t enter into it, nor does the fact that the unlucky employees were just doing as they had been told:

In one statement, the bakery admitted that the employees did not necessarily do anything wrong, “this is more about how a black woman was made to feel” at the business.

Ponder for a moment the astounding cynicism of such a statement. How the white employees feel about being fired from their minimum-wage, hand-to-mouth job doesn’t count. How will they manage without jobs? Who cares? Because  they suffer from “white privilege,” the progressive, tolerant, enlightened, compassionate business owners — probably white themselves — have no problem throwing them out on the street to placate a well-fed “activist” who’s probably never done an honest day’s work in her life.

Ironically, the owners apparently realized their hypocrisy was showing, so they deleted that and other statements from their website.

People who will carry out such a vile act are not all that far from  loading women and children onto cattle cars. That’s the reality behind the facade of compassionate progressivism.

POSTSCRIPT: Now that this incident has received some well-deserved publicity, Back to Eden Bakery complains that it is receiving impolite messages from members of the “Alt-Right,” which have caused them welcome fear and suffering. Welcome, because it allows them to pose as victims, instead of perpetrators.


Well, Here’s an Interesting Gambit

Pity poor Robert Mueller. The dutiful hatchet man charged by his fellow ruling-class elites with bringing down the usurper Trump, he’s finding it rough going. After a year and a half, Mueller and his team of vicious anti-Trump lawyers have been unable to come up with any actual evidence of collusion between the hated false Emperor and the evil Designated Hitler, Vladimir Putin. And that was supposedly the whole purpose of his seemingly ill-fated enterprise.

For instance, the story was that the Russians hacked into the Democratic Party’s computer servers and publicized embarrassing information regarding the Party’s unethical suppression of Bernie Sander’s nomination bid. But new evidence now indicates that it was an insider who downloaded the documents onto a thumb drive.

So, to muddy the waters and make it look as if his investigation was going somewhere, he indicted 13 members of a Russian click-bait farm that posted some fake messages and ads on social media sites such as Facebook. In it he charged that the hired internet trolls were actively interfering in the 2016 election and working to defeat Hillary Clinton’s campaign for Emperor.

Apparently, however, the indictment is pretty thin legal gruel, and would face problems if challenged in court. For instance, the trolls didn’t just post anti-Hillary messages. They also went after Trump, as well as posting messages that didn’t address the campaign at all, but stirred the pot with issues such as race, religion, and others. And in fact, much of their activity happened after the election. A friend of mine with knowledge about such things tells me that she thinks the whole effort was an attempt to make money by provoking people to click on pages with advertisements. In any case, the entire effort only spent a few hundred thousand dollars, if that, and may have reached at most a few thousand people. In a campaign in which billions were spent, that’s a pretty tiny drop in the bucket.

But Mueller had two things going for him.

1) He could depend on the hysterical support of Democrat (and some Republican) politicians and the Ministry of Truth. For instance, Democratic Congressorganism Jerry Nadler proclaimed that the indictment was “absolute proof” that the Russians “attacked” the United State, and that it was the “equivalent” to Pearl Harbor.

2) Mueller brought the indictment calculating that the Russians named therein would stay safely in Russia. After all, there’s no way they could be extradited, and what would they have to gain by trying to defend themselves anyway? So the indictment would be moot in any material sense and prevent any necessity of defending it. It could just remain in legal limbo, giving off a stench and adding to the bad publicity being piled on Trump.

Except that now a couple of lawyers have popped up claiming to represent the indicted trolls, who, according to the lawyers, want to defend themselves against the indictment! The only reasonable explanation is that the Russians know that the case is fatally weak. They are demanding discovery, which could make the whole case blow up in Mueller’s face when they expose that weakness.

The one thing that Mueller apparently left out of his calculations was the fact that Russians are really big on the game of chess. That game teaches one to carefully consider all available options and their possible consequences, to think ahead, and to fight carefully, but boldly. We’ve seen one manifestation of this in Russia’s outmaneuvering of the U.S., with far fewer resources, in Syria. Another is the way that the Russian military has developed an array of weapons that allow a country with a GDP a tenth the size of that of the U.S. to credibly deter aggression by the United State.

Meanwhile, the U.S. style of confrontation is to roar, bluster, and imitate a bull in a china shop.

This may be very entertaining, indeed.


Right after the news that the Russian trolls are asking for discovery from Robert Mueller, we get this:

Report: Russian Hackers Posed as ISIS to Attack U.S. Military Wives

I wonder how long they’ve been keeping it on ice, waiting for the moment it’s needed?

Unfair to the Homeless

If you live in a city, you know the problems that vagrants can cause. The stink of stale urine. Trash, broken glass, and and other detritus littering the area. Graffiti-covered surfaces, noise, and general disorder all adding up to a desire to get out of there as soon as possible.

On the one hand, hardly anyone wants to make things even more difficult for people who already have problems dealing with the challenges of life. On the other hand, there is the issue of their making places unlivable for everyone else. When I lived in D.C., derelicts urinating in the stacks of the District’s Martin Luther King library were an ongoing problem, as was being driven away from reading areas by the unwashed stench of sleeping homeless. And only recently a friend of mine entering a D.C. Metro station surprised a homeless guy in the act of defecation when her elevator door opened.

To most people it probably seems that taking steps to prevent or limit such assaults on civilized society, and the damage they cause, is a rational thing to do. One might argue over effectiveness versus cost, or whether certain measures are humane. But the idea that we, as a society, have the right to set certain standards of behavior and  protect property from vandalism would seem to be be pretty reasonable. Unless, that is, you’re R.J. Wilson, writing on a hipster website called URBO:

Hostile Architecture: How Cities Are Designed To Control Your Behavior

The title reveals Wilson’s prejudice on the issue. It refers to items such as park benches designed to discourage sleeping on them, studs on flat surfaces that discourage loitering, etc. In fact, the author is so prejudiced that he (or she) allows his bias to get in the way of good semantics. The items he refers to aren’t meant to control my behavior or yours. Their point is to prevent certain activities, activities most of us aren’t interested in carrying out anyway. And, of course, they aren’t really hostile at all; they’re defensive, and passively so. Their existence is an unfortunate fact of today’s urban living, resulting from the anti-social actions of a few. In a more civilized society, park benches wouldn’t need to be designed to be too uncomfortable to sit on for long periods. The fact that they must makes all our lives a little less civilized.

As if to emphasize the author’s complete lack of a rational perspective, he (or she)  manages to drag in a completely irrelevant reference to antebellum slavery. But it’s not as if communities and property owners have no good reason to try to discourage vagrants, winos, and drug addicts.

I got some firsthand experience of the problems “hostile architecture” attempts to address when I lived in a scruffy Washington, D.C. neighborhood. I often had to oust winos from the alley behind my place. It’s not that I wanted to make life hard for them. It’s just that they would urinate all over the place, leave broken bottles in the alley, get into fights, make a lot of noise, intimidate residents, and generally contribute to an atmosphere of chaos and decrepitude. I also had a lot of bicycle tires ruined as a result of broken glass in the alley — especially at night — and finally had to resort to picking up the bike and carrying it to my back door.

One time I found a couple of winos cracking open a new bottle purchased from the convenience store on the corner. I told them, “Hey, guys, why don’t you move on and find another place to do that.”

The winos were apparently unused to being challenged, and incensed by my audacity. They shrieked, “We got as much right to be here as anyone!” and called me names.

I said to them, “Move along.” When they ignored me I said more forcefully, “I said, MOVE ALONG!”

One of them said to the other, “C’mon, man. That’s the po-leece talkin’!” and they left. But soon enough their places were taken by others.

The disorder promoted by the winos and junkies in the neighborhood had far-reaching effects.  Every morning on my way to the Metro station I would pass at least one car with a window broken out and its interior ransacked. Anything of value that wasn’t bolted down or locked up would disappear in an instant if you took your eyes off it. Burglars ran rampant. And the disorder in common spaces caused people to withdraw from them, and from each other. The people who shared the alley hardly spoke to each other, each keeping to his own building as if it were a fortress. Nobody bothered to maintain the area, which continually stank of urine. Weeds grew in the pavement cracks, dirt and trash accumulated, and someone abandoned an old car behind a vacant house, which neither the house’s owner nor the famously efficient D.C. municipal government somehow ever got around to taking away for an entire year.

The car soon became an overnight shelter for some junkies, who greatly added to the chaos, defecating in the open and scattering used needles around for children to pick up. For a while I would roust them from the car. But then they got used to me and learned to lock the doors, while I got no help from the neighbors — some of whom looked on my efforts as being unfair to the poor junkies.

So the problems of having “homeless” people around aren’t just that they aren’t pleasant to look at, or that they offend some people’s sensibilities, as the author of the article seems to believe. It’s that they do great harm, not only to property, but to communities as a whole. There’s no easy, humane solution, but trying to stop attempts to discourage them from damaging civilized life is simply insane.

The thing is, such insanity is utterly consistent with the modern radical Left’s agenda, which  seeks to tear down the structures and institutions of civilized society, using such proxies as uneducated illegal immigrants and uncivilized “homeless” people to do the dirty work. Giving free rein to an underclass that destroys order and civility is, for them, a feature, not a bug.

You are the Enemy: “Officer Safety” is more important than yours.

I have to say, I was already fed up with all the pompous nonsense about cops “putting their lives on the line,” etc. After all, what about the lumberjacks, farmers, miners, fishermen, linemen, construction workers, and all the others that work at jobs much more dangerous? They put their lives on the line, too, so that we can live comfortably in the modern world, but they don’t rate the same kind of regard, apparently.

Those guys don’t get the enormous traffic-blocking funeral motorcades, with saluting firemen on the overpasses; the lugubrious candlelight vigils; the faked sadness on the faces of newsreaders reporting on some uniformed thug who stumbled into the path of a bullet.

The thing is, after all that blather about “putting their lives on the line,” when the time comes for cops to actually do it, as often as not it seems that they don’t. During the Virginia Tech massacre, for instance, the cops waited outside for 5 minutes, giving the shooter time to take out more innocents before finally making himself safely dead.

They took their own sweet time showing up, too, when Stephen Paddock was mowing down people from his Las Vegas room. Cops were in the building reporting gunfire from the floor above them at 10:12 PM. But somehow they took another six minutes to make it up one floor to his door. And it took them another hour before they finally broke down the door, by which time Paddock had also become conveniently non-hazardous by killing himself. The Las Vegas police department still won’t say when they were first notified there was somebody shooting innocent people.

The same thing happened in Florida last week. There was a “resource officer” — the educationist term for campus cop — on the scene, who conspicuously did nothing. And then three more cops showed up, and also did nothing. They just cowered and listened to the screams of kids getting shot.

As reporters have dug into the incident, more and more police outrages have come to light. First we learned that a woman police captain ordered the deputies on the site to “form a perimeter”, instead of going into the building and stopping the shooter. And now the Miami Herald reports that radio traffic recordings show the “resource officer” ordering other officers to — stay away.

I don’t think this is some kind of anomaly, either. As I pointed out 15 years ago in an essay entitled “You are the Enemy,” police in this country have been trained to view us civilians as “others.” We are seen, not as fellow citizens or taxpayers to be served, but as potential threats. And along with that, they are taught that their number one priority is “officer safety.” Not our safety. Theirs.

That’s why there are so many reports of cops shooting unarmed civilians. “Officer safety” training justifies shooting unarmed citizens first and asking questions later: “The officer perceived a credible threat when the 62-year-old grandmother reached for her purse. It was a justified shooting.”

And it means police work is even more attractive to cowardly bullies than it used to be. Let’s face it, most actual criminals are so pathetic they’re not really much of a threat. In fact, if you want to beat up on them, who’s going to believe them when they say they didn’t resist? Nobody important. Or you can just steal their money and drugs, as the Los Angeles cops did in the Rampart scandal, or the Baltimore cops convicted just a few weeks ago. Or the Chicago cops just indicted. Or the Philadelphia cop recently indicted. Cop rapists is another encouraging trend. Protect and serve!

But every once in a while an actual threat to the citizenry comes along; the kind of threat against which you’re actually supposed to put your life on the line, to save the lives of innocents. And what happens then, Mr. Tough Guy?

So I don’t expect you to protect me or anything. Just, please don’t gratuitously shoot me at a traffic stop, okay? And also, don’t give us any more rubbish about “lives on the line.” That’s all I ask.

The Broward County Sheriff’s incompetence is even worse than you thought

REVEALED: Broward County Deputy Who Gave ‘Stage’ Order That Kept Cops Outside Parkland Shooting

Isn't political correctness wonderful?
Isn’t political correctness wonderful?


It turns out that part of the reason four deputy sheriffs loitered outside Stoneman Douglas High School was a captain who ordered them by radio to form a “perimeter” instead of going in and saving some lives.

And guess what? That captain is a woman.

So we have:
  •  A policy of allowing juvenile criminals off the hook to prevent a “school to prison pipeline,” for minority members. Said policy prevented the arrest of the Hispanic shooter even though he had committed crimes, because he was Hispanic. Thus he was able to walk around free and collect an arsenal when he should have been in jail;
  • A cowardly deputy “resource officer” who hides instead of confronting the shooter;
  • A woman commander who orders her charges not to interfere with the killing.
  •  The Sheriff, who boasts of his “amazing leadership” in promoting politically-correct policies and personnel, and in hiring incompetent staff.
  • Plus, the FBI admits it didn’t do what it was supposed to do when it was tipped off that Cruz was dangerous, thus, again, allowing him to run around loose.

We find this out at the same time that they’re telling us we shouldn’t be able to arm ourselves; that we should trust the State to protect us instead.

Ever get the feeling that our rulers don’t really have our best interests at heart?

Google elites show us a distopian future

googlenaziA recent spate of reports about vicious anti-free speech behavior among the management of the tech giant Google is enough to send shivers up one’s spine. They fired one software engineer for arguing that the reason there are fewer women than men in science, math, and technical fields is that they are different.

And get this:

“One of the great things about Google’s internal communication mechanisms (G+, mailing lists, etc), is that, as a manager, I can easily go find out if I really want to work with you,” wrote another individual described on social media as a Google manager, Collin Winter. “I keep a written blacklist of people whom I will never allow on or near my team, based on how they view and treat their coworkers. That blacklist got a little longer today.”


In another post, alleged Site Reliability Manager Paul Cowan warned to employees that “freedom of speech is the right to freely express an opinion. It is most assuredly not the right to express an opinion with freedom from the consequences.”

Cowan continued to reference a post from Google dissidents, who were discussing the blacklists being created by an “SJW cabal” at the company, before defending the concept of punishing anti-SJW employees.

“To be clear: this is, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable,” he declared. “Quoting this as if it were some egregious abuse of power, or of your rights, is laughable… My life, happiness, and mental health, are worth too much to me to burn my precious happy-fu working with people I find contemptible, unpleasant, or even in some cases merely irritating.”

These are high-income, high status people who apparently can say these things in one of the largest, most powerful corporations in the U.S., and not only get away with it, but be positively praised for such statements.

They are the same kind of people who in other times and places herd those they don’t like onto cattle cars. I don’t think they’d hesitate for an instant to do it to you and me if they got the chance.

The only question now is, will they get the chance?

Are we to be spared nothing?


I’ve noted before that the elites despise ordinary Americans, especially ordinary white Americans. It’s the kind of class hatred and prejudice that calls to mind the stereotypes of the old Russian or French aristocracies’ arrogant disdain for the peasant. I think part of the reason is that Middle Americans don’t fit the elites’ notion of what the workers and peasants should be: oppressed, downtrodden, and looking to their betters for support and guidance. Instead, they tend to be too independent and ornery, with ideas of their own about how to live, what to drive, what to think, etc. That many of them still cling to religion and guns, as a contemptuous former Emperor put it, only makes it worse.

So, what’s to be done? Well, besides destroying their capacity for critical thinking through the public day-prison system for children, one can destroy whatever small towns and neighborhoods that remain as cohesive communities. The first effective attempt at this was apparently the forced integration of the Boston public “schools” in South Boston, beginning in 1974. South Boston was just the kind of community that sticks in the craw of the Progressives: lower working class, ethnically homogeneous, with a strong sense of community. The fact that they resented having their children forced across town to associate with violent blacks just proved that they were racists who deserved to be forced to accept it.

Since then the forced introduction of aliens into communities has become a favored weapon of the elites against the white masses. Inviting people from south of the border not only dilutes and negates native culture, it provides cheap domestic help to the elites. The problem is that Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans stay away from some places for one reason or another.

So the answer is to parachute the aliens in: “Romanian immigrants are ‘defecating in the streets and cutting off the heads of chickens,’ complain outraged residents of a Pennsylvania town,” by Daniel Roth, Daily Mail, July 14, 2017.

Of course, these aren’t really ethnic Romanians. They’re Gypsies, who seem to be proliferating in Trantor, also. I kicked one out of a McDonald’s a few months ago when he tried to run a scam on Ronn Neff and me. Apparently Romanian Gypsies are really bad news: primitive, uncivilized, and vicious. But it’s okay, because:

According to borough administrator Dr. Richard Martin, they are part of a program called Alternative to Detention set up by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).Part of the program is to give local residents orientation “about who these folks (the Romanian immigrants) are, why they’re here,” said Martin.

“Basically, we need to come together as a community and work through the issues,” he added.

You need to “work through the issues” because you have no say about who gets foisted on you as your neighbor. Especially someone who has been introduced into your community as an “alternative to detention.” And, of course, it goes without saying that if you complain about it, you’re a racist.

It also goes without saying that the people who perpetrated this outrage will never have to deal with feral aliens introduced into their own neighborhoods. No, such blessings are only for those without power and influence.

Thanks, NSA!

nsa-all-your-dataIt turns out that our own “security” commissars are responsible for the current “Wannacry” ransomware disaster now affecting computers all over the world. What a surprise.

That’s right. Thanks to whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, it’s been known for some time that the so-called National Security Agency (NSA) has been using its massive hacking resources to develop software that can break into and take over people’s computers, without the user knowing. Supposedly this is to protect our “security.”

That’s bad enough, but now we learn that this “security” agency — whose uplifting motto is “Defending our Nation, Securing the Future” —  is so insecure that it has allowed its snooping software to escape into “the wild”, where it was used by hackers to install ransomware on hundreds of thousands of computers. The ransomware encrypted their hard drives, rendering them useless until a ransom of $300 was paid in Bitcoin.

That’s in addition to the fact that the NSA has pressured huge cyber companies such as Google, to provide “back doors” — or security vulnerabilities — in their products to allow Federal snoopers to read the encrypted private files and communications of millions of U.S. private citizens. And the further fact that the NSA records and stores all communications in the U.S. — which leads one to wonder if any U.S. politicians have been blackmailed with embarrassing information, either by Federal “security” officials, or by someone else who managed to get hold of it because of lousy Federal “security.”

Then there’s the interesting allegation that data routers made by U.S. companies also have “back doors” built into them by the NSA, meaning that anybody with any sense — especially foreign customers — wouldn’t buy one. Way to promote “American Made,” NSA!

Aside from the millions, perhaps billions of dollars in damage caused, this latest outrage has resulted in hospitals being unable to help patients, some of whom may have died as a result. And it isn’t the first time U.S. developed malware has escaped and caused massive damage. The Stuxnet computer worm, developed apparently by the U.S. and Israel to attack Iranian uranium centrifuges, also got out and destroyed computer-controlled machines in factories, mainly in Third World countries such as India and Indonesia.

But such is only a small part of the price the world must pay so that the Empire can be “secure.” And don’t worry. Our rulers have everything in hand.


Attack of the Killer Lesbians

Two privileged women who like to bully heteros

“We’re better than you, so you’d better watch out.”

As I’ve pointed out before, the elites and their leftist hangers-on hate and despise ordinary people, especially Christians. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the current campaign of vicious attacks by homosexuals and lesbians on normal people who have made the mistake of believing they are free.

Examples include:

  • A Christian baker in the Denver, Colorado area who declined to make a wedding cake for a pair of homosexuals. He was pounced upon, sued, and ritually humiliated by the courts, forced to undergo re-education (also called “sensitivity training), and to submit to involuntary servitude to his tormentors.
  • A Christian pizzeria owner in Indiana who naively answered leading questions by a malicious reporter about whether he might cater a homosexual “wedding.” He was subjected to a barrage of abuse by well-off bien-pensants, as well as threats by local crazies, purely on the basis of an off-the-cuff response to a hypothetical question .
  • A Christian florist in Washington, who has been dragged to court by the State for refusing to provide flowers to a homosexual “wedding.”
  • A Christian couple running a bakery in the hipster-lefty-infested Portland Oregon area, who have been found guilty by a an “administrative law judge” (so much for “due process”) of causing “emotional suffering” to a lesbian couple for not baking them a cake for their “wedding.” They have been ordered to pay their “victims” $135,000.
  • A cab driver in New York City who was fined $10,000 for telling his lesbian passengers to stop snogging in his cab, and calling them bad names after they left without paying. The cab driver, apparently under some illusion that he had the right to enforce standards of decency in his taxi, had the audacity to tell them to “keep that [behavior] for the bedroom or get out of the cab.” The triumphant couple (see photo above) are a television executive and an “actress,” for whom a $10,000 fine would probably not cause near as much damage as it will to the father-of-four cab driver. That’ll show him who’s boss.

Left unsaid in most of these incidents is just how easy it would probably be to find someone who would gladly provide services to the aggrieved parties. Are you telling me that there aren’t bakeries in Portland and Denver who wouldn’t supply a “gay wedding” cake? Or that there were no “gay” florists to be found?

No, in most of these cases it looks as if the victims were targeted by their tormentors in a deliberate attempt to provoke them into a trap. Even the lesbian cab smoochers displayed arrogant,  provocative behavior seemingly calculated to get a reaction.

And here’s the thing. My suspicion is that in all or most of these cases, the aggrieved parties are not only higher status, but better off financially than the people they are going after.

Progressives today are openly targeting and trying to destroy people who are poorer than they are. It’s the kind of haughty cruelty that brings to mind the worst of cliches about Old World aristocracy.

It used to be that lefties at least made a show of caring about the plight of the ordinary man. No longer. Now their contempt and hatred of the average American is right out in the open.