Posts Tagged ‘riots’

What To Do During The November 4, 2017 Antifa Riots/Protests: Bake Cookies

Friday, November 3rd, 2017

According to Newsweek, the bright Saturday of November 4, 2017 will bring us nationwide protests by the Left which are expected to include the usual mix of Antifa, black bloc, anarchists, Communists and of course regular Democrats, who may or may not be distinguished from the same. Some on the Right are encouraging us to oppose them.

That is probably not the best idea. Antifa like to claim they are “resisting fascism,” which requires fascists to resist, so confronting them merely emboldens them. Even when not confronted with fascism, however, they like to express themselves by smashing windows, looting stores, burning trashcans and otherwise running the gamut from vandalism to violence.

We want America and the world to see that this wanton destruction represents the actual soul of the Left. We do not want to give the Left an excuse to claim they were defending themselves. We want them to be given equal airtime, unopposed, in order to express themselves with whatever deranged destruction they can summon. That reveals who they are; power reveals all of us.

Instead of marching out there with weapons to confront the imagined enemy, because you are in fact seeing a symptom of the enemy and the enemy is an idea, stay home and bake cookies. Play with the kids, brush the dog, fix the leaky toilet, repaint the guest room. Ignore the disaster and let it play out in its glory.

If Antifa threaten your properly, feel free to encourage them to leave with the knowledge that you will defend yourself, family, pets and property. Suggest instead that they go downtown where the capitalist businesses and fascistic porcine babysitters are located. Point out where the good stores are with the luxury goods that Antifa love to loot. Send them on their way with a wave.

The big point is this: an Antifa protest that was entirely peaceful would be a huge win for them, but that is unlikely, so they are depending on you to act out the public drama of Left-Right conflict by showing up with machine guns and opening fire the minute Antifa start rioting, vandalizing and stealing.

This fits the narrative that the media is spinning, and it will quickly omit to mention the early rioting, and run this story instead: innocent Leftists, fired on by sadistic Right Wing death squads, defended themselves by burning down the downtowns of our cities and towns in order to defeat the fascists. That story does not benefit us on the Right, at all.

Instead, we want the cameras to find this more realistic scene: while Right-wingers hang out at the home, smoking a pipe as they wallpaper the room for their anticipated fourth child, the angry losers of Antifa trashed nice places and had a public tantrum that appears unrelated to anything constructive for anyone anywhere. We want them to reveal themselves.

Newsweek points out that, as usual, Antifa will be hiding among the “moderate Leftists” (sort of like a “lite Communist,” one must assume) and then emerge to attack when the Right appears, resulting in the usual conversion from protest to riot that grabs headlines and makes the media happy:

The explicit goal of the November 4 protests, which have been warped into a number of increasingly bizarre, “antifa”-related conspiracy theories by right-wing media, is to remove Trump and his administration from office. In order to achieve that end, millions of people will have to take to the streets of cities like New York, Austin and San Francisco, demanding that the administration step down, organizers tell Newsweek.

…The deluge of fake news stories have led to some people on the far right lobbing violent threats at protesters online. Right-wing militia members have said they will attend the Austin rally to face antifa, for example, leading to concerns about violence from activists.

“We’re not going to back down just because of this,” refuse fascism’s Coco Das told Newsweek of the Austin protest. “They’re counting on people staying home because of fear.”

Look at how nicely that narrative spins itself: a peaceful protest threatened by violent Right-wing activists. If such violence did break out, Antifa would not own the violence, where if the Right-wingers stay home and bake cookies with their families, Antifa will own its usual spate of entropy and savagery.

If you do anything this November 4, make it the smart choice and stay home to bake cookies. Not only are they delicious, but you can share them with your neighbors as you watch pillars of smoke rise from the consumer businesses that you do not really need. Here’s a recipe for basic sugar cookies:


  • 1.25 cups white sugar
  • 1 lb butter
  • 3 egg yolks
  • 2.5 cups all-purpose flour
  • 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
  • 1 teaspoon baking soda
  • 1/2 teaspoon cinnamon


  1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (180 degrees C). Lightly grease 2 cookie sheets.
  2. Cream together sugar and butter. Beat in egg yolks and vanilla.
  3. Add flour, baking soda, and cinnamon. Stir.
  4. Form dough into walnut size balls and place 2 inches apart on cookie sheet. Don’t flatten. Bake 10 to 11 minutes, until tops are cracked and just turning color.

As the world burns, remind yourself that this present world is hostile to you and all that you value. Antifa is helping to remove it and discredit the Left by revealing their real motivation, which is an impulse to destroy. Your focus is on building the next civilization, having a sane and healthy family, and enjoying life. Stay home and let the Left hang themselves with their own rope.

American Police De-Mask Antifa As A Means Of Preserving Social Order

Saturday, April 29th, 2017

Police in Berkeley, California came to an amazing conclusion: since police in Auburn, AL avoided political violence by simply unmasking Antifa, if police in Berkeley did not do the same, they could well be liable in lawsuits for negligence. So the cops ordered the masks off, and the violence dropped way down:

Leftists always use anonymity to bully individuals, where Rightists tend to use it to get the word out about things that would otherwise be censored. As a result, “empowering” protestors by allowing them to wear masks and bring bike locks to protests results in violence, which inverts its purpose in protecting free speech into destruction of free speech through Leftist violence.

Charlotte, N.C. Burns In Latest Round Of Diversity Riots

Wednesday, September 21st, 2016


Dearly Beloved,

Here we gather again to mourn yet another race riot, this time in Charlotte, N.C. — although the media will not call it such.

Yet again we see the Leftist narrative debunked but only after it served its purpose, which was to inflame the community:

Quiet returned to Charlotte streets Wednesday after the police-involved shooting of an African-American man ignited a night of anger and violence that left windows smashed, stores looted, trucks set ablaze and 16 police officers wounded in the melee.

The violence erupted hours after the shooting death of Keith Lamont Scott, 43, who police say was armed and ignored several commands to drop his weapon.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney, at a news conference Wednesday, rejected claims Scott was holding a book, not a gun, and said the gun had been recovered by detectives. No book was found, Putney added.

As is typical, there are no solutions on the radar. The Left wants more power to minorities, including benefits payments and affirmative action; the Right wants people to stop pointing guns at cops; out here in the cold wilderness, us Realists want to look at the situation as a whole.

It makes sense to be sympathetic to the African-American point of view in the bigger picture. Not the specifics of this event, since those were rendered false by the Left-agenda narrative. But let us look at African-Americans and their situation, with compassion.

There is no possible solution for African-American angst in America. No matter what we do — trillions in welfare, lawsuits, benefits, affirmative action and draconian civil rights laws — they will always know that this society was founded by people other than them, designed for people other than them, and that African-Americans are only here because they were sold in Africa to slave traders for use as farm labor here.

Even with a black President, and former black Secretaries of Defense and State, with black Supreme Court justices and Martin Luther King Jr. as our official American Gandhi, black discontent roils. It does so not because of poverty, but because of the denial of pride.

For African-Americans, or any other population, to have pride in their nation they need to know it was founded by them, designed for them, and ruled by them since its creation. They need to have a sense of belonging that comes only from being the group that is the nation, and not one group of many, especially not one whose original utility was as chattel labor.

No matter what we do in response to this latest shooting and the resulting riots, nothing can ever be done that will make African-Americans happy, because the condition of their unhappiness is created by diversity.

Thus, as we contemplate this latest tragedy in a long line of American and European race riots, we should instead of looking for someone to blame, look at the conditions which make such events inevitable.

Gathered here, we pray.

American Revolution 2.0

Friday, March 11th, 2016


Unless you were fortunate enough to be hiding under a rock for the last twenty-four hours, you know that a planned Donald Trump rally in Chicago turned into a violent riot instigated by MoveOn, George Soros, Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders supporters.

What common factor do these groups share? They are all Leftist. As liberal democracy has spent itself into oblivion, debilitating its economies, and simultaneously made a series of horrible leadership decisions under leaders like Barack Obama and former Communist Angela Merkel, people have become desperate. And now their divisions are showing.

On one side are the committed Leftists: people who believe that egalitarianism, including its economic offshoot socialism, will solve our problems. On the other side, everyone else, including conservatives which now come in a dozen varieties based on degree of compromise with the Left-leaning governments the West has had since 1945.

Normally these divisions stay concealed. We mouth platitudes about free speech and each doing what makes sense to him, but secretly, the two sides hate each other because the societies they desire are incompatible. A Leftist world is the USSR to Rightists; a Rightist world is the NSDAP to Leftists. We want entirely different things but to be first to admit that is to be seen as an aggressor.

That barrier has been broken. By instigating the biggest political riots in America since the 1960s, the Left has declared war on all who have not joined the Left. The luxury of not taking sides no longer exists. You are either with them, or you are a target, and they consider “any means necessary” to include violence, theft, sexual assault and attacks on police for stopping the mayhem, as the Trump rally riot showed.

Trump, of course, has come out a champion. His comments both showed a leadership concern for the welfare of his people, and recognition of the transition through which America (and Europe, by extension) have just passed:

Following the melee, Trump said on MSNBC that he thinks he made the right decision in canceling the rally because he didn’t “want to see people hurt or worse.”

“We have a country that is so divided, that maybe you don’t even understand,” Trump continued. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

The divisions that have fractured America for centuries have come to the surface. These divisions arose entirely with the insistence of Leftists that they dominate this country, as they have dominated others and in the process destroyed them. They claim their disagreement is on certain issues, but in reality, they want a Leftist empire here. One where the strong are forced to serve the weak so that “equality” can be maintained.

As in Russia, France, Venezuela, Cuba and everywhere else it has been tried this will end in a burned-out third-world civilization with no hope of rising above that state, which is why even non-Rightists oppose it. History has spoken clearly on the matter, but the Bernie fans and MoveOn zombies know nothing of history, and they don’t care. They want what they want, and the rest of us should foot the bill and bow before them.

Some are still undecided. Europeans in particular point to their socialistic liberal democracies and claim that this type of society can work, but they do so from among the ruins of their immigration policy, failing defense and debt-laden societies where people are so miserable they do not reproduce at replacement rates. “Work” by that definition is equal to not work, because it is mostly a degree of that latter state.

Many Americans have woken up to the deception. They have realized that the welfare state means a permanent underclass, immigration means ethnic replacement, and liberal “tolerance” means a steady march toward tyranny. They are now recalling warnings from the past about how government is a self-interested actor that, if given a blank check mandate like “equality” and “diversity,” will quickly become near totalitarian.

And so, we wake after the Trump rally riots and realize a choice is thrust upon us. Do we go back to the 1980s and earlier, where there is no social welfare (backdoor socialism) and no great push for diversity? Or do we continue the march into what these rioters want, which is a subsidy state in which the former American majority is endlessly punished for its crimes, as in South Africa?

The real loser tonight was the group of moderates who keep trying to make these incompatible political philosophies function together. They cannot: conservatives want a society of performance before reward to encourage people toward greater heights, where liberals want reward before performance so that everyone is included. These two visions cannot coexist it and it is not surprising that tonight, they finally clashed.

The end of obligation

Tuesday, May 26th, 2015


Now that the ashes are cooling in Baltimore, every party has to inject its own post-mortem to try to spin the dialogue to its advantage. The left bangs the old poverty-did-it tin drum, the right rages about the death of the family, and the community blames everyone but itself. The truth, as often is the case, lies elsewhere than convenient scapegoats.

Some draw outrage from the refusal of police to stand up and be punching bags for first the violence, and second the blame when the inevitable glitches arises. They see it as a lose-lose situation: when you make 1000 arrests, by the nature of human error, one or more will go bad. The media and community will seize on that one and use it to implicate the rest, when in fact it is exactly what it seems to be, a screwup. Just like not every package reaches its destination, some cars have bad brakes, and sometimes your cheeseburger is small, some arrests go wrong. This happens in every situation. The problem is that when police fear that one arrest more than the consequences of letting the other incidents go free, you end up with no police force.

Witness the meltdown:

Residents tell reporters they see officers driving right past street fights and disturbances.

Officers turned their backs to De Blasio as he visited injured officers in the hospital and at the officer’s funerals.

But officers in Baltimore, according to at least one of their own, are turning their backs on not only the Mayor but also the citizens they’re sworn to protect.

While the media spin on this one leads you to think it is the end of the world, it in fact represents something else entirely:

A good idea.

I suggest that all of us follow a simple principle: we work for people who work with us. That is, let the cops patrol the nice white neighborhoods where people do not attack them on a daily basis, and let businesses sell to the people who are not vandalizing, stealing, open defecating or whatever other non-desirable behaviors are occurring. Let our taxes go toward services for us.

And the rest? The ghettos, the homeless, the impoverished, and the victimized? Let them follow the law of nature, which is that they either improve their own circumstances or vanish from this earth. They will blame anyone foolish enough to take stewardship of their communities and do it less than 100% perfectly, which we all know is a number achieved in theory only. A sensible response would be to skip out on the blame, and on the risk, and to go police where people pay your salary — most of the income paying for police comes from those white suburbs — and where they do not rage out and riot over a one in a thousand mistake.

Even more, let us the nice white people from the suburbs stop taking responsibility for African, Asian and mixed-race inhabitants of America. Their communities are their own responsibility. We will pay our taxes, work with our police, and keep our own streets safe. They can do the same in their communities.

Since the end of the Civil War, the narrative of liberal America has been that white people are oppressors and therefore are responsible for the well-being of others. That encourages the others to disregard their own well-being, do whatever is convenient, and blame white America when things go wrong. That can stop. We are not obligated to these people: we do not owe them a living, or policing. We do not owe them welfare, benefits, or social programs. We can pay for those for ourselves if we want, but if we have any brains, we will respect Darwin and get rid of all of those programs.

Our society has made itself miserable by creating obligation to those who are failing. Let nature take her path. End the obligation, and focus on success and how to achieve it instead of on failure. The ghetto will never be happy with its policing, so abandon it to its own fate. Its citizens will determine whether it lives or dies. We are responsible to ourselves alone, and our only obligation is our own well-being.


Thursday, February 20th, 2014


The Old Religions tell us that there is only one concern in the running of a civilization: how good your people are. If the people are good, moral standards are high and leadership is good, and the nation not only prospers but holds itself forth as sacred ground, and its citizens have a deep inner satisfaction.

In contrast there are others who teach us that method is all and that goodness has nothing to do with it. Write the correct laws, make the right public statements, and all will be fine, they say. But I suspect that underneath this amazing sales-job their actual motivation is different. It is a desire to enjoy the fruits of civilization without the commitment required.

The problem people face is that civilization is a contract to certain behaviors. Unlike most contracts, it’s not a matter of “do x by y date to z degree,” but a question of an ongoing assessment of end results. Every action we take must be a moral action. Every action must be analyzed. Nothing can escape. Or, small cracks emerge, and then widen themselves. This is why ancient civilizations were so “religious” and also vigilant. Good people make good civilizations. When bad is permitted to exist, good people lose heart, and civilization begins its slow but inexorable decline.

There are those who desire that decline happen. The reason for this is that morality is like surface tension. Once it is broken, it no longer holds. If you’re in a group of ten people, and one person starts getting away with acting in a bad way and facing no punishment, others will follow. The reason is simple economics: morality requires effort, a form o expense. Eliminate that expense and you have a higher margin, even if only more time for yourself and more ability to focus on your own thoughts, desires, whims, judgments, emotions, wishes and feelings.

The destroyers want to (1) do something bad and (2) not be punished for it so that (3) moral rules are suspended, and all are given license to do whatever they want. This may be having an affair with the neighbor, drinking more than is wise, stealing land from a nearby farmer, murdering a long time enemy, being able to take drugs alone, perversity or fetishes (which invariably recap some personal tragedy in inverse), or even just the most common evil, which is the pursuit of power in order to make the ego feel better about that which it can’t control. Like the fetishes, this usually relates to a personal tragedy in the past that would take a lot of work to overcome. It is easier to assume license and pursue a palliative vicarious substitute instead of fixing the problem.

Crowdism is the name given to this impetus. When one radical individualist decides he wants license to escape the moral code, which is essentially a prediction about what will or will not destroy civilization, that person bonds together with others and encourages them toward a radical proposal. If they mutually support each other in their demand for the benefits of civilization without the obligations, then they can achieve a group that holds the rest captive with passive-aggression. Their demand is this: we will form of a throng who will march on you, and you will be forced to either accept us or kill us, and then you will look bad for destroying the unarmed, defenseless and innocent. This is the passive aggressive origin of all protest philosophies, including pacifism, and it reflects a great sickness, which is the use of guilt through the appearance but not actuality of wrongdoing to control others so that license can be the rule.

The West has since the “Enlightenment” (a dubious sales job that name conveys) been in the grips of this mob. First they stormed the Bastille, then they took over Europe, and finally they tore down the USA in 1968. Since then, few dare oppose them, because to oppose them is not to have appearance on your side. Those who desire license always do so under the banners of freedom, equality, pity and inclusion. They will always style you as the fascist, the inegalitarian and the cruel. Thus to oppose them is to sign up for instantly being mobbed with people who will call you every horrible name and egg others on until the mob attacks you. That is the nature of mobs; they are groups of cowards who need each other’s permission to attack.

Currently, the mobs are raging in two places, Venezuela and Ukraine. In both cases they are claiming the same thing: government is oppression, and people power is good. In both cases, there are no good people involved. The government probably sucks, but this is because the people in the nation are morally unconcerned with doing the right thing, so picked government by convenience as if they were cheering on a football team. In Venezuela, the government was clearly bad in the way that all Communist states are, but what will replace it is a bazaar with even more decay on its side. In Ukraine, the government is clearly motivated for its own profit, but the crowds are demanding something even less reasonable. The result is idiots murdering idiots with no conception of why, and only a vague reason — an impulse toward anarchy out of selfish desire for license — that drives them to increasing levels of disorder.

The destroyers love disorder. Society is order; we’ll be iconoclastic and pick the opposite. Society likes morality; we’ll make a new morality where everything is OK. Their goal is to un-do the surface tension of morality that holds society together so their individual egos, which have absolutely zero idea what they want out of life, can be unconstrained. The problem with this is that it’s like the farmer who can’t cut down a tree and blames his axe without cause. These people are lost, morally adrift and without purpose, and since fixing that mess is difficult, they’ve opted for the path of least resistance and blamed external forces instead.

In Ukraine we are seeing a sad re-enactment of the past. Few now remember the Hungarian Uprising of 1956. The United States and Europe funded a series of radio broadcasts on Radio Free Europe and other outlets which encouraged the Hungarians to demand “freedom.” More encouragingly, these broadcasts implied that Western aid or perhaps Western armies would be coming. The Hungarians were under Russian rule which was terrible government by its very nature, but there was no plan for what would replace it other than the usual feel-good platitudes. As a result, they were not joined by the majority of the population. As Russian tanks rolled in, the Western politicians realized this could become WWIII and backed down. The revolutionaries were defeated and many were killed after they were identified. Hundreds of thousands had to flee the country. The promises on the radio were lies.

In the same way, the Ukraine protests is based on a lie. One side wants to join the wealthy EU, despite it being ethnically different from the Slavic Ukranian people, which is what the other side recognizes when it wants them to join the Russians where Ukraine will again be assimilated into the Eurasian empire. In the meantime, like the Occupy Wall Street protesters, the Ukranians are fighting back by trashing the place. They are burning cars, piling trash, ruining beauty and acting passive aggressively. They are the trashers who destroy order so that license may rule. And for now, they are cloaking themselves behind promises of equality, freedom and justice, as all good con-men do.

But the promises from both sides are lies. The armies will not come. What the EU agitators hope will happen is that “people power” will depose the government and weaken ties to Russia. The people are blinded and delusional with idealistic dreams of things they don’t understand. In the end, no matter who “wins,” no one will win except the process of decay. And in that, the destroyers will triumph.

White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Race Riots to America by Colin Flaherty

Thursday, October 20th, 2011

White Girl Bleed a Lot:The Return of Race Riots to America
by Colin Flaherty
115 pages, BookBaby, $6

We trust our newspapers, who have a profit interest in reporting things we like to read, to interpret that interest as a mandate for telling the truth as they see it.

However, as we find out with each generation, newspapers often filter “truth” through two sieves to withdraw upsetting information: first, what is politically de rigeur at the time, and second, what their advertisers and vocal interest groups want to hear.

In addition, we are literally drowning in news. There are now thousands of papers, millions of blogs, uncountable podcasts and citizen journalist outfits on the information waves, each thrusting forth its best eye-catching headlines.

Through these two filters, we lose sight of what happens and rely on the spin and opinion-shaping abilities of the news. Scan the big headlines, then see what the pundits say, and find a nice tidy conclusion to seal the deal.

Colin Flaherty, an acclaimed reporter, approaches the news as a giant set of data points. By themselves, these data points are easily lost in the flood or explained away with political or commercial rhetoric.

However, when Flaherty goes through with his highlighter and connects the dots for us, a pattern emerges. This pattern contradicts the “official story” which explains away the pattern in favor of focus on single points, and punditry to justify what happened as not what the pattern says it is.

In this case, he offers a simple thesis: the race riots of the 1920s, 1960s and 1990s have returned, but in a new form. This time, they are micro-riots. Flash mobs, or groups of a few dozen to a few thousand people, emerge spontaneously to rob, assault, batter and steal — but none dare call it a “riot.”

This is not a racist book. Flaherty does not make any conclusions about why this is happening, or blame all African-Americans for the actions of some African-Americans. He does however make two compelling points:

  1. Race riots have returned in the form of flash mobs.
  2. Our media is unwilling to report this but will explain it away.

His intent is not to blame African-Americans, or even white Americans. His focus hinges on the second point, which is to ask why we cannot discuss this topic openly, or even (as in some of the cases in the book) report facts as they are.

Using new media such as YouTube videos and Twitter, as well as a balance (probably 60%) of newspaper reports from mainstream and often liberal newspapers, Flaherty constructs a pattern from the data points that vanished behind us in the information slipstream.

For reasons of their own, most newspapers will report just about anything on race: black caucus, black colleges, black teenager college prep success, black merchants, black voters, black contractors, black police, black teachers.

Everything except black crime.

That is a no no. (100)

By impeccably documenting his book using the words of mainstream newspapers as contrasted to the citizen journalism of camera phones and on-street Twitterers, he shows us the denial first and downplays any urge to blame. Instead, he asks us why this subject is so impossible for us to face.

Writing in a fluid but sarcastic prose that brings the absurdities of this situation to light, he investigates in depth, stringing together multiple incidents across the country to show us a repeated type of event and common characteristics.

This book does not play up the classic media white-on-black angle, or deviate into trying to find something “wrong” with African-Americans such as a racist book might do. In fact, many of his sources come from the African-American media, who are also wondering what’s wrong with these flash mob instigators.

In addition, he expends plenty of words and quotations to show us these are crimes of opportunity against anyone perceived as weaker: Asians, women, homosexuals and yes, white people. His chapter on Asians is particularly illuminating as we watch school districts contort to avoid facing the obvious epidemic of black-on-Asian violence.

Throughout all of these carefully documented events and assertions, he pounds on the table with the question that any journalist would ask when he spots a cover-up, whether intentional or not: why aren’t we talking about this?

One of his more carefully instilled ideas is questioning whether or not the return of African-American race riots heralds a crisis in the African-American community, or in a “diversity”-mad world that cannot see past its own dogma and propaganda to honestly analyze a glitch in the process.

As he writes:

When papers like the Chicago Tribune support affirmative action, racial quotas, and other race based solutions to very difficult problems, asking for the paper to identify the assailants is one way of asking ‘How’s that working out for you?”

Let’s take the flip side: What if white racism was so bad and conditions so intolerable that this was some kind of political statement? Either way, we don’t know. (56)

This book will probably tear the ears of those who take the time to read it because it is not an attack on African-Americans; it’s an attack on our media’s dishonesty, and behind that, our own dishonesty in being unwilling to approach this problem.

Several interviews with victims in the book show them unwilling to talk about the racial nature of the attacks that occurred against them, and finding it “creepy” or disturbing to even consider the notion. One later admits that she now has a fear of black males, and wishes for the oblivion she had before the attack.

For any reader with an open mind and an inquisitive nature that enjoys stringing together multiple articles to make a fact pattern emerge, this book provides a delight not only in watching the true story emerge, but in verbally rioting against those who concealed it.

Recommended Reading