Author: Papa Giorgio

Minorities Cannot Be Racist

Published by Papa Giorgio

I had a person say “yes, I agree with that” to my following analogy:

  • It is the common belief via university that someone cannot be a racist who does not have power. So – the story goes – blacks cannot be racist because they are a minority. I have a name memorized that I use in an analogy (I remember it because I associate it with General Mills — the cereal maker). I say, “So, you’re telling me that if the co-founder of the white supremacist prison gang, the Aryan Nation, Barry Mills, boards a plane in America and flies to The Federal Republic of Nigeria, the moment he touched his foot on the tarmac he is no longer a racist?” I will then sometimes have some fun and mention Barry might have ceased being a racist in midair through time zones, and then magically become one again when reaching another.

But this short video explains the ludicrous nature of this thinking, well:

This Guy Is My Hero!

Published by Papa Giorgio

Info via YOUNG CONSERVATIVES:

…He was later identified as Daniel Llorente. This isn’t the first time that Llorente has waved the American flag in the face of the government. He met the first American cruise ship that came to the island last year.

Llorente greeted the ship waving an American flag and shouting “Yes we can!”, the famous slogan of President Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign. The government organized a rabble to berate Llorente with racial epithets, and Llorente responded by asserting his freedom.

“I use whatever flag I want because I am free. I am not a hypocrite, not like all the Cubans marching yesterday [the 2016 May Day march] — all those Cubans are hypocrites,” he told his detractors. He went on to praise the U.S. flag as the “pride of the Americans” and assert, “I don’t fear the government.”

Llorente was beaten after that incident too, but still came out in defiance of the government yesterday.

The government which usually refuses to comment on any such incidents, actually did comment, calling him an “annexationist” and claimed he had a criminal record for “armed robbery.”

Yes, he did rob them of their complete power in that one moment.

We salute you, Mr. Llorente, and thank you for being an example for us all.

“Okay” Sign Racist!

Published by Papa Giorgio

While I like their rants (Paul Watson, Mark Dice, and others) and these commentaries hold much truth in them, I do wish to caution you… he is part of Info Wars/Prison Planet network of yahoos, a crazy conspiracy arm of Alex Jones shite. Also, I bet if I talked to him he would reveal some pretty-crazy conspiratorial beliefs that would naturally undermine and be at-odds-with some of his rants. Just to be clear, I do not endorse these people or orgs. (LANGUAGE WARNING)

To see a fun tour of pictures mocking this, see this TWEET! As well as this WASHINGTON FEED post.

Moldylocks: Liar and Felon

Published by Papa Giorgio

A girl named “Moldylocks” is seen here holding a bottle as a weapon… she was previously throwing them into the crowd of supporters for Trump. This photo was taken as the first defensive punch was thrown at her by Nathan Damigo (more on his later):

Image of moldy locks swinging a glass bottle at the Berkeley riots.

Don’t let them pretend this was self defense! (REDDIT)

This next video discusses the issue of bottle throwing and notes that another bottle fell out of her backpack when she fell after the second punch by Damigo:

So now that we know the girl deserved the punch to the face… twice, who is this character Nathan Damigo? I would caution people to stay clear of this guys politics… while GAY PATRIOT notes he is not a strict Nazi… as Antifa labels everything — he is a person concerned about ethnicity as the “be-all-that-ends-all.” Here is an excerpt from GP’s excellent post about Damigo’s views:

…Think of it this way. We have accepted identities such as African-American, Latino-American, Asian-American, Jewish-American, etc. In general, those identities don’t intend full-on Black or Latino or Asian or Jewish supremacy. They may sometimes achieve special privileges (for example, quotas or differing standards for the alleged races). But the majority of people holding to those identities don’t intend anything like a hard apartheid (or internment camps, etc.) for the other identities. In that sense, they usually aren’t “Black supremacists” or “Latino supremacists” or “Asian supremacists”, etc.

Damigo and company seem to be saying, we can get along with those identities but let’s have one for whites, too. They reject the term “white supremacists”. In the Rebel Media interview linked above, Damigo describes himself as a “white identitarian” and says that hysterical claims about his being a Nazi, a racist, etc. are just “anti-white hate speech” to shut down conversation…

This is the same “white power” B.S. I experienced while in jail various times for three felonies (yes, my past is checkered, now, clean as the driven snow [1 Peter 2:24]). I like how GP puts what we should be concerned about as “Western Supremacists”

…They seem to forget that *culture is culture*. It isn’t about ethnicity, or tribe, or race, or genes, or color. It’s ideas; principles; the arts; laws and legal practices; philosophy; sciences; means of production and trade; food; ethics; things that can be adopted by anyone, of any ethnicity, at any time.

I am a Western supremacist. That is: I think that the Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman-Lockean/Enlightenment civilization, while not perfect, is better than the others; it has the most elements from which an ideal civilization could be built. And I want to spread those good elements, by example and persuasion, to all ethnic groups (in America and the world).

It’s about the ideas/principles, and the individuals everywhere who may hold them. I couldn’t care less about the survival of *any* ethnicity as such. Ethnic identity is a sideshow, a rabbit hole where everyone loses, if we keep going down it….

(read it all)

UPDATE:
A comment on GP’s site quoted Theodore Roosevelt’s thoughts on this:

What is true of creed is no less true of nationality. There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

(SEE HERE)

She [MOLDYLOCKS] is a liar… we know this, but we also know she and others have a “battle plan,” if you will, that she was clearly involved in:

I have been saying for years that the racist cults and anarch-leftists along with all the conspiracy people (left and right) will degrade the Western Judeo-Christian mores which is the main buffer to our Western societal adhesion.

Stevin Koonin ~ Former Energy Dept. Undersecretary (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Above video description) Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin on how bureaucrats spin scientific data.

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.

“What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in the decades before that,” he said.

(The Daily Wire)

  • Levin was responding to a report by The Daily Caller‘s Chris White, who highlighted an admission by a former Obama Energy Department official earlier in the week that the administration deliberately presented “misleading” and “sometimes just wrong” climate data. Here’s an excerpt from the report (second hyperlink added): AUDIO IS GONE :cry: The original article is HERE!

  • “We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy,” writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin

Via The Wall Street Journal:

The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don’t know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.

The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth’s global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, “How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?” Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

But—here’s the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

[….]

We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences.

[….]

Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.

…READ IT ALL…

SEE ALSO: Fact checking Steven Koonin’s Fact Checkers