Arthur Kemp's Blog, page 2

US Election 2020: A Lesson in Race, Demographics, Not “Fraud”

 As the Trump faction scrambles to lodge a barrage of dubious legal appeals against the outcome of the US Presidential election 2020, a sober assessment of the racial voting patterns—and American demographics—provides a much simpler reason for the election result:  obvious racial demographics.

I would urge everyone to consider the following before jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, which in this particular case, is being driven by the race-denying "conservatives."

In 2020, the majority of under 18 year olds in America were nonwhite.

By 2027 -- that, is, in six year's time, the majority of under 29 year olds in America will be nonwhite.

What this means is that in 2020, the majority of under 23 year olds in America are nonwhite.

Exit polls have revealed what this meant in terms of racial turnout for the candidates.

(Bear in mind that the US Federal definition of "white" includes all Arabs, all Middle Easterners, and anyone else who is not "black," "Latino,' or "native American.'

57% of whites voted for Trump

42 % of whites voted for Biden

87% of blacks voted for Biden

12% of blacks voted for Trump

66% of "Latino" voters voted for Biden.

27% of "Latino" voters voted for Trump.

In a nutshell, Biden won the election through a combination of white liberals (a minority of the white vote) and massive nonwhite support.

This also explains why the results from the major metropolitan areas  (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Raleigh etc) most often mentioned in the “fraud” conspiracy theories, went overwhelmingly for Biden.

There was no doubt some cheating (have you ever seen an election without some?) but it is highly doubtful that this was of such a large scale as to influence millions of votes.

These fraud conspiracy theories all ignore the reality of race and its effect upon society, and indeed, civilization itself.  In that way, they are even dangerous in themselves.

It was, quite frankly, surprising that Trump won in 2016, and would have been doubly surprising if he had won in 2020.

Furthermore, it is also clear that if the Republican Party had not lost in 2020, they would most certainly have lost in 2024.

This leads on to the inevitable question: What now for white Americans?

Firstly, It is clear that democracy, or elections, offers no hope of salvation for white America. The Third World invasion is now so complete, that it is impossible to win elections, even with the majority of the white vote, as 2020 has demonstrated.

Given this fact, what does the future hold for white Americans?  There are essentially two paths:

1. Just let things slide so that whites become a minority in the country they founded. This will lead to America becoming a large South Africa, which contains a shrinking white minority, hated and despised because they still are the only ones who can create wealth and progress; blamed for all nonwhite failures to achieve; and subjected to ever-increasing nonwhite violent criminality as the have-nots seize what little the whites have left.

Or

2. Whites can congregate in an area (geographical consolidation), form a majority in those areas, and steadily push towards secession as the US collapses into Third World status.

Orania in South Africa provides a perfect parallel.  If whites trapped in South Africa do not start congregating in Orania and de facto seize possession of the Northern Cape to the western seaboard, they will be ultimately be exterminated. It is as simple as that.

Similarly, if white Americans do not physically congregate and de facto seize possession of a state or states in America, they too will be ultimately be exterminated. It is as simple as that.

This is the ultimate law of nature: those who form the majority population in a territory, determine the nature of the civilization in that region.

Anything else, such as conspiracy theories about "cheating" or "betrayal" are meaningless diversionary nonsense, and distract from a clear understanding of the racial factor as the ultimate determinant of history. 

Blame Whitey Part 5901: "Systemic Racist" Clicks South Africa Advertisement Produced by Nonwhite-led team

Those who follow news from South Africa will know that the big news there currently is that a health and beauty chain called Clicks is currently under attack after publishing an absurd series of images on its website which contrasted "dry and damaged hair" with fine and healthy, normal hair."

The images the company used showed nonwhite hair as "dry and damaged" and white hair as "fine" and "normal" hair.

Predictably, there has been outrage from the blacks, who, quite correctly I may add, took the depiction of white hair as "normal” as an unbridled insult.

The radical Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party, which has a sizeable following and representation in the South African Parliament, launched its militants to  attack Clicks stores across the country, and some were severely damaged and firebombed in the resulting fracas.

At the same time, the media and politicians all climbed on the bandwagon, blaming, of course, white "systemic racism" for producing the advertisement. This was used as yet another example of how evil whites are by their very nature etc. etc.

This narrative was, of course, carried our in the international media, where the “systemic racism” nonsense was, of course, faithfully replicated.

Now, however, it has emerged that the offending advertisements weren’t even produced by whites, but by a nonwhite-led marketing team!

As Clicks CEO Vikesh Ramsunder (an Indian fellow) told Cape Talk radio:

Clicks said in a media statement that all employees responsible for publishing the advertisement have also been suspended.

CEO Vikesh Ramsunder revealed yesterday that the digital team was made up of two black employees, two white employees, and a coloured manager.

“How they didn’t find this (advertisement) insensitive is beyond me… It shows that I have a lot of work to do in terms of sensitivity training,” Ramsunder told Cape Talk.

Ramsunder is right: how could anyone have thought that this advertisement would not give offence?

Given the widespread "affirmative action" (a code word for anti-white discrimination), it can be taken for granted that the whites on the "digital team" were lower ranking staff, and that the two blacks and the coloured manager were the final arbiters of this advertisement.

So there’s the answer.

Yet, in spite of this, whites will still get the blame for "systemic racism," because, as we know, whites are always to blame, for everything.

* Who owns Clicks?  It is a publicly listed company, and according to the 2019 Annual Company report, "more than 70% of the group’s shares are now held by offshore fund managers." (page 80). Hmm.

George Floyd: A Test Case in Anti-White Hatred

 The outpouring of hatred against white people which erupted in May 2020 after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, serves as a classic example of how lies and distortions have become the norm in the mass media and in the mind of the mob.Chapter 1 of the book The War Against Whites: The Racial Pyschology Behind the Anti-White Hatred Sweeping the West.

CHAPTER 1

George Floyd: A Test Case in Anti-White Hatred

 

The outpouring of hatred against white people which erupted in May 2020 after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, serves as a classic example of how lies and distortions have become the norm in the mass media and in the mind of the mob.

The establishment narrative alleges that Floyd, a 6 feet 4 inch (193 cm) and 223 pound (101 kg) “black”[1] American, was killed after he was held in a neck restraint position by a white police officer.

The incident was filmed by a bystander with one of the now ubiquitous cell phone cameras, and showed Floyd being held by officer Derek Chauvin in a neck restraint pose.

On the video, Floyd can be heard telling the policeman that he “can’t breathe,” and he then becomes unresponsive.

Floyd was subsequently treated onsite by paramedics, was transported to a local hospital, but could not be revived. He was declared dead at 9:25 p.m. on May 25, 2020.

The footage of Floyd’s treatment went viral on social media. Within hours, there were protests, which soon escalated into violence, looting, and arson. Thanks to the mass media’s coverage, the protests first went national in the US (following the same pattern in most cases, i.e. violence, arson, and looting), and then, finally, internationally, as the protests “spread” to many parts of Western Europe.

Before all of the facts were known, the narrative had been created: Floyd had been murdered by a racist white policeman for no reason at all except that he was black, and this was just one of a long line of similar incidents where black people are routinely murdered at will by whites. It is claimed that this is the result of what is called “systemic racism,” or “endemic racism,” generated of course by whites against nonwhites.

To satisfy the mob, all four officers were fired. Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and manslaughter. The other three officers present, Tou Thao, Thomas Lane, and J. Alexander Kueng were charged with aiding and abetting both second-degree murder and manslaughter.

The first flaw in this narrative came with the official autopsy carried out on Floyd exactly twelve hours after his death.

The key findings from this report are: 

1. No life threatening injuries identified (page 2 section III).

2. From the title of the autopsy report the cause of death is inferred to be cardiopulmonary arrest aggravated by law enforcement restraint and neck compression.  

However:

(a)  no physical  damage to the neck or trachea is identified—except for resuscitation attempts. 

(b) Suffocation by having weight restricting movement of the diaphragm—called  mechanical asphyxia—is ruled out. If this was the case, there would be tell tale signs, including oxygen starvation in Floyd’s blood samples.* Nothing was found that supported mechanical asphyxiation as a cause of death.

He had sustained multiple minor injuries of the head and shoulders.

3. There is no evidence in the autopsy to support a death by homicide. This is an unfortunate case of a combination of factors, the most patent being Floyd under the influence of narcotic substances, his physical size and aggressive behavior. The role of the enforcement officers in this case does not support a conclusion of homicide. 

* See “Forensic Analysis of Injury and Death by Asphyxiation,” TASA ID: 1785, The Tasa Group, Categories: Accident Analysis / Reconstruction.

According to the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office Autopsy Report, 20-3700, which listed the date and hour of the autopsy as 5-26-20; 9:25 a.m., and was carried out by pathologist Andrew M. Baker, MD, the primary cause of death was listed as “cardiopulmonary arrest”—in more common terms, cardiac arrest, or a sudden stop in effective and normal blood circulation due to failure of the heart to pump blood.[2] 

In other words, the autopsy carried out within twelve hours of Floyd’s death indicated that he died of a heart attack, and not from being restrained by the police.

The autopsy report went on to reveal that Floyd was, proverbially speaking, as high as a kite, and certainly near death from a drug overdose, at the time of his arrest. In fact, Floyd had a history of drug abuse, with no less than four previous arrests involving drugs.[3]

The autopsy report showed the following drugs in his system at the time of autopsy:

 

Toxicology (testing performed on antemortem blood specimens collected 5/25/20 at 9:00 p.m. at HHC and on postmortem urine)

A. Blood drug and novel psychoactive substances screens:

1. Fentanyl 11 ng/mL

2. Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL

3. 4-ANPP 0.65 ng/mL

4. Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL

5. 11-Hydroxy Delta-9 THC 1.2 ng/mL; Delta-9 Carboxy THC 42 ng/mL; Delta-9 THC 2.9 ng/mL.

 

Any one of these drugs by themselves could have killed Floyd.

1. Fentanyl is a narcotic analgesic with a potency at least eighty times that of morphine. A dangerous dose of fentanyl in humans is 2 mg., and blood concentrations of approximately 7 ng/ml or greater often cause death.[4] (Bear in mind that Floyd’s sample of 11 ng/mL was taken twelve hours after his death. This would mean that he likely took a far higher dose.)

2. Norfentanyl is fentanyl’s main metabolite—a substance necessary for metabolizing fentanyl. It is a US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Schedule II controlled substance. Substances in the DEA Schedule II have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

3. 4-ANPP (4-anilino-N-phenethyl-piperidine) is another fentanyl metabolite conclusively linked to fatalities among drug users.[5]

4. Fatal methamphetamine overdoses are formally diagnosed from 100 mg–5g.[6] Floyd’s reading of 19 ng/mL—once again, bear in mind that his samples were taken at least twelve hours, and likely more, after he took the drugs)—means that his overdosing on this drug alone most likely killed him, especially given the fact that cardiac arrest is one of the most common side effects of methamphetamine overdoses.

According to the US’s National Institute on Drug Abuse, using methamphetamines causes a “variety of cardiovascular problems, including rapid heart rate, irregular heartbeat, and increased blood pressure . . . people who use methamphetamine long term may exhibit symptoms that can include significant anxiety, confusion, insomnia, mood disturbances, and violent behavior.”[7] 

Furthermore, the effects of methamphetamine generally last 2–4 hours and the drug has a half-life of 9–24 hours in the body.[8] This means that Floyd had taken the drug just prior to his arrest and death.

5. 11-Hydroxy Delta-9 THC, Delta-9 Carboxy THC, and Delta-9 THC all are indicators of heavy cannabis abuse. While not fatal by themselves, when combined with the fentanyl and methamphetamine overdoses detailed above, they would most certainly have contributed to Floyd’s serious medical problems.

It is therefore clear from the toxicology report that Floyd would have likely died that day from cardiac arrest, regardless of whether or not he had been arrested and restrained.

The next flaw in the establishment narrative concerning Floyd’s death is the claim that the policeman restraining him used some type of unnecessary and cruel “knee on the neck” restraint method, and that this then caused the subject’s death.

Once again, the truth was completely overlooked in the rush to blame “white racism.” The official guide issued by the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) to its officers—and which was made publicly available long before the Floyd incident, specifically allowed the use of knee on the neck restraints on suspects who actively resisted arrest.

As was outlined in the “Minneapolis PD Use of Force Policies, 5-300 Use of Force,” section 5-311, titled “Use of Neck Restraints and Choke Holds,” which was written into the code in October 2002, a “neck restraint” is defined as:

 

Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint (04/16/12).

Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure (04/16/12).

Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12).”

 

Furthermore, according to the MPD regulations:

 

“PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.

1. The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting (04/16/12).”

 

The regulations go on to state that a subject engages in active resistance when he or she engages:

 

“in physical actions (or verbal behavior reflecting an intention) to make it more difficult for officers to achieve actual physical control.”

 

As bodycam footage from all the officers involved in the case show, Floyd actively resisted arrest, and the bystander video—which went viral and was the main cause of incitement—only showed the very end of the entire incident.[9] 

The full videos show Floyd being uncooperative and becoming agitated when he was told to get into a police vehicle. In fact, he thrashed about in the back of the police car to the point where he injured himself.[10] 

Furthermore, the 9-1-1 call which started the entire saga, reveals clearly that Floyd was heavily under the influence of drugs and acting highly erratic long before the police became involved.

As the official 9-1-1 call transcript—released by the city of Minneapolis—revealed, the person who called the police from Cup Foods at 3579 Chicago Avenue, in Minneapolis, reported that Floyd was “not in control of himself” and was heavily under the influence of what we now know was a lethal dose of narcotics.

The transcript reads:[11] 

 

Operator: How can I help you?

Caller: Um someone comes our store and give us fake bills and we realize it before he left the store, and we ran back outside, they was sitting on their car. We tell them to give us their phone, put their (inaudible) thing back and everything and he was also drunk and everything and return to give us our cigarettes back and so he can, so he can go home but he doesn’t want to do that, and he’s sitting on his car cause he is awfully drunk and he’s not in control of himself.

 

After asking for a description of the car, the operator asks the caller to confirm that Floyd was under the influence of “something.”

 

Operator: On 38th ST. So, this guy gave a counterfeit bill, has your cigarettes, and he’s under the influence of something?

Caller: Something like that, yes. He is not acting right.

 

The official charge sheet issued against Officer Chauvin[12] contains the following incredibly important details:

 

While Officer Kueng was speaking with the front seat passenger, Officer Lane ordered Mr. Floyd out of the car, put his hands on Mr. Floyd, and pulled him out of the car. Officer Lane handcuffed Mr. Floyd. Mr. Floyd actively resisted being handcuffed.

Once handcuffed, Mr. Floyd became compliant and walked with Officer Lane to the sidewalk and sat on the ground at Officer Lane’s direction. In a conversation that lasted just under two minutes, Officer Lang asked Mr. Floyd for his name and identification. Officer Lane asked Mr. Lloyd if he was on anything and explained that he was arresting Mr. Lloyd for passing counterfeit currency.

Officers Kueng and Lane stood Mr. Floyd up and attempted to walk Mr. Floyd to their squad car (MPD 320 ) at 8:14 p.m. Mr. Floyd stiffened up, fell to the ground, and told the officers he was claustrophobic.

MPD Officers Derek Chauvin (the defendant) and Tou Thoa then arrived in a separate squad car.

The officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the back seat of squad 320 from the driver’s side.

Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily get in the car and struggled with the officers by intentionally falling down, saying he was not going in the car, and refusing to stand still. Mr. Floyd is over six feet tall and weighs more than

200 pounds.

While standing outside the car, Mr. Floyd began saying and repeating that he could not breathe.

 

The last sentence above, as detailed in the charge sheet, is critical: it indicates that the now infamous “I cannot breathe” statement, widely used by protestors and rioters to justify their criminal rampages, was first used before Floyd was put into the neck restraint position, and while he was still standing uprightunder his own volition.

This, more than anything else, shows that he was in fact starting to exhibit the first signs of cardiac arrest, brought on by his drug overdose.

The charge sheet even states that Floyd was able to “move back and forth” under Chauvin’s knee restraint:

 

The defendant went to the passenger side and tried to get Mr. Floyd into the car from that side and Lane and Kueng assisted.

The defendant pulled Mr. Floyd out of the passenger side of the squad car at 8:19:38 and Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed. Kueng held Mr. Floyd’s back and Lane held his legs. The defendant placed his left knee in the area of Mr. Floyd’s head and neck. Mr. Floyd said, “I can’t breathe” multiple times and repeatedly said, “Mama” and “please” as well. The defendant and the other two officers stayed in their positions.

The officers said, “You are talking fine” to Mr. Floyd as he continued to move back and forth.

 

The viral video—which was the primary driver for the entire uproar—shows that Floyd was able to lift his head and neck even when being restrained by Chauvin’s knee.

This alone proves that Chauvin could not have suffocated him, or cut off his air supply, or caused the cardiac arrest.

A complete transcript of the conversations contained in the police bodycam videos[13] also confirms without question that Floyd was suffering from the first symptoms of cardiac arrest and breathing difficulty long before he was restrained by Chauvin:

 

Kueng: You got foam around your mouth, too?

George Floyd: Yes, I was just hooping earlier.[14] 

Kueng: Take a seat.

George Floyd: I can’t choke, I can’t breathe Mr. Officer! Please! Please!

George Floyd: My wrist, my wrist man. Okay, okay. I want to lay on the ground. I want to lay on the ground. I want to lay on the ground!

Lane: You’re getting in the squad.[15] 

George Floyd: I want to lay on the ground! I’m going down, going down, I’m going down.

Kueng: Take a squat.

George Floyd: I’m going down.

Speaker 9:[16] Bro, you about to have a heart attack and shit, man, get in the car!

George Floyd: I know. I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe [crosstalk 00:10:18].

Lane: Get him on the ground.

George Floyd: Let go of me man, I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe.

Lane: Take a seat.

George Floyd: Please, man. Please listen to me.

Chauvin: Is he going to jail?

George Floyd: Please listen to me.

Kueng: He’s under arrest right now for forgery. [inaudible 00:11:04] going on.

George Floyd: Forgery for what? for what?

Lane: Let’s take him out and just MRE.[17]

George Floyd: I can’t fucking breathe man. I can’t fucking breathe.

Kueng: Here, Come on out!

George Floyd: (inaudible 00:11:10) thank you. Thank you.

Thao: Just lay him on the ground.

Lane: Can you just get up on the, I appreciate that, I do.

Chauvin: Do you got your ah, restraint, Hobble?[18]

George Floyd: I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe.

Lane: Jesus Christ.

George Floyd: I can’t breathe.

Lane: Thank you.

George Floyd: I can’t breathe.

Kueng: Stop moving.

 

This transcript clearly demonstrates that Floyd was medically distressed to the point that both a bystander and he pointed out that he likely was about to suffer a “heart attack,” and that his breathing difficulties had started long before he was restrained by Chauvin.

The “I can’t breathe” mantra, which has become the slogan most used by so-called protestors, had therefore nothing to do with the police officer’s actions.

In addition, Floyd also readily admitted to recently administering the lethal concoction of drugs via his rectum—a technique which is used to speed up the absorption process and get a quicker “high.”

Yet another flaw in the “racist white police” narrative lies in the fact that two of the officers charged in the Floyd case are nonwhites.

Chauvin and Lane are the only two whites. Keung is of mixed race (a white mother and a Nigerian father), while Thao is Hmong Vietnamese.[19]

In addition, at the time of the incident, Chauvin was married to a Chinese woman, Kellie,[20] which makes a complete mockery of claims that he personally is a “racist” of any sort.

In summary then, the facts of the case are as follows:

1. Floyd was pumped full of dangerous, life-threating, self-administered drugs.

2. Floyd went to a store to buy cigarettes with a fake $20 note.

3. The fake note was detected by the store staff who then called the police.

4. Floyd was so incapacitated that he was unable to drive away from outside the store and was sitting in his vehicle when the first two officers arrived.

5. Floyd resisted being arrested and had to be handcuffed.

6. When the second set of officers arrived, he resisted being put in the back of a police vehicle.

7. While standing up, outside of the police vehicle, Floyd started complaining that he was unable to breathe. This was the first of many times that he uttered the “I can’t breathe” sentence, and it clearly had nothing to do with Chauvin.

8. He was then forced into the police vehicle, but caused such a commotion that he injured himself.

9. He was then taken out of the vehicle by the officers, and collapsed on the ground of his own volition.

10. In order to prevent him causing further trouble, one officer held down his legs, one his torso, and the third—Chauvin—placed his knee on his head and neck area to restrain him—exactly as specified in Minnesota Police Department guidelines.

11. The video evidence, and even the charge sheet, confirms that Chauvin’s knee hold was not excessive, as Floyd could still move his head and talk—something that would have been impossible had his air supply been cut off or if the restraint position had been life-threatening.

12. While being restrained, Floyd’s life-threatening self-administered drugs caused him to go into cardiac arrest, which resulted in his death.

13. Only two of the officers involved—Chauvin and Lane—are white. Keung is half black, while Thoa is Vietnamese.

14. At the time, Chauvin’s wife was Chinese. Any sort of “white racism” on Chauvin’s part is therefore extremely improbable.

Despite all these facts, Floyd’s death has been uncritically presented by the mob and their supporting mass media as an example of “inherent white racism” and proof that “racist white police” go about murdering innocent blacks at will in America.

The facts of the case clearly speak otherwise.

Ignoring these basic facts, the mass media has engaged in endless incitement and anti-white hatred, repeating over and over again how “white racism” is to blame, and maintaining that the Floyd incident was merely another example of how wicked white police are to innocent blacks.

The mob, acting upon the mass media’s incitement, has in turn engaged in rioting, looting, and vandalism across America and Europe.

The facts show clearly that Chauvin and his fellow officers committed no crime. Yet they have been arraigned on extremely serious charges which carry penalties of decades in prison, not to mention the destruction of their personal lives and careers.

Pressure from the mob and the Black Lives Matter groups on the politicians has reached such an extent that the city of Minneapolis even issued a “revised” cause of death “press release report”[21] in which the “manner of death” was listed as homicide.

The original autopsy report never even had an entry titled “manner of death.” This entry has clearly been added to appease the mob, and, of course, is completely inconsistent with the cause of death, as given in the same “press release report.” This “second report” states that the “cause of death” is “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.”

In addition, the MPD has now withdrawn its official guidance for the use of leg and arm restraints, also in response to the mob’s demands.

The facts of the case clearly show that in any normal unbiased and objective court, the charges against the officers would be thrown out without further ado.

However, in the current climate of hysteria and anti-white hatred, there is no guarantee that justice of any sort will be served.[22]

This complete distortion is indeed an indication of systemic racism—not against blacks or nonwhites, but rather against whites.

This is Chapter 1 of the book  The War Against Whites: The Racial Psychology Behind the Anti-White Hatred Sweeping the West. 

NOTES:

[1]It might come as a shock to many “African-Americans”—and whites—to realize that “black Americans” are actually largely of mixed-race, and not really “African” at all. “Blacks” in America have on average 24 percent European DNA, and many have more than that (Katarzyna Bryc, et al., “The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States,” Am J Hum Genet.2015 Jan 8; 96(1): 37–53). By way of comparison, in South Africa, the “Coloured” population, another mixed-race group, have a similar level of European admixture, between 21 and 28 percent (Erika de Wit, et al., “Genome-wide analysis of the structure of the South African Coloured Population in the Western Cape,” Human Genetics volume 128, pages 145–153 (2010), May 20, 2010).

[2] Ananya Mandal, MD, “What is Cardiac Arrest?”, News Medical Life Sciences, February 26, 2019.

[3] According to court records in Harris County, which encompasses Floyd’s hometown of Houston, authorities arrested him on nine separate occasions between 1997 and 2007. He served nearly a decade in prison in total. The arrests are detailed in those records as follows: (1). Aug. 2, 1997, arrested for delivering cocaine to a second party. (2). Sept. 25, 1998, arrested for theft. (3). Dec. 9, 1998, arrested for theft. (4). Aug. 29, 2001, arrested for refusing to identify himself to police officers. (5). Oct. 29, 2002, arrested for possession of cocaine. (6). Jan. 3, 2003, arrested for criminal trespassing. (7). Jan. 3, 2003, arrested for intending to deliver cocaine to a second party. (8). Feb. 6, 2004, arrested for possession of cocaine. In total, Floyd served over four years in prison for all these crimes. (9). Apr. 3, 2009: sentenced to five years in prison for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.

[4] All data from the “Fentanyl drug profile” fact sheet, European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

[5] Hana F H Martucci. et al., “Distribution of furanyl fentanyl and 4-ANPP in an accidental acute death: A case report,” Forensic Sci Int., Feb. 2018;283:e13–e17.

[6] Lee Weber, “Methamphetamine overdose: How much meth does it take to OD?,” April 1, 2013, American Addiction Center.

[7] “Methamphetamine DrugFacts,” National Institute on Drug Abuse, May 2019.

[8] Ibid.

[9] “Body camera footage of Floyd arrest could show more of story,” ABC News,July 15, 2020; “Body camera footage of Floyd arrest could show more of story,” Associated Press, July 14, 2020; and “Body camera footage captures distraught George Floyd: ‘I’m not a bad guy’”, Associated Press, July 15, 2020.

[10] Ibid.

[11] 911 Call Transcript Incident Number: 20‐140629 May 25, 2020; 20:01:14, City of Minneapolis. Also reported in “Full transcript of George Floyd 911 call describes ‘awfully drunk’ suspect who was ‘not acting right’,” New York Daily News, May 29, 2020.

[12]  State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs Derek Michael Chauvin, DOB: 03/19/1976, State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, District Court, 4th Judicial District, Prosecutor File No. 20A06620, Court File No. 27 - CR -20-12646.

[13] Filed in District Court, State of Minnesota, 7/7/2020 11:00 a.m.

[14] "Hooping” is street slang for the administration of psychoactive drugs via an enema in the rectum.

[15] The squad car, that is, the police vehicle. At this time, Floyd was still standing outside the vehicle, resisting being placed inside the car.

[16] A third party observing the scene.

[17] MRE is a reference to “Mechanical Restraint Equipment,” i.e., handcuffs and other methods of physically restraining a suspect.

[18] Hobble restraints are leather belts used to limit the hand and feet movement of unruly suspects. They are common in all police forces.

[19] “Officers Charged in George Floyd’s Death Not Likely to Present United Front,” New York Times, June 4, 2020. “The Black Officer Who Detained George Floyd Had Pledged to Fix the Police,” New York Times, June 27, 2020.

[20] “Wife of Derek Chauvin, officer charged with murder in George Floyd’s death, files for divorce,” ABC News, June 3, 2020.

[21] Press Release Report, Floyd, George Perry, Case No: 2020-3700, June 1, 2020.

[22] At time of writing, the tentative trial date for the four officers has been set for March 8, 2021.

South Africa: The Time Has Come to Punish Whites—With Apartheid

It’s been more than 25 years since the ANC came to power in South Africa. Even though this is a longer period than it took the Boers to establish no less than three republics during the 1800s, it seems as if the new South Africa is still mired in endless blaming of white people for various problems the country faces.

It is almost comical to see, for example, serious allegations that white people have somehow sabotaged ESKOM. As if there is a deliberate program or desire on the part of white people to make black people look bad.

But it does not end there. White people are apparently also to blame for the collapse in the educational system, the high crime rate, economic problems facing black people, and in fact, almost everything else about which black people complain.

The handful of black people who point out that whites are not to blame for everything, are of course ignored or dismissed as Uncle Toms.

There is of course, no justification at all to blame white people for everything that is going wrong in South Africa, a quarter of a century after the ANC came to power. In fact, as the older and honest people of all races know, apartheid itself died long before 1994. The so-called petty apartheid systems had started to be dismantled in the 1980s: influx control was abandoned in the mid-1980s, and the group areas and mixed marriages acts, for example, were no longer enforced from the late 1980s onward.

In fact, the last whole white Parliament set in 1982, even if the then tricameral system was rejected by the ANC and other opponents. That rejection does not nullify the fact that the tricameral system and its resultant social implications was a major break with apartheid as it had been originally designed.

This means that apartheid — as it is blamed for everything — actually vanished more than 25 years ago. Yet still, white people are blamed for everything.

Perhaps then, the time has come to punish white people properly for apartheid.

Perhaps the time has come to give white people exactly what is claimed they gave to black people: perhaps the time has come to give white people apartheid!

If the government or the EFF, or anyone else, really wants to punish white people then they should make them live under the sort of policies under which they claim black people suffered so much.

And here we are not talking about just affirmative action, BEE, or job reservation, removing white symbols, town names, statues, Afrikaans language educational systems, or “land reform”—as they  are already doing—but the whole caboodle.

Why not go all the way, and teach these white people exactly how real apartheid worked?

Why not force white people into their own schools?

Why not force white people into having their own residential areas?

Why not force white people to socially segregate?

Why not take away the vote from white people? (not like their votes make any difference in the new South Africa anyway).

And finally, why not force white people into their own homeland in some barren area?

Some place where they will only have the vote to form their own government in that area, just like a bantustan?  And no vote in the rest of South Africa!

Perhaps the northern Cape might be a suitable white bantustan? After all, it is barren and relatively unpopulated.

They could even forcibly relocate white people to this white bantustan.With trucks, perhaps. Dump them there and let them get on with it.

Think of all the possibilities this would open up.

The government takes revenge on the white people in the way that they say white people exploited blacks.

They could also then demonstrate to the world just how evil apartheid was, as this white bantustan collapses.

Let the white bantustan build its own schools!  And let them collapse!

Let the white bantustan build its own economy! And let it collapse!

Let the white bantustan start its own farms! And let them collapse!

That will teach them how evil apartheid was.

And yes, then black people could have the majority of the country, the rich farm areas, the cities.....

Jam these white people into a bantustan, enforce apartheid against them, and let them get on with it! That will show them!

Best of all, they could get rid of these pesky white people once and for all.

Applying apartheid to white people would immediately stop their interference in the country's economy, politics, and so on.

So let’s stop messing around.

Why doesn’t the government dish out to white people what they say white people dished out to them.

It’s only fair, right, and long overdue. Make white people suffer under apartheid!

Ignorance or Maliciousness? Race, DNA, the Daily Mail and Bledington Village

The Daily Mail has just produced another article—as part of its relentless attacks on the concept of race and the validity of racial differences—which luridly claims that an English village in Gloucestershire is in fact not “British” at all, according to DNA tests—but this claim, is, as usual, based on nothing but ignorance so crushing and obvious that it must be malicious.

The article claims to be the result of ananalysis of 120 villages from Bledington in the Cotswolds, which was chosen“for its size and location.”

The Daily Mail informs its readers that the study was carried out in March by genealogy company Ancestry. The article then helpfully has a video promoting one of that company’s products, confirming that the article is in fact one of the sponsored features for which the Daily Mail is so famous.

Headlined “The English village that's not very English at all!,” the article says that “residents in a Cotswolds community have DNA from 18 different parts of the world despite 95% saying their heritage is white British.”

It then goes on to claim that the residents “have DNA from 18 different places” and that the “average villager's DNA is just 42% British” even though “the last census lists the community as 95 per cent white British.”

The village is, therefore, the article claims, “actually a hotbed of diversity”—and this theme is commonly maintained throughout the article to reinforce the claim, of course, that white British people—and by implication, Europeans general—are all actually racially-mixed and there is no such thing as a “pure” race.

The major claims made with regard to the villagers are as follows:

“Their DNA is from all over the country, with less than half of it coming from Great Britain.”“The DNA breakdown of the average Bledington resident was: Great Britain (Anglo Saxon) 42.54%; Europe West (The region covered today by France and Germany) 20.61%; Ireland/Scotland/Wales 17.03%; Scandinavia 10.06%; Iberian Peninsula (Spain/Portugal) 2.80%; Italy/Greece 1.79%; Europe East 1.66%; European Jewish 1.58%;  Finland/Northwest 1.03%; Caucasus 0.46%; West Asia 0.24%; Asia South 0.11%; Asia Central 0.03%; Africa North 0.03%; Native American 0.01%; Asia East 0.01%; Middle East 0.01%; Melanesia 0.01%.”

It is from these latter statistics that the claim is then manufactured that the villagers “have DNA from all over the world,” and, therefore, they are “not white British” as they think they are.

All of this is, of course, pure nonsense.

Firstly, there is no such thing as “British DNA” in the same way that there is no such thing as a “British race.” To even claim such a thing, is an indication of crushing, dreadful, ignorance.

In this regard, I am reminded of what T. Lothrop Stoddard, the famous American racial scientist wrote in his book,Racial Realities in Europe, namely that “nationality is what people think theyare, race is what they really are.”

There is no “British” race, “French” race, “German” race, or, even for that matter, “Scandinavian” race.

There are, as the science of genetics has confirmed, various races as defined by phenotype and genotype—phenotype by their physical appearance, and genotype by the allele frequency found in their genetic makeup.

Because all humans share the same basic genes, genetic diversity comes about not in the genes per se, but in the frequency, or repetition, of certain alleles, which, the official definition says, are “any of several forms of a gene, usually arising through mutation, that are responsible for hereditary variation.”Race can be determined by studying these alleles, as all honest geneticists know.

In this way, race is not defined by nationality, but by genetic commonality. It is therefore ridiculous to say that there is a “British race.” There is only a British part of a common European genetic base, which certainly shares its base with the rest of the European gene pool—as do all other European “nations.”

To thus claim that the villagers of Bledington have “mixed ancestry” because their DNA is overwhelmingly European, is to deliberately—and most likely, maliciously, distort the reality of DNA and race.

However, the worst part of the Daily Mail article comes with the non-European ancestry claimed for the villagers of Bledington, and that paper’s trumpeting of this as “evidence” of their “diversity.”

These tiny amounts of non-European DNA (“Caucasus 0.46%; West Asia 0.24%; Asia South 0.11%; Asia Central 0.03%; Africa North 0.03%; Native American 0.01%; Asia East 0.01%; Middle East 0.01%; Melanesia 0.01%”) are what is known in geneticist circles as “Trace DNA”—and are never used to claim ethnicity because they are so small as to be classed as “unreliable.”

The reason for this classification is because of the nature of the common gene pool of humans, which means that almost everyone has some genes in common.

Ancestry—the company which sponsored the Daily Mail article—coyly calls these Trace DNA elements “Low Confidence Regions” for the very reason that the name implies.

In fact, Ancestry says on its own websitepage:

In a DNA estimate, low confidence regions are areas for which there's a small amount of DNA evidence found in a sample. All ethnicities with predicted percentages of less than 4.5% appear as low confidence regions.To calculate your ethnicity, we run 40 separate tests on randomly selected portions of your DNA. The bottom number in a range is the smallest amount of an ethnicity that appeared during the 40 analyses, and the top number in a range is the largest amount of an ethnicity that appeared.When an ethnicity has a range that includes zero (meaning that in at least one of the 40 tests, that ethnicity didn’t appear) and doesn’t exceed 15%, or when the predicted percentage is less than 4.5%, the ethnicity is included in an estimate as a low confidence region.The larger the amount of an ethnicity that appears in a test, the more confidence we’re able to attribute to our estimate of that ethnicity. Because low confidence regions are regions for which smaller amounts of evidence appears, our confidence in the percentage of DNA that comes from a low confidence region is necessarily low.

To put this into even plainer English: Ancestry’s DNA tests specifically say that any “ethnicity” test they perform which produces a result of less than 4.5 percent (and as much as 15 percent) is a “low confidence” result—which means that a result of that size cannot be taken as accurate.

Given that this fact is publicly available—and common knowledge among all people who have any knowledge on the topic—it becomes clear that the latest Daily Mail article is either crushingly ignorant, or deliberately misleading.

I think I know which of the two it is.

* Some of the material in this blog post comes from my forthcoming book Race and Racial Differences: A Handbook for the 21st Century.

Interview on Radio3Fourteen

Interviewed by Lana Lokteff from Red Ice Creations. "Arthur joins us for a look at how the aspects of racial homogeneity and racial disillusionment (multiculturalism) have historically contributed to the rise and fall of civilizations.

"We begin by considering the essential questions of what causes culture and what happens when a civilization’s creators vanish.

"Arthur talks about the misconceptions of early English colonialism and the vastly different process of mass foreign invasion transpiring in the West today.

"He addresses the proclivity of the White race to explore the world and provide humanitarian support to the less fortunate, along with the consequences of these interventions.

"We discuss some logistics of the Out of Africa theory and the role of environment in racial differences, touching on the bureaucratic baloney that thwarts modern day archaeologists from properly investigating tremendous troves of ancient human remains holding clues of Europeans’ origins in the Northern Hemisphere.

"Then, Arthur explains the dire reality of the population replacement events being orchestrated by the West’s rulers, and we deliberate how to wake up the ill-informed masses to their looming extinction.

"He also gives an account of his life in South Africa during the ANC’s takeover, relating the hard fact that demographics ultimately dictate the rules.

"Our conversation rounds off with thoughts on the viability of recruiting quality Europeans to create a great ethnostate and the terrific potential that exists when enough Whites are able to unlearn their self-defeatist programming and abandon the egalitarian fantasies driving their cultures to demise."

Interview on Radio RWB

A Disgusting Barefaced Lie

A number of people have called me to ask my opinion on the constitutional changes which have been submitted to the British National Party's General Members' Meeting this coming weekend.

The questions have all essentially revolved around one point: are the proposals in line with the constitution which I drew up?

The short answer is no.

They have nothing at all in common with the proposals I submitted to the constitutional review committee, discussed in person with Nick Griffin, submitted to the December 2010 conference and which were approved by that conference.

It is disgraceful that an agreement to have a debate procedure on some of the finer points of the constitution has now been misrepresented to say that carte blanche was given to change the core proposals.

There was never any such suggestion.

The video evidence which has been released on Andrew Brons's site and on the official party website confirm this in detail.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the procedure for further review of the proposals has not been followed, and that completely new proposals have been plucked from the air and presented as being "in line" with those accepted at the conference.

It is a disgusting barefaced lie to make this claim.

I can only hope that decent and honest members of the party see that they are being lied to on a grand scale.

They must come to the General Members Meeting and vote down this outrage. To leave the party in the hands of people who can unashamedly tell such brazen lies would be a tragedy.

A Shocking and Gross Perversion

The proposed amendments to the British National Party's 12.2 constitution are a shocking and gross perversion of the intent, meaning and substance of the constitutional proposal as accepted at the party's conference in December 2010, and must be rejected.

The distortions are plainly evident in three important areas:

1. The party's December conference voted for a NEW constitution, NOT to amend the existing one.

2. The proposed amendments are in direct contradiction to the express intent and content of the proposal as debated at the Advisory Council, placed online for review and voted on (twice) at the party's annual conference.

3. The procedure for the constitutional review, as laid out in writing at the party's December conference and published in the conference booklet, has not been followed.

To deal with these points in detail:

1. A NEW CONSTITUTION, NOT AN AMENDED ONE

In August 2010, the Advisory Council and the party chairman instructed Andrew Brons MEP to officially launch a constitutional review committee after numerous complaints about the 12.2 constitution.

This is an important fact to remember: it was the AC's (and this ultimately the party chairman's) express order to review the party's constitution, and was NOT the product of some factional divide.

The purpose of the review was to draw up a new constitution and submit the proposals to the party's December 2010 conference for approval or rejection by the Voting Members.

Mr Brons duly held the review, and asked for submissions from party members, as instructed by the AC.

To make sure they were all publicly accessible, all submissions were put online for review and further discussion. That website is still online and can be found here.

Ultimately, three proposals were selected by the review committee, and submitted to the December 2010 conference.

The three proposals were:

- Keep the current (12.2) constitution;

- A new constitution which split the administration of the party from the political leadership. This proposal included a National Executive which was directly elected by the members which would replace the current AC (which, because it is nominated by the chairman at his discretion, is powerless and always subservient).

- A new constitution which split the administration of the party from the political leadership and whose National Executive was indirectly elected by the members. This would have seen the branches elect chairmen, who then would form the Regional Council. That body would then elect the majority of representatives on the National Executive. This was my proposal.

It is worth stressing that all of these proposed constitutions were submitted for review online, and anybody could make any input into them at any stage.

Furthermore, I must also point out that my proposal was discussed at the Advisory Council prior to the conference, where it was agreed that it would be submitted to the conference.

The conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of proposal 3, after a debate which stretched over two days.

I illustrated the exact workings of each proposal with a PowerPoint slide show, and asked the conference to vote on the proposal twice — on the Saturday and the Sunday. Each time, that proposal was adopted by an overwhelming majority.

The amendments which have now been distributed to members are NOT the proposals which were submitted online.

The amendments which have now been distributed to members have NOT been discussed at the AC.

The amendments which have now been distributed to members were NOT approved by the party's annual conference.

It is a shocking lie to claim, as the letter which accompanied the "amendments" does, that they were "discussed and agreed by an overwhelming majority" at the conference.

These "amendments" are, with minor exceptions, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to the proposal as accepted at the conference.

The conference approved a NEW constitution.

The "amendments" which have now been circulated are just that — amendments to the existing constitution.

And, it is worth repeating, even these "amendments" bear almost no resemblance to the proposals as adopted by the party conference.

On that basis alone, they must be rejected.

2. "AMENDMENTS" ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TO THOSE APPROVED

The "amendments" differ substantially in form, intent and content from that adopted at the party conference.

(For the sake of clarity, readers should be aware that the phrase "General Members' Meeting, or GMM, is another word for Extraordinary General Meeting, or EGM. They are one and the same thing).

Motion 1 of the proposed "amendments" seeks to create a five-year fixed term of office for the leader of the party.

The proposal makes no provision for this fixed term of office to be interrupted should the elected leader go mad, make terrible errors, or lose the confidence of the membership.

The only "counterbalance" to this fixed five-year term is if a GMM votes, by a two-thirds majority, to countermand a decision by the leader.

Even then, under the "amendment," the leader is not obliged to resign, only to accept that decision.

In other words, the "amendment," if passed, it will see a leader elected for a fixed period of five years, with no legal way of dislodging him or her for that time.

This is sheer madness, and is directly contradictory to the content and intent of the proposal adopted at the party conference.

The original proposal, as put online for review for all to see, discussed at the AC and approved by the conference, said the following:

"2.61 The position of National Leader shall be valid for four years, subject to the right of recall by the National Executive as outlined below.

..

2.64 In exceptional circumstances, the National Leader may be removed from office by a vote of 75 percent of the full National Executive in terms of a no-confidence motion. The quorum required for such a decision is 90 percent.

2.65 In order to ensure that a decision taken in terms of section 2.64 is representative of the majority of the party structure, any National Executive taking such a decision will also instantly be dissolved and will have to seek re-election from its constituent bodies (the Regional Councils)."

In other words, the original proposal proposed a four-year term of office, and specifically gave the right of the National Executive (which would NOT be appointed by the leader) to recall the leader if he or she went mad, made disastrous decisions etc.

This was a balance between the prospect of endless annual challenges and the demand for a longer fixed year term.

At the time I thought it quite reasonable, and the right of recall AT ANY TIME given to the independent (and representative of the membership) National Executive Council, would be a sufficient brake on any abuse of power by the leader.

This important provision has been thrown out the window in the proposed "amendment."

(I have in the interim, heard compelling arguments why there should not be a fixed term of office at all. I am more than happy to go along with that).

Furthermore, the proposed amendment reduces the number of signatures needed to ten and demands a £500 deposit of all candidates.

It is claimed that the reasoning behind this is that it will allow people to more easily take part in leadership contests.

Party members will recall that this topic was discussed in detail at the GMM held at the end of the 2008 Red, White and Blue festival.

At that meeting, it was overwhelmingly decided to raise the number of signatures required to stand as a candidate to stop no-hope annoyance candidates continually disrupting the party's workings by putting themselves forward each year.

That proposal, made by myself, was then endorsed by the party chairman.

I wonder what has changed since then?

In any event, the 10 signatures and £500 deposit story are NOWHERE in any of the online review discussions, was not discussed at the AC and NEVER MENTIONED at the party conference in December.

It is outrageous that they are now presented to the members as "true" to the proposals accepted at the conference in December 2010.

They are not.

They have been made up out of thin air, and bear no relation to any discussion, paper, proposal or motion.

Motion 2 of the proposed amendment is another scam.

It proposes changing the name of the Advisory Council to the "National Executive" and changing its composition to the following:

-  The party chairman;

- A Treasurer (appointed by the chairman);

- Head of Administration (appointed by the chairman);

- A National Organiser (appointed by the chairman);

- Two other individuals (appointed by the chairman);

- 11 regional organisers (appointed by the chairman);

- 11 regional chairmen (elected by the regional councils);

- 1 Councillor's representative, elected by the councillors at each party conference;

- One deputy treasurer, appointed by the National Executive.

This means that if this motion is approved, the "national executive" will consist of 29 people, of who 16 will be directly appointed by the chairman (as is the case with the current AC). This figure rises to 17 when the chairman is included.

The 12 remaining members of the "national executive" are allegedly supposed to be "representative" of the party membership.

The "amendment" says that they will be elected by the regional councils which are in turn elected by the local branches.

However, this "amendment" deliberately undermines the proposal as adopted by the party conference in December 2010 in two ways:

- Firstly, the Regional Organisers are still appointed by the leader at his or her whim. I am sure I do not have to detail recent events in this regard to explain why this is such a bad idea.

- Secondly, the duplication of "regional organisers" and "regional chairman" in the "amendment" is an obvious attempt to subvert the party's democratisation as demanded by the December 2010 conference.

If passed, the "amendment" ensure that 17 of the 29 "national executive" members will still be directly appointed by, responsible and subservient to, the party leader.

Compare this to the proposal as adopted by the party conference, in terms of which NOT ONE of the national executive members was appointed by the party leader.

Furthermore, the powers of the "amendment" national executive are purely advisory.

They will be able to appoint an auditor, a secretary and, by a two-thirds majority, call a GMM. That is all.

Under the proposals adopted by the conference in December 2010, the National Executive had real power, including the right to appoint staff and control the administration of the party, completely separate from the leader (who only had control over the political direction — in other words, just like any other political party in Britain).

In every aspect, Motion 2 is therefore a quantum leap difference from the proposal as discussed at the party conference, and is even more outrageous than Motion 1.

I am shocked that the covering letter to the "amendments" claims that they are "true" to the principles as adopted at the conference.

They are not.

They must be rejected out of hand.

Motion 3 has nothing whatsoever to do with the constitution, and is only a contract between the party and its elected officials.

I am baffled why it is even being put to the GMM and can only think that it is a poor trick designed to try and divert attention away from the real issues by filling up time at the GMM.

3. "AMENDMENTS" ARE PROCEDURALLY INVALID

The booklet handed out at the party conference in December 2010 spelled out in writing the procedure that was to the followed should any of the proposals serving be accepted.

Under the heading "Voting Members and Constitutional Changes 2010," the booklet read (page 11):

"If one, or a combination, of these is passed in principle by the Voting Members this weekend, it will then be honed and 'de-bugged' by the Advisory Council and through a process of online review and consultation before being presented, true to the principles approved by the Voting Members, to an Extraordinary General Meeting of the party's general members (which of course includes all voting members) for adoption or rejection as that meeting decides."

The process to be followed was therefore:

1. Vote on the proposals at the Conference;

2. Advisory Council to hone and debug the proposals;

3. The final draft constitution to be put online for review for the members to see;

4. The proposed constitution be submitted to the EGM (GMM).

[image error]

However, the reality is:

- The AC has NOT discussed, "honed," or "de-bugged" the proposed constitution;

- The AC has not even had sight of these "amendments," let alone discussed them. They were conjured up this past week and shown to no-one;

- The "amendments" have NOT been put online for review by the membership.

In other words, the party leadership has failed utterly to carry out the specific, written directives and promises which were made IN WRITING to the members at the party conference.

The "amendments" are a blatant attempt to undermine all attempts to reform the party, and must be defeated.

I would urge all party members to attend the GMM and ensure that these proposals are overwhelmingly defeated. The future of the party depends on it.

A Worrying Thing

Ok, for all those who have asked me:  yes, I have grown something on my eyeballs (ouch) and will soon be off to the opthamologist for possible surgery.

Here is a pic of my eye and the growth, for your ghoulish interest.

And here is a link to a bigger pic of both my eyes for comparison.