David Cole on Saying "No" to blacks

By An Old Friend
Thu, May 13, 2021 7:39 p.m.

David Cole on Saying "No" to blacks

N.S.: Cole is over 30 years behind yours truly, but better late than never, I always say... until it's too late for anything, that is.

https://www.takimag.com/article/saying-no-to-black-people/

Saying "No" to Black People

David Cole

It's the video nobody wants to talk about. And even the people who talk about it don't really want to talk about it.

San Dimas is a city in L.A. County. Demographics: roughly 50% non-hispanic White, 33% hispanic of any race, 14% Asian, 1.8% black. Last month in San Dimas an L.A. County Sheriff's deputy pulled over a woman who was texting while driving, a ticketable offense in this state. The deputy was a calm, composed hispanic (as I've often mentioned, the LASD is over 50% hispanic). And the driver was a bats--t crazy black lady, a college professor (though currently not employed as such [she'd probabaly never been more than an adjunct; can you imagine a black female voluntarily giving up the sinecure of a full-time professorship?!]) who tried every trick she could to bait the deputy into a confrontation.

Body-cam footage captured the incident. In a voice dripping with hostility, Textquesha repeatedly calls the deputy a "murderer."

"You're a murderer, you're a murderer."

The deputy remains as cool as Fonzie in a fridge. He continues about his business, not taking the bait, but not bending.

"You scared me and made me think you were going to murder me," the woman bleats. "You're threatening to kill me and my son! You're trying to threaten to kill me."

"No I'm not, ma'am. But you are getting a ticket."

"Call your supervisor, murderer," the woman barks, as the deputy calmly responds that he already has.

The deputy asks the woman, who claims to have left her driver's license at home, if the car she's driving is her own. "You're trying to say I stole my own car because you're jealous," she snipes.

[N.S.: This was to aggressively cover for the fact that she had committed yet another violation. She should have gotten three tickets: No license, no registration, and texting while driving. So, she still enjoyed affirmative action policing.]

Remaining friendly and professional, he accepts an image of her driver's license on her cellphone, and continues writing the ticket.

[N.S.: Irrelevant. She had to carry her license on her person.]

When the supervisor arrives, the driver signs for the citation. "Here you go, murderer," she hisses at the deputy. "Here you go, Mexican racist. You're a Mexican racist. You're always going to be a Mexican; you'll never be White. You know that, right? You'll never be White, which is what you really wanna be. You wanna be White."

The clip was first made public by former L.A. fox affiliate reporter–turned–national fox news correspondent Bill Melugin. Tucker Carlson is a huge Melugin fan, so it was no surprise that Carlson's show was where Melugin chose to debut the footage.

But the driver's face was purposely blurred. The unedited clip was out there, but Melugin chose not to show it. He told Carlson that he knew the identity of the driver, but he wouldn't reveal it because she'd yet to respond to his request for comment (online sleuths have apparently identified her as Kalunda-Rae Iwamizu, formerly of L.A. Southwest College). Okay, fine; that's his call. But he also didn't reveal the woman's race. He knew it, but he wouldn't state it. And that mattered, because "You're always going to be a Mexican; you'll never be White" means something different based on who's saying it.

Remember Coppola's The Conversation? "He'd kill us, if he got the chance" vs. "He'd kill us, if he got the chance." Same words, radically different meaning. "You're always going to be a Mexican; you'll never be White" coming from a White woman would indicate a sense of racial superiority: "you'll never be as good as me." Coming from a black woman, the words carry a great deal of import regarding America's racial future. Jealous, angry blacks who don't see Hispanics as "brothers" but as "near-Whites" who can not only "pass" but actually share in the power structure of White cities. The black woman screams at the Hispanic, "They'll never truly accept you," when it's blatantly obvious that "they" already have.

The driver was lashing out at something she knows she can never be: a force for order, not anarchy.

Because of Melugin's cowardice—and Tucker's—in not revealing the race of the driver even though they knew it and even though it was relevant to the story, every other media organ that picked up Melugin's exclusive likewise left that detail out. In the May 6 L.A. Times, journalistic fraud Hayley Smith wrote that "the race of the woman in the video is unclear." No, it isn't. The unblurred version of the video had been online for three days at that point. [N.S.: Even in the blurred version, it was clear she was "black."] But I don't blame Smith. Scumbags will scumbag. I blame Melugin and Carlson, who are supposed to be "fearless" and anti-woke. One mention of the driver's race would've forced other outlets to either ignore it or admit it, but not outright lie about it as Smith did (Fox even closed comments on the video on youtube to prevent viewers from mentioning the unmentionable).

More proof that there's just so far a guy like Carlson can or will go regarding America's untouchables.

See, that traffic-stop video is far more dangerous than you might think. So dangerous that even a guy like Carlson had to back off, at least on the most important detail and its implications.

Several years ago, I wrote about my brief exchange with the then (blessedly) unknown "Dr. Ibram X. Kendi" regarding the Planet of the Apes films. I explained how the 1968 original was not intended as a racial allegory, but by the fifth film, 1973's Battle for the Planet of the Apes, the franchise had dived headfirst into social commentary. Battle depicts a postapartheid society (Earth following the liberation of the enslaved apes) in which apes and humans live side by side, but with one inflexible rule: A human must never say "no" to an ape. In one scene, a "progressive" human teacher who runs the community's school impulsively yells "no" when one ape kid maliciously destroys another's crayon drawing. He's hauled off to prison.

To the film's apes, "no" is associated with their former enslavement. And now, in freedom, they've demanded that "no" be taken off the table. Humans have lost the right to say it, even for legitimate reasons. Now, I'm not comparing black people to apes. The movie did that; I'm merely commenting on the commentary. And the fact is, the film nailed the exact way in which postapartheid societies go wrong, via "corrective" racial preference systems fueled by vengeance in the guise of justice.

And in America's current "corrective apartheid," saying "no" to a black person is the worst sin a White can commit. It can lead to being fired, "canceled," or even physically attacked. The rules may in theory apply to everyone, but you can't tell a black "No, you can't use the bathroom if you're not a customer," "No, you can't eat in this area," "No, this parking is for handicapped only," "No, you may not trespass," "No, you may not grope women in this neighborhood."

Indeed, society's ultimate "no," expressed via arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment, is rapidly being suspended for blacks via police defunding, progressive prosecution, and deincarceration.

That San Dimas deputy said "no" to a black person on camera for the entire world to see. The driver used every weapon in the black rhetorical arsenal, but the deputy stood firm. Ironically, when she told him "you're not White," she was kinda right: A non-Hispanic White would've given in. Or, if not, he would've been targeted by the press and local politicians and activists for destruction. That's the danger of the video: It shows a nonblack saying "no" to a black and getting away with it.

Heaven forbid that footage might give whites any ideas. You show Hispanic whites standing up to blacks, next thing you know, all whites might start to think they have that right.

[N.S.: Here's where, with all due respect, Cole goes off the rails.]

Plus, the deputy showed how to do it smartly, especially the part about not being baited. And not being cowed. The black woman screamed "you're murdering me," and the cop calmly said "no I'm not." The black woman used racial insults, and the cop said "here's your ticket; have a nice day."

This isn't a viral video; it's an instructional video.

[N.S.: There is no reason to do it that way. On the contrary. Whites must tell black supremcists, "Go to Hell!" and "F--k you!"]

Just last week in Plano, Texas, blm thugs were allowed to illegally block an intersection, while the White cop on duty concentrated on pushing back an angry White motorist who simply wanted to get to his destination. And guess what? Now blm is demanding that the cop be fired for not shooting the White motorist! That cop didn't say "no" to blacks who were breaking the law, and what good did it do him? He still got hammered for not killing a White guy who tried to say "no" on his own. Remember—"corrective apartheid" is not about justice but vengeance; the more you indulge it, the more you encourage the favored group's bloodlust.

[N.S.: This was John Lewis' black supremacist vision. When he led the March 7, 1965 march on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, the state police and local volunteers refused to submit to him and his terrorists, even after the latter pelted the cops with bricks and bottles. Lewis then gave a speech, in which he demanded that President Johnson send federal troops to slaughter the White state troopers and volunteers. At the time, his people promoted, through friendlies at the new york times, the assertion that he had been admitted to a local hospital with a "possible skull fracture," a claim that would be embellished on over the years, to where he suffered a near fatal skull fracture. Meanwhile, fake scholars would "disappear" the violence of Lewis' followers, as well as his call for the mass murder of those Whites who upheld the law. Regular readers are familiar with this chronicle from me; I intend to repeat it, for as long as I can write.]

Meanwhile, not being able to say "no" to blacks has quite literally become a national security issue. When Biden's limp-dicked Secretary of State Blinken tried to have a "summit" in Alaska with the Chinese last March, China's top diplomat stated that "the United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength" because "the challenges facing the United States in human rights are deep-seated, such as black lives matter." These "human rights violations" are "admitted by the U.S. itself."

"Admitted by the U.S. itself." That's the key. Humoring blacks, not saying "no" to the unreasonable and objectively false things they say—"we're being genocided," "we're being murdered by cops every day," "1619 is America's true founding year," "all Whites are privileged oppressors"—has given our most dangerous international foe exactly the ammo it needs to steamroll the U.S. at the negotiating table. How can we claim any moral authority when our leaders "admit" that all those horrible things blacks say are true? Yes, we're a KKK slave-state, a racist genocidal hellhole. Having made that admission, how can we then argue that China shouldn't decimate us economically and in every other way?

Genocidal states should fall, right? And because we can't say "no" to even the most outrageous black claims, we've essentially admitted that we deserve to fall.

The inability to say "no" to blacks will harm us internationally, as surely as it's already harming us domestically in our cities and suburbs.

Now, it goes without saying that the ideologues who actively want this new apartheid are fine with the domestic and international damage. The greater concern is that the more these new rules are imposed on American society, the more they're normalized, ordinary people will start to get used to them. Whether you mandate by law that no White may say "no" to a black, or whether you simply make it so that the terrible consequences of doing so create a de facto mandate, the hope is that, in time, Whites will just come to accept that this is the way it is. And then the system self-perpetuates.

And that's why anything, including the San Dimas video, that shows a White (even a Hispanic White) successfully saying "no" to a black is important. Whites need to be reminded that they still have that right.

For as long as they can keep it.