Rod Dreher’s Scatterbrain Approach

Rod Dreher’s scatterbrain approach to the Death of the West is something to behold. From his recent post about spending a week in the Czech Republic (“Finding Hope In Europe’s Most Atheist Country”), he gets together with some Czech Catholics:

We briefly discussed Jean Raspail’s prophetic 1970s novel The Camp of the Saints.Yes, we agreed, it was racist, and even fascist in parts. Deplorably so! But we also agreed that in diagnosing the utter fecklessness of Europe’s virtue-signaling elites in the face of a migratory invasion (“Let’s face it, we are under an invasion here,” my lunch partner said), Raspail was deadly accurate.

“Deplorably so!” Ugh. I could say the same about Dreher’s sentiment.

What can be done about it now? Well, there’s the matter of regaining control of the borders. I pointed out that it’s necessary to close the borders and guard them, but not remotely sufficient. Europe may succeed at keeping out the refugees, but unless the rock-bottom birth rate in European nations rebounds, it will be futile.

My interlocutor, an older man, said that he and his wife had had a large number of children, all adults now. Know how many grandchildren he has? Four. Only four children from a brood so large you would have associated it with rural Catholic farmers or old-fashioned shtetl Jews.

“My children say they don’t want to have children, that there’s no point in it,” he mused. “They say Europe is eventually going to be ruled by Muslims, so they just want to live out their lives, enjoying what they can.”

I’ve been thinking about that all week…

Yeah, I’ll bet you have. But then you’ll forget about it when you write your next rant against the dastardly ‘Alt Right’.

Here’s another gem:

In the US, we only face de-Christianization. In Europe, though, they face the prospect of Islamization and a broader de-Europeanization, as native European stock are replaced by migrants from the Middle East and Africa.

“It’s like the barbarian invasions all over again,” one man told me. And, he’s right.

“And, he’s right”? Umm… doesn’t that meet the criteria for earlier use of ‘deplorable’ above?

Dreher mentions a conversation with one Catholic:

If memory serves, it was he that night who told me that Europeans fail to understand that Christian faith is the only force within Europe strong enough to stand up to the domestic challenge of Islam.

It ain’t the only force strong enough, Rod.

Not by a long shot.

What a life Dreher has: He writes a book that, once the mask is stripped away, is a blue print for inaction and surrender. This then serves as a permanent sinecure, allowing him tour Europe endlessly, stuffing his face with swell food, beer and wine, while discussing the Muslim Invasion and paying homage to the self-immolating Jan Palach, which is the most we can expect for in terms of ‘action’ from Dreher-types.

It must be nice.

Meanwhile, the real warriors who are trying to save the (historically white) West live in relative poverty and obscurity.

Posted in Christianity, Culture | Comments Off on Rod Dreher’s Scatterbrain Approach

A Critique of Critiques of KM’s Critique

In terms of Kevin MacDonald’s very important and overlooked work on the JQ, the past week has seen some major Overton Window shifting vis-à-vis the academic article “Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy: A Critical Analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s Theory” by Nathan Cofnas, and through a Quillette piece (“What the Alt-Right Gets Wrong About Jews”) co-authored by Cofnas and designed largely to promote the aforementioned academic paper.

On the Dissident Right side of things, Z Man has written two relevant pieces (“A Critique of the Critique” and “Letter To The Antisemites”.) In Counter-Currents, Spencer Quinn has written a good riposte to the latter Z Man piece (“Letter to the Z Man”). The remainder of my post below is largely based on a comment I left to the Quinn piece.

KM is expected to have a full reply to the Cofnas paper any day now and, after that is published and digested, I will likely write a longer replay to the Cofnas paper itself.

With respect to the JQ, KM’s overall thesis largely rests upon foundations of social identity theory and the related dynamic of group evolutionary strategy (GES), both being pre-existing concepts in social psychology. Insofar as KM’s thesis rests upon the concept of GES, it is on sound footing. Hence, various critics of KM find the need to base their critique on a second-order critique of GES itself (e.g., is the notion of GES unfalsifiable? Etc.) It’s unclear if Z is also skeptical of evolutionary biology or evolutionary theory (e.g., group selection) itself. This is no small matter. It is what leads him to say things like: “I’m a bit skeptical of group evolutionary strategy. It could be a real thing or it could be nonsense.”

I’m reminded here of 70s-era protests against E.O. Wilson and other founders of sociobiology. With respect to the JQ, it seems at this stage of the game we ought to be firmly staking a position for or against the idea of GES as a coherent explanatory model well beforehand, and not use this particular moment (a pointed discussion of KM’s work taking place qua Cofnas) to be debating the latter.

GES does not imply inexorable biological causation (a crude biological determinism.) It implies largely emotional predispositions (and post-hoc rationalizations thereof), selected for by the trials and associated pressures of group competition for limited resources. GES is not comprised of 100% conscious and rational choice decision making. It’s not like intelligent design. There’s no hand-wringing & plotting going on here. In point of fact, as a phenomenon GES represents the compounded effects of countless micro-level, game theoretic, social interactions largely fueled and guided by unconscious forces (instinct), much as life itself is. IOW, both conscious and unconscious in-group preferences (social identity theory; crypsis) are a function of GES, not GES itself.

Quinn writes: “You are not arguing against anti-Semitism so much as the abuse of anti-Semitism.” This is a very important distinction. Speaking for myself, while none of us puts 100% certitude into any given theory, given the evidence I have digested, I find KM’s thesis quite convincing. Does this then make me a Radical Anti-Semite (RAS), the type who LARPs, trades in gas chamber memes and uses Pepe@1488 handles? Z seems to conflate what Quinn aptly calls ‘counter-semitism’ with RAS. For reasons having to do with both the dominant liberal Culture we operate within (the so-called Overton Window), and for reasons having to do with the infighting and purity-spiraling we currently experience within the Dissident Right, this is an extraordinarily important distinction to make.

As an academic field, sociology (at least sociology worth its weight) is composed of multivariate analysis. Nonetheless, certain variables will inevitably play bigger or smaller roles in the equation. Some will take KM’s theory and, unfortunately, essentialize it into a reductionist Anti-semitism, using it as an all-purpose explanans for everything gone wrong in the world. Such is the aforementioned RAS. But the careful reader of KM’s theory, as demonstrated by KM himself, does not necessarily lead to RAS.

Furthermore, as someone who tries to adhere to the precepts of the scientific method (a continuous process of conjectures & refutations), the fact that I currently find KM’s thesis convincing is no guarantee I’ll necessarily find it convincing tomorrow, given some new piece of evidence or competing theory. But such is the nature of the scientific method (and the formation of ‘knowledge’) itself. Taking a small-S skepticism towards KM’s thesis is no different (and just as healthy) as taking a small-S skepticism towards any number of other theses: the idea that ‘democracy’ is good; the idea that there exist ‘natural rights’; the idea that the ‘Non-Aggression Principle’ is the theoretical end-all and be-all; the idea that the universe is expanding, etc. The point here is that it is rather odd for Z to highlight his second order, small-S skepticism towards the GES behind KM’s theory, but not broach similar second order concerns to other auxiliary ‘race realism’-related theories (or any number of other theories in other domains of knowledge) that he presumably espouses.

It is especially unfortunate to take this position towards a theory that is, within the range of ideas of mainstream Culture, clearly on the margins. Don’t get me wrong: all theories deserve scrutiny. But, in our current academic climate, KM’s theory is essentially not even allowed on the stage, and is the subject of gross mischaracterizations (if not outright caricatures) as well as the most infantile of ad hominem attacks. As such, it risks being confined to the most extreme margins of the Dissident Right, relegated to being sanctified by LARP-ers as a holy relic. Were KM’s theory a generally accepted truth in the epicenter of respectable Cultural Discussion, however, I could then see the practical utility of punching right, so to speak, challenging and testing KM’s theory to a continuous and rigorous stream of first-order critiques as well as even second-order doubts about the coherence of GES, etc.

To a position central to both Z and Cofnas, Quinn writes: “If it were all about aptitude and living in cities… then why has there never been Left-Right balance among the diaspora Jews and their works?” This bears on the importance of carefully assembling the data. On the conservative side of the political spectrum, it is true that Jews have had a significant role in both libertarianism and neoconservatism and this makes sense, insofar as both strands of political thought are good for the Jews: the former due to a purely market-based meritocracy for which Jews are notably suited (e.g., Slezkine’s The Jewish Century) and the latter for the obvious reasons widely discussed in the aftermath of the Iraq War. Jews have not, however, had a comparable degree of representation in what we might call the ‘blood and soil’ nationalisms (ethnonationalisms) of Central and Western Europe. And it is this empirical fact which begs the question: Why is this the case?

At a minimum, the question of ‘What causes anti-Semtism?’ is a chicken or egg situation. However, anti-Semitism does not occur in a vacuum, nor can its long history in Europe and elsewhere be plausibly explained away as a series of spontaneous eruptions of mass hysteria and collective irrationality, taking place in a variety of different host cultures. As KM and others have documented so well, epochs of anti-Semitism can arguably best be explained as coalescent reactions to extreme displays of Jewish ethnocentrism. Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism and its in-group effects (both in terms of creating in-group advantages & in giving shape and form to gentile reactions to such emergent advantages) may be a better explanation for Jews being kicked out of hundreds of societies than, say, spontaneous irrationalism.

Posted in Jewish, Sociology | Comments Off on A Critique of Critiques of KM’s Critique

Monika & Damien

Aeon has “Eyes of Exodus”, a 28 min documentary about Syrian ‘refugees’ (henceforth: invaders) swarming a tiny Greek island of only 300 native inhabitants. The documentary is directed by Alexandra Liveris, who appears to be your typical NYC liberal. The film emphasizes the relatively small number of women and children that comprise the invaders. You’d never guess that upwards of 90% of Syrian invaders are men between the ages of 18 and 35.

Monika & Damien are a friendly couple on the island who own a gift shop, and who house & feed as many invaders as they can, often for free or for a greatly discounted rate.

But then check out the 17:45 marker, where they suddenly do an about-face. They’ve discovered that the, via FB et al, the invaders are virally spreading info to future invaders. “Go and find Monika & Damien, they’re stupid.” The invaders are, in essence, laughing at their altruism and gullibility.

“We have no choice but to stop.”

Mind you, the couple are themselves obviously liberals. We see Monika, the wife, advising some invaders of where to go in Holland and Sweden, and how she will provide them with contacts.

Also check out 23:46 to 25:50, where (6 months after the earlier part of the documentary has taken place), we learn of developments between Monika & Damien.

Posted in Europe, Immigration | Comments Off on Monika & Damien

Judas Priest – Firepower (2018)

For the NWOBHM icons Judas Priest (some of whom are now septuagenarians), their new album Firepower is really good, far exceeding their previous album Redeemer of Souls (2014).

I’ve cued up a particularly strong track called “Flame Thrower”:

Posted in Music | Comments Off on Judas Priest – Firepower (2018)

FB Bans Britain First

FaceBorg has just banned Britain First.

Something like this is now happening every week.

Compounded, it has a real effect.

Posted in Culture Wars | Comments Off on FB Bans Britain First

NYT: White Supremacists Are Increasingly Using Public Banners

White Supremacists Are Increasingly Using Public Banners” screams the NYT headline for a piece written by Maggie Astor. It’s basically the NYT’s excuse to publicize a new ADL ‘report’ on the subject.

White supremacists are increasingly hanging banners in public places, such as from highway overpasses and rooftops, to promote their views, according to a report released on Thursday by the Anti-Defamation League.

“While white supremacists have been using banners for some time, the number of banners deployed in the past 10 months marks an unprecedented trend,” the report said. The tactic, it added, is significant because it “can garner widespread attention with very little actual effort involved.”

From May 20, 2017, through this Monday, the A.D.L.’s Center on Extremism found, there were 72 such episodes.

72 episodes! 72! In a country of only 300 million people. Oh, the humanity.

According to the ADL, ‘white supremacist’ messages include messages such as “America first: End immigration” and “‘Diversity’ is a code word for white genocide.” The article is accompanied by two pics, one of which is of a sign saying “White Lives Matter.” This is what qualifies as ‘White Supremacy’.

The larger point of the ADL hit piece, and the NYT’s lackey work, is IMO to warn the NYT’s typical ‘globalist’ readers of the growing danger of Identity Evropa, who the article notes are responsible for 40% of the banners. So, at least IE gets some free press.

Identity Evropa describes itself as “a fraternal organization for people of European heritage located in the United States that participates in community building and civic engagement,” but the A.D.L. and the Southern Poverty Law Center describe it as a white nationalist group. The A.D.L. wrote in its report that the phrases on Identity Evropa’s banners — “Import the third world, become the third world,” for example, and “You will not replace us” — were “a sanitized version of the group’s true aim, the preservation of ‘white American identity’ and the promulgation of the idea that America was founded by white people for white people, and was not intended to be a multiracial or multicultural society.”

A NYT story on the rising threat of ‘white supremacy’ that cites both the ADL and the $PLC. How original.

What is hilarious is how the entire report (to address a whopping 72 incidents!) is significantly undermined in its “societal problem” angle by the fact that one guy accounts for a great many of the incidents:

Two other neo-Nazi groups, Vanguard America and Atomwaffen, hung smaller numbers of banners. Jimmy Marr, an Oregonian who once drove a truck emblazoned with swastikas, was behind many of the anti-Semitic banners the A.D.L. documented.

More banners were hung in Oregon than in any other state, most likely because of Mr. Marr, the report said.

Whoops! No worries, though, the headline is all that people will remember in a week’s time. When your paranoia-fueled organization (e.g., ADL, SPLC) has hundreds of millions of shekels gathered from Jewish donors who are themselves convinced that Hitler or the KKK is behind every tree, you can afford to churn out crap reports like this.

Finally, I loved this conclusion:

Extremist groups have become more active in the past two years, and have expressed a sense of invigoration since President Trump’s electionHate groups and hate crimes have become more common, and in a report released last month, the A.D.L. found that anti-Semitic episodes had increased 57 percent in 2017 from the year before.

If there is one incident of Hate Crime X in 2016, and then two in 2017, that’s a 100% increase! Quick, call our contacts at the NYT! Oy vey!

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Jewish, NYT | Comments Off on NYT: White Supremacists Are Increasingly Using Public Banners

The Deniers

Esteemed philosopher Galen Strawson has a very good piece on the poverty of materialism as an explanation for consciousness (“The Consciousness Deniers”). He traces the lineage from early behaviorism to Dennett-style functionalism, leading to the absurdity that is reductive materialism:

It’s true that we can’t understand how experience can be wholly a matter of neural goings-on, when we start out from the way the brain appears to physics or neurophysiology. Crucially, though, there’s no reason to give the way the brain appears to physics or neurophysiology priority over the way it appears to the person having the experience. Rather the reverse, as Russell pointed out as early as 1927: he annoyed many, and incurred some ridicule, when he proposed that it was only the having of conscious experience that gives us any insight into the intrinsic nature of the stuff of the brain. His point was simple: first, we know something fundamental about the essential nature of conscious experience just in having it; and second, conscious experience is literally part of the physical stuff of the brain, if materialism is true…

But then—in the middle of the twentieth century—something extraordinary happens. Members of a small but influential group of analytic philosophers come to think that true naturalistic materialism rules out realism about consciousness. They duly conclude that consciousness doesn’t exist. They reach this conclusion in spite of the fact that conscious experience is a wholly natural phenomenon, whose existence is more certain than any other natural phenomenon, and with which we’re directly acquainted, at least in certain fundamental respects. These philosophers thus endorse the Denial.

The problem is not that they take naturalism to entail materialism—they’re right to do so. The problem is that they endorse the claim that conscious experience can’t possibly be wholly physical. They think they know this, although genuine naturalism doesn’t warrant it in any way. So they, like the behaviorists, claim that consciousness doesn’t exist, although many of them conceal this by using the word “consciousness” in a way that omits the central feature of consciousness—the qualia, the “heady luxuriance.”

The situation grows stranger when one reflects that almost all their materialist forebears, stretching back over 2,000 years to Leucippus and Democritus, completely reject the view that experience can’t be physical, and hold instead (as all serious materialists must) that experience is wholly physical. Russell made the key observation in 1927: “We do not know enough of the intrinsic character of events outside us to say whether it does or does not differ from that of ‘mental’ events”—whose nature we do know. He never wavered from this point. In 1948, he noted that physics simply can’t tell us “whether the physical world is, or is not, different in intrinsic character from the world of mind.” In 1956, he remarked that “we know nothing about the intrinsic quality of physical events except when these are mental events that we directly experience.” But the Deniers weren’t listening, and they still aren’t.

Russell’s view (from his book The Study of Matter) strengthens a more phenomenological approach to understanding consciousness and possibly (qua Heidegger) can show us a path away from the trappings of scientism and towards a more authentic Being.

Of the fetishized philosophy of materialism’s underlying assumptions, Strawson writes:

One of the strangest things about the spread of the naturalism-based Denial in the second half of the twentieth century is that it involved overlooking a point about physics that was once a commonplace, and which I call “the silence of physics.” Physics is magnificent: many of its claims are either straightforwardly true or very good approximations to truth. But all of its claims about the physical are expressed by statements of number or equations. They’re truths about quantities and relational structures instantiated in concrete reality; and these truths tell us nothing at all about the ultimate nature of the stuff of reality, the stuff that has the structure that physics analyzes. Here is Russell again (in 1948): “the physical world is only known as regards certain abstract features of its space-time structure… we know nothing about the events that make matter, except their space-time structure.”

I’ve been taking a strong interest of late in various critiques of rationalism (e.g., Hobbes, Burke, Oakeshott, MacIntyre), that is, critiques of the idea of abstraction as the purest form of Truth and only valid way to get to Truth, as it is defined. This approach, with its origins in the physical sciences, ignores the realm of Practical Reason and its existentialist role (see Aristotle) and has, since the Enlightenment, crept into the social sciences (the Science of Man) and political philosophy. This has led to many ongoing attempts toward systematized political programs (whether Marxism, Neoliberal, or Libertarian) which, I increasingly believe, are variations of the same theme: utopianism. In each case, the Truth sought after (‘communism’, ‘progress’, ‘freedom’) is an idealized social state, itself a telos borne of abstract reasoning, and is ultimately a folly blind to the overdetermined realities of human existence.

This does not mean that we are atomized individuals; far from it. Out of practical necessity, we form groups, make tribal alliances, and negotiate the world. We do this, however, under the auspices of Practical Reason. It is when we then attempt to systematize these Practical actions vis-à-vis Abstract Reasoning that the trouble begins. Philosophical systems are constructed and proposed, and then the purity spiraling begins.

Increasingly, I have been wondering “How is it that Man continuously pursues such utopian dreams?” Strawson writes:

The explanation is as ancient as it is simple. As Cicero says, there is “no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it.” Descartes agrees, in 1637: “Nothing can be imagined which is too strange or incredible to have been said by some philosopher.” Thomas Reid concurs in 1785: “There is nothing so absurd which some philosophers have not maintained.” Louise Antony puts it like this in 2007: “There is… no banality so banal that no philosopher will deny it.”

Descartes adds that when it comes to speculative matters, “the scholar… will take… the more pride [in his views] the further they are from common sense… since he will have had to use so much more skill and ingenuity in trying to render them plausible.” Or as C.D. Broad says, some 300 years later: some ideas are “so preposterously silly that only very learned men could have thought of them… by a ‘silly’ theory I mean one which may be held at the time when one is talking or writing professionally, but which only an inmate of a lunatic asylum would think of carrying into daily life.”

Such are the blind alleyways that ‘philosophy’ can take even the best of minds.

To this list of utopianisms, are we to add those who dream of pure, harmonious, authoritarian ethnostates run by a benevolent class of elites? Is the paternalism required always fated to ultimately reach Great Terror proportions? Are such political beliefs a characteristic of what we might call the Denier of Human Imperfectability? In short, can something straight really be built from this crooked timber of humanity?

If not, what is the best political program we ought to be pursuing?

Posted in Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Political Theory, Scientism | Comments Off on The Deniers

I Am Enough

Just published is the children’s book I Am Enough by Grace Byers and‎ Keturah A. Bobo:

I Am Enough is the picture book everyone needs.

This is a gorgeous, lyrical ode to loving who you are, respecting others, and being kind to one another—from Empire actor and activist Grace Byers and talented newcomer artist Keturah A. Bobo.

This is the perfect gift for mothers and daughters, baby showers, and graduation.

We are all here for a purpose. We are more than enough. We just need to believe it.

The title and front image of the book had me thinking of a ‘reply’ book, which I’d title Yes You Are, For This Neighborhood. 

Posted in Black, Humor | Comments Off on I Am Enough

TAC v. Commentary

In boomer, CivNat journals like TAC, things like this are routine. First, in Commentary, Noah Rothman writes a derisive piece against ‘nationalists’, expressing his latent fear that ‘blood and soil’ nationalism is a real threat in both Europe and the U.S. In other words, it is a prototypical piece displaying Jewish angst and paranoia about white ethnonationalisms, as well as globalist neoconservatism, a perspective that is dominated by Jews. (I have little doubt that Rothman has a quite different take on Israel as an ethnonationalist state.)

Then, in TAC, Robert Merry writes a piece highly critical of Rothman, but nowhere is the word “Jewish” used. The closet we get is the use of the term ‘neoconservative’ in the byline, a term I fully expect SPLC will soon designate as an anti-Semitic dog whistle, if they haven’t already done so:

One writer for the neoconservative magazine says globalism’s losers are outnumbered, and now it’s time to “overwhelm” them.

As for Rothman’s piece, he talks of ‘hard power calculations’ to defeat and destroy the sorts of nationalist sentiments that lead to tariffs, and (more importantly) the sense of nationalism that is informed by ethnic identity. Rothman then throws in this rather creepy passage:

If populist nationalism is to be contained, it cannot be subsumed into greater liberalism and its malcontents mollified by social welfare programs. The very idea of populist nationalism will have to be overwhelmed. As soon as advocates of unfettered freedom and commerce come to that conclusion, that necessary work can begin.

What is this mysterious ‘necessary work’?

To which Merry responds appropriately:

The audacity here is breathtaking. This is the kind of talk that leaves one wondering whether the looming civic battle over the definition of America—the globalist vision versus the nationalist one—can be adjudicated through peaceful democratic means. Rothman’s “unfinished work” emanates from a perception that populist nationalism cannot be accommodated; it will have to be eradicated. And those poor folk who have been disadvantaged by the globalist onslaught, as Rothman acknowledges they have been, will just have to be marginalized until they no longer have a voice in civic affairs. This may be unfortunate, but it’s necessitated by the globalist vision of welcoming to America ever more foreigners to displace those benighted populists whose civic influence will have to be curtailed.

Still no use of the word “Jewish”.

Unbeknownst to Rothman, however, populism is part and parcel of any democratic regime. It remains largely quiescent when times are good and civic waters are calm. It raises its head in times of turbulence or difficulty, when major economic dislocations hit large segments of the populace and lay them low. It emerges when significant numbers of citizens see the elites remaking their society without so much as a by-your-leave from the people and while displaying unconcealed contempt.

Still no use of the word “Jewish”.

Rothman doesn’t want to accept that there is a legitimate debate about all this in America today. Instead he conjures up the specter of a mortal threat to the republic from people who are every bit as much a part of the American tradition as he is.

Still no use of the word “Jewish”.

Indeed, in projecting his abstractionist view of America, Rothman distorts the picture. He suggests that the open-borders sensibility he reveres has been an integral part of the American experience from the beginning. This is false. Throughout its history, the United States has calibrated immigration policies based on the realities of the time. The last time America reached a proportion of foreign-born residents close to the current percentage, a political reaction set in and major curtailments were instituted. As recently as the 1970s, that number was half what it is today.

Still no use of the word “Jewish”.

And so the writers at TAC continue to ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room.

Posted in Civic Nationalism, Jewish | Comments Off on TAC v. Commentary

Double Murderer Paroled

How the f*ck is this allowed to happen? (Note: Officer Piagentini was white, and Officer Jones was black.):

A cold-blooded killer who gunned down two New York City police officers nearly half a century ago is set to walk free after he was granted parole.

Herman Bell, a former Black Revolutionary Army thug who lured Officers Joseph Piagentini and Waverly Jones to a housing project in 1971, was granted clemency recently – despite past parole board rejections of his earlier bids that argued freeing Bell “would depreciate the severity of this crime,” the New York Post reported Wednesday.

The Black Revolutionary Army was a violent offshoot of the Black Panthers that sanctioned symbolic killings of police officers regardless of their race in New York and California.

Bell, along with Anthony Bottom and another accomplice who died in prison in 2000, called themselves the “New York 3.”

In 1971, the trio lured Piagentini, 22, and Jones, 33, to a Harlem housing project with a fake 911 call. As the unsuspecting cops approached, the three men opened fire.

Jones died instantly while Piagentini – who had been shot more than a dozen times – begged for his life, the Associated Press reported. Bell finished him off with the cop’s own gun.

I’m guessing Bell will now become a tenured professor or a celebrated, high-profile, BLM activist, and may even get a slot on the Stormy Daniels Network… err, I mean CNN.

Posted in Crime | Comments Off on Double Murderer Paroled