All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

Britain descends into fascism with two-tier policing, criminalizing speech

4 Comments

I’m not sure if you heard about this, but Britain had an election recently, and they decided to elect secular leftists. What is the secular left championing? Open borders immigration policies, two-tier policing, and suppression of speech critical of the regime’s policies or ideology. Let’s take a look at what it’s like to be a taxpayer in the UK and live under secular left fascism.

Consider this article by Tim Dieppe, which appeared in The Critic.

There is a perception that the police can treat Muslim protestors differently to white protestors. Scenes of police running away from an Asian-led protest in Leeds contrasted with riot police responding in Southport. Indeed, protestors in London mocked the police there, chanting, “Where the f*** were you in Leeds?”

I disagree with any armed protests, and would never attend one. Violence is never justified, except as a last resort in self-defense when all other options have been exhausted. (Although in the UK, self-defense against violent criminals is effectively illegal – it is illegal to brandish a kitchen knife at trespassers from inside your own home)

But there’s more evidence of two-tier policing in the past, as the article explains:

Two years ago I wrote about how Christian evangelist Hatun Tash was arrested by police in Speakers’ Corner after having her Qur’an stolen from her. You can watch footage of the incident here. Hatun had broken no laws and done nothing wrong. In fact, she was the victim. No one was arrested for stealing her Qur’an. The crowd of Muslims mocked her as she was brutally frog-marched off into a police van amidst chants of “Allahu Akbar”.

Only after being strip-searched, having her glasses removed from her so that she could not read, being questioned at 4:00am, arrested again, and detained for a total of 15 hours was she finally released without charge.

Hatun’s stolen Qur’an was later found by the police. She deliberately uses a large copy of the Qur’an with holes drilled through it to remind Muslims that a famous Islamic apologist admitted that “the standard narrative [of the origins of the Qur’an] has holes in it.” This is undoubtedly provocative, but it is nowhere near being a crime. Astonishingly, video footage shows the police later finding her copy of the Qur’an and handing it to Muslim onlookers! One Muslim shortly afterwards brazenly put out video footage of himself holding the stolen Qur’an! Isn’t there an offence of handling stolen goods? Did the police take any action? Did they heck.

This was not the first time that Hatun has been wrongfully arrested. Metropolitan Police paid out £10,000 for wrongful arrests in 2020 and 2021. They also issued a statement of apology. Sadly, they don’t seem to have learned their lesson.

Police policy appears to be to effectively to enforce elements of sharia law. If you offend Muslims you will be arrested. Hatun has proven this several times. There are no arrests, however, for offending Christians. Not that there should be any arrests for causing offence at all. Being offensive is, after all, not an offence. If it were, we would not have free speech at all. Not that the police seem to understand this or be at all interested in protecting free speech, particularly when it comes to Islam.

What really grates, is that there are also no arrests for assaulting or stealing from Christians — even when done in broad daylight with multiple witnesses and video footage. Even when repeated requests are made for action to be taken. What other conclusion are we supposed to draw than that two-tier policing is a reality?

The police are warning people not to talk about two-tier policing on social media, and threatening action against anyone who does. Why would they try to suppress this? Well, the police in the UK want potential tourists in the West to think of the UK as a peaceful country, where tourists are safe from criminals. “Our open border immigration policies are working fine”, they say, “nothing for you to worry about here”.

But there’s a lot for you to worry about:

Since 7 October we have seen police stand by while protestors call for Jihad or chant antisemitic slogans. The police response to Islam-related protests or riots is clearly muted in comparison to the reaction to white protests. Video-footage of an unarmed 72-year-old white woman with a pacemaker being arrested by five riot police in London went viral on the internet.

Videos of pro-Palestine groups of masked and sometimes armed men congregating and threatening or attacking people with no police presence to be seen, contrast with riot police out in force for unarmed white groups.

Here’s what we mean by two-tier policing:

Video footage emerged on Saturday showing a police liaison officer in Stoke-on-Trent telling Muslim protestors that they could leave their weapons at the mosque. He said:

We will work with you guys for the best solution. The EDL lot I’ve been assured have left.

If there are any weapons or anything like that, then what I would do is discard them at the mosque.

Don’t give anybody any reason to have any interaction with the police, so if there’s any weapons, get rid of them, we are not going to arrest anybody. You don’t want us to make arrests or start dispersing people. Is that alright?

Police have now admitted that public confidence was undermined by this incident and are said to be reviewing the incident. It is a criminal offence to carry a knife or a weapon. Allowing Muslims to leave their weapons at the mosque rather than arresting them for this crime is another example of two-tier policing.

This is similar to how the British police declined to investigate complaints from mothers about their daughters being sex-trafficked by Muslim men. They didn’t want to “inflame racial tensions”. And if you criticize them for what they’ve done, then they want to punish you for it. But if you post a meme that criticizes the secular left, then the police are all over you. This is fascism.

The article notes:

Even more concerningly, Met Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Row1ey, appears to want to criminalise people who claim that there is two-tier policing. In an interview with Sky News he suggested that people who say that there is two-tier policing are legitimising violence. He added: “If you’re a keyboard warrior, you’re not safe from the law if you incite violence.”

Would you live in a country like that? Would you even visit it? I would expect the police in the UK to join in the murdering of me, rather than protect me from actual criminals. They are serious about collecting their salaries paid for by taxpayers, but not serious about doing their job of protecting those taxpayers. At what point can we just describe law enforcement in the UK as Gestapo or Stasi? They exist to protect the secular left regime from criticism. That’s it.

And just to be clear, half my family is Muslim, I have very dark skin, and I am a legal immigrant (by employer sponsor, in the highest category of merit) to the United States. No problem with any of that. But I think I’ll decline from ever setting foot in the UK, and so should you. It’s not any different than any other corrupt country running the communist fascist playbook. I wouldn’t visit a garbage country like Venezuela, just as I wouldn’t visit the UK.

News

New study: women who have fewer premarital sex partners have lower risk of divorce

Leave a comment

Consider this article from Family Studies that talks about how the number of pre-marital sex partners that a woman has increases her risk of divorce.

It says:

American sexual behavior is much different than it used to be. Today, most Americans think premarital sex is okay, and will have three or more sexual partners before marrying. What, if anything, does premarital sex have to do with marital stability?

This research brief shows that the relationship between divorce and the number of sexual partners women have prior to marriage is complex. I explore this relationship using data from the three most recent waves of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collected in 2002, 2006-2010, and 2011-2013. For women marrying since the start of the new millennium:

  • Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;
  • Women with 3-9 partners were less likely to divorce than women with 2 partners; and,
  • Women with 0-1 partners were the least likely to divorce.

Earlier research found that having multiple sex partners prior to marriage could lead to less happy marriages, and often increased the odds of divorce.

[…]Even more noteworthy has been the decline in the proportion of women who get married having had only one sex partner (in most cases, their future husbands). Forty-three percent of women had just one premarital sex partner in the 1970s.

[…]By the 2010s, only 5 percent of new brides were virgins. At the other end of the distribution, the number of future wives who had ten or more sex partners increased from 2 percent in the 1970s to 14 percent in the 2000s, and then to 18 percent in the 2010s. Overall, American women are far more likely to have had multiple premarital sex partners in recent years (unfortunately, the NSFG doesn’t have full data on men’s premarital sexual behavior, and in any event they recall their own marital histories less reliably than do women).

Here’s the change:

Women have freely chosen to dismiss the Bible and the moral law
Women have freely chosen to dismiss the Bible and the moral law

And the problem with this, of course, is that more premarital sex partners means a higher risk of divorce:

Even one non-husband premarital sex partner raises risk of divorce
Even one non-husband premarital sex partner raises risk of divorce

Why is the 2-partner number so high?

In most cases, a woman’s two premarital sex partners include her future husband and one other man. That second sex partner is first-hand proof of a sexual alternative to one’s husband. These sexual experiences convince women that sex outside of wedlock is indeed a possibility. The man involved was likely to have become a partner in the course of a serious relationship—women inclined to hook up will have had more than two premarital partners—thereby emphasizing the seriousness of the alternative.

The Christian Post had an article about some recent numbers from the Centers for Disease Control about virgins.

Excerpt:

A new Centers for Disease Control study examines teenage health behaviors in connection to their self-reported sexual activity and shows those who remain abstinent are much healthier on many fronts than their sexually active peers.

The report, titled “Sexual Identity, Sexual Contacts, and Health-Related Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9-12, United States and Selected Sites,” showcased the results from a 2015 survey that monitored several categories of health-related behaviors like tobacco usage, drug and alcohol use, sexual habits, unhealthy dietary behaviors, and behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries and violence.

The report concludes “that students who had no sexual contact have a much lower prevalance of most health-risk behaviors compared with students” who had sexual contact.

The article quotes Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, who I have featured on this blog many times:

In a Monday interview with The Christian Post, Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute, said, “this study is remarkable because it asks questions and reports the answers, rather than avoiding questions or assuming answers.”

As Glenn Stanton noted last week in The Federalist, the results from those questions and answers are remarkable.

With regard to smoking, teenage virgins are 3,300 percent less likely to smoke daily than their peers who are sexually involved with someone of the opposite sex, Stanton computed from the report’s data. Teen virgins are 9,500 percent less likely to smoke daily than their peers who are sexually involved with someone of the same sex or in a bisexual relationship, he added. Chaste young people are also extremely less likely to use indoor tanning beds, binge drink, smoke marijuana, ride in cars as passengers with a drunk driver, and get into physical fights than their sexually active peers. Abstinent youth are also more likely to get a solid eight hours of sleep every night and eat breakfast daily.

[…]The CDC report also included findings from 25 state surveys, and 19 large, urban school district surveys conducted among students in grades 9–12 which took place between December of 2014 and September of 2015.

Now, many pro traditional marriage people will tell young men “feminism and the sexual revolution change nothing about a woman’s suitability for marriage, so go out there and get married to these women anyway”. In my experience, no one is telling women NOT to follow their hearts, and explaining to them the harm that they do by allowing their feelings to determine who they will engage in relationships.

I would like to see women make better decisions with men before they marry, rather than be influenced by their peers and culture to give themselves to men who are not marriage-minded. Maybe a little skepticism should be shown to “follow your heart”? Women need to understand what they are losing when they choose to have premarital sex.

In my group of friends, the men are aware of the Biblical prohibition on premarital sex. My friends know about the research on marriage, and what it takes to make a marriage work. We don’t follow our hearts, because we do what we know will work to achieve the results we want. We don’t listen to the culture, and we don’t listen to radical feminists. Men generally take an engineering approach to marriage – we want to know what the best practices and tradeoffs are, and then we plan and act to succeed.

News

Does the “legacy of slavery” explain black women’s 72% out-of-wedlock birth rate?

4 Comments
James White asks: does the Bible apply to black women?
James White asks: does the Bible apply to black women?

I don’t like Calvinist theologian James White very much, but at least he’s willing to defend the moral teachings of the Bible against the woke identity politics that is taking over Christian churches. A few months ago he tweeted something very controversial (see above), and got into a lot of hot water with fake Christians. In this post, I’ll explain why he is right.

So, as you can see above, James is concerned that black women are having so many abortions, and he thinks that the solution to this is to encourage black women to take the Bible’s advice on sexual morality. Shocking, I know.

If you read the replies to his tweet on Twitter, you’ll see millions and millions of comments calling him a racist, and telling him that slavery is to blame for EVERYTHING that black women do wrong. Basically, the James haters say that black women can do anything they want, and should never be told that it’s wrong according to the Bible, because their bad choices are all the fault of slavery. So the Bible doesn’t even apply to them, or something.

Here is an example from a radical feminist progressive named Karen Swallow Prior:

Karen Swallow Prior says that black people have no moral agency
Karen Swallow Prior says that unlike whites, blacks have no moral agency

According to the fake Christians, it’s not that black women make poor choices with sex, it’s that the ghosts of white slavers who raped their great-great-great grandmothers reach through time with magic and force them to have sex with hunky bad boys who won’t commit to them before sex. It’s not rap music calling black women hoes! It’s the ghosts of slavery past. And even if this ghost theory isn’t true, we shouldn’t tell black women not to sin, because… it would hurt their feelings. After all, the Bible isn’t a book that’s designed to set boundaries to prevent self-destructive behaviors. It encourages us to listen to our hearts, be reckless, and sin as much as we can.

So when did black community problems with sex and abortion start? Did it start with slavery times? Actually, blacks were doing GREAT at marriage and sexual matters just 50 years ago.

This reply to James White explained:

Blacks married at rates comparable to whites before welfare
Blacks married at rates comparable to whites before welfare

That’s true. Black children weren’t fatherless, so they weren’t having early sex outside of marriage, and so they weren’t getting abortions.

As the header graphic shows, black women were just as likely to be married as white women in the 1960s,  FAR AFTER the days of slavery.

The reason that the graph is going upward is because daughters raised in fatherless homes tend to engage in sexual activity at younger ages, because they are seeking approval from a man which their (single) mother cannot give them. It’s a tragic downwards spiral, and it affects all races. The only way to stop it is to tell women to choose marriage-minded men (not hot bad boys) and marry before having sex, like the Bible says. But woke fake Christians think the Bible is too mean, and better to allow sin by saying that sin is inevitable because slavery ghosts or something.

What’s neat is that black men who take Christianity seriously are totally on board with the facts:

Black man here. Can confirm that the Bible applies to black women.
Black man here. Can confirm that the Bible applies to black women.

On this blog, I don’t talk about my ethnicity myself, for confidentiality reasons, but I have said that my skin is darker than Barack Obama. I’m not white or Asian. And the reason that I don’t fall into this trap of causing babies to be born out of wedlock is because I think that when the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is a sin, that this is true. I don’t make excuses or shift blame. It’s incumbent on me to obey, since I claim to be a follower of Jesus.I’m not interested in identity politics. I’m not interested in racial divisions. I’m not interested in blame-shifting. The rules are the rules. And my following of the rules caused me to not cause abortions, according to Christian specifications. Period.

When it comes to sex outside of marriage, the answer of every Bible believing Christian is simple: I’m against it. That is the correct answer, and anything more or less than this answer is demonic. If you are a Christian, sex outside of marriage is always morally wrong. And if you try to justify it, or blame someone else, in order to excuse it, then you’re not a Christian at all. If you try to make excuses for why someone did it, you’re not a Christian. Whether you have had it and been forgiven, or never had it, the answer is always the same: it’s morally wrong. Don’t do it. Never do it.

What I am seeing from people who are critical of James White’s tweet is that they are basically trying to attack those who make moral judgments based on what the Bible says. They want to make room for sinners to sin. The root of abortion sin is sexual sin. Real  Christians discourage sexual sin, and therefore protect unborn children. Fake Christians want to be liked by appearing compassionate, so they make excuses for sexual sin. If you take the Bible seriously on morality, you won’t be liked. Those who try to excuse sin do so because their need to be liked is more important than their need to promote what the Bible teaches.

Some fake Christians will say “oh, but I do think the Bible is right about sex and marriage, but we have to care about slavery reparations and global warming and refugees and illegal immigrants and trasnsgender rights, too”. Baloney. An authentic Christian is concerned about the things that the Bible teaches are “major” things. Drunkenness is a major thing. Sexual immorality is a major thing. Divorce is a major thing. Homosexuality is a major thing. If you meet a Christian who treats those issues as minor issues, and instead majors in what the secular left tells them are major issues, then you’re talking to a fake Christian.

Christianity isn’t a brain-dead faith. You get your priorities from the Bible, and you argue those priorities using facts. The facts about marriage rates are clear and they show that the problems in the black community aren’t caused by slavery. They’re caused by single mother welfare programs. Those welfare programs taught women of all races that they didn’t have to listen to their fathers when choosing men. Those welfare programs taught women that feelings were a better guide in relationships than the Bible. Those welfare programs taught women that their eyes were a better judge of character than performance of traditional marriage roles. Those welfare programs taught women that recreational sex was a way to get a man to commit and stop being a bad boy. We need to go back to the root cause of the problem. The root cause of the problem was making excuses for disobedience to the Bible, and transferring money from married homes to out-of-control women. Of all races.