Saturday, July 22, 2017
The shooting of Justine Ruszczyk by Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor stands out as a striking example of police criminal misconduct. I usually reserve judgement on these matters but the facts as known as of this writing are so damning that I cannot even see a jury finding reasonable doubt. In most of the other police shootings there have been a consistent case of lack of following directions on the part of the "victim". However; such a thing doesn't even exist in this case. Officer Noor took it upon himself to shoot across his partner into a person who he had not identified. This bears repeating. Noor and his partner had driven down an alley with their lights off, claiming that they wanted to be able to get the drop on whoever may be out there. When Justine appeared after a "loud bang", Noor, raised up his weapon and fired into Justine's abdomen. He did this by shooting across his partner. Noor had no idea who the person was. Justine is dead because she happened to be in view after a loud bang was heard. The level of incompetence that is required to shoot at an unknown target is criminal. That Noor is not current under arrest on charges of criminally negligent homicide speaks to the level of PC in that city. In South Carolina officer Slager was tossed on his ass and quickly charged for shooting a person who not only ran away from a lawful stop but who had assaulted officer Slager when he was caught. All the politicians and media jumped on Slager and condemned him, but these same outlets and politicians have not even half the outrage for this homicide. I have heard that Noor may have performed poorly during his training but was passed anyway. I have no idea if that claim is true. If it is though, then the city and perhaps state will be on the hook for letting an unqualified officer onto the streets.
One of the things I've consistently pointed out is that Euorope's problem is it's declining birth rate. This decline kicked off by feminism, which itself was kicked off by mechanization and modernization removed much of the incentives to reproduce. The more people are "independent" in their younger years, the less likely they are to consider what will happen in their older years. What is worse is that the growth of the state, based on various welfare programs depends upon steady revenue streams from taxation. Declining populations means declining revenue, which means govt. officials and their dependents cannot make money. Like any other organism that wishes not to die, governments will find some way to get paid, even if that means betraying the very people they are supposed to represent and look out for. Eventually government bodies and the agents that inhabit them no longer see themselves as those entrusted to serve their citizens, but to serve some ideology or some larger agenda. Their stations in government are merely that of an occupying or colonizing government. Keep the people in their charge in line and dispose of those who are potential problems. As a Pan-Africanist, I understand this quite well as such practices were honed in Africa for a long time. Check out the video below and see how the current migrant crises is a fake crisis and the clamp down on dissenting people will continue unabated.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Boyega in GQ:
It mattered that the face you saw belonged to John Boyega, son of Samson Adegboyega and Nigeria and Peckham. “There are no black people on Game of Thrones,” Boyega says. (To be fair, there are, like, three.) “You don't see one black person in Lord of the Rings.” (That is true.) And though Star Wars had featured a few black characters—Billy Dee Williams as a smuggler, Samuel L. Jackson as a peripheral Jedi—they were less represented in the galaxy than Ewoks. “I ain't paying money to always see one type of person on-screen,” says Boyega. “Because you see different people from different backgrounds, different cultures, every day. Even if you're a racist, you have to live with that. We can ruffle up some feathers.”Negroes always complaining about other people's fantasies. Carter G. Woodson on this [growing] phenomenon:
Considering his race as blank in achievement, then, he sets out to stimulate their imitation of others...the highly educated Negro often grows sour. He becomes too pessimistic to be a constructive force and usually develops into a chronic fault-finder or a complainant at the bar of public opinion... They do not realize, however, that even if the Negroes do successfully imitate the whites, nothing new has thereby been accomplished. You simply have a larger number of persons doing what others have been doing.Boyega's commentary, and he's not the first or alone, brought these words of Carter G. Woodson to mind because first and foremost Boyega acts as if Nollywood doesn't exist. He is Nigerian in origins yet he doesn't even contemplate going and working with Nigerian film makers to up their game, up their distribution, etc. No. Better to complain about what white people are doing. I enjoyed the Rings Trilogy, Have the DVD's and watch em whenever they show on TV. I don't care that there are no black people in any of the movies. I know for a fact that among the many people of Africa there are epic fantasy stories that could be brought to the screen (DT Niani's Sundiata comes immediately to mind). Yet Negroes are so stuck on white people and what they think white people should be doing for black people, that they cannot even fathom doing their own shit on their own dime.
Monday, July 17, 2017
Allure Magazine, no doubt infested by two faced feminists have an article in response to the "duh" study that showed that men prefer youthful (and relatively slim) women:
A study that didn't need to exist in the first place had results that will surprise no one, because that's the way things work these days. The study, published in PeerJ and titled "The relationship of female physical attractiveness to body fatness," aimed to examine exactly what the title suggests — how physically attractive women are to men (because heteronormativity) based on their "body fatness."Because heteronormativity.
The abstract to the study itself holds some real gems about the relationship between health and aesthetic, like this funny little quote, "Aspects of the female body may be attractive because they signal evolutionary fitness. Greater body fatness might reflect greater potential to survive famines, but individuals carrying larger fat stores may have poor health and lower fertility in non-famine conditions." That sounds less like something out of a scientific paper than something someone's insensitive grandmother would tell them, if she were strangely into Darwinism.I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the author has not ever read an actual scientific paper.
The participants were all shown 21 sample images of women with varying BMIs and asked to rate the attractiveness of their bodies. This is a bad and demeaning practice. BMI has been debunked as an indicator for health, and the procedure they chose to use reinforces a toxic paradigm we see so often today — rating women based on their attractiveness and nothing else, in a system where aesthetic is the only measure of worth. Though this is arguably the point of the study, normalization of things like this is also the reason we're in this mess.It's a bad practice for men to have opinions about what they like in a female body. Really. It is. it's demeaning too because having preferences that women don't agree with is always a bad thing. As for BMI. BMI can be misunderstood. by BMI I'm overweight. But much of my overweight is muscle and not fat (some of it is). So unless the woman in question is a body builder, it's likely that if her BMI says "overweight" that she is in fact fat. Not my problem. But here's the real kicker. Take look at a Google image search for Allure magazine:
Monday, July 10, 2017
BART: So on the one hand we have the fools in BLM claiming "black crime isn't a thing." On the other hand we have BART saying that black people commit so much of the crime caught on tape that they can't release it because....it would confirm stereotypes? Train A leaves station B headed north to station A traveling at 30MPH. Train B leaves station A headed south to station B traveling at 40MPH. Do these trains meet? What happens when the trains meet? Trains fall down go boom!
Saturday, July 08, 2017
Sunday, June 25, 2017
An off-duty officer who lives nearby heard the commotion, grabbed his service pistol and headed to the scene to assist his fellow officers. He arrived as the other officers were carrying out the arrest. The other officers ordered the off-duty officer to the ground, then recognized him as a fellow policeman and told him to stand up and walk toward them. As he approached, another officer arrived and shot the off-duty officer in the arm, “apparently not recognizing” him, police told the Associated Press... The shooter, a 36-year-old officer who has been on the force for eight years, told investigators he had feared for his safety.In this case, the "I was afraid for my life" doesn't look like it's going to pass muster. Whether the officer "recognized" the off duty officer or not, he had just gotten on scene. He did not know the current situation and therefore took it upon himself to fire at a man. Had he said something along the lines of "I feared for the lives of my fellow officers because it seemed like someone was approaching them with a gun", it would have made more sense. But to, as the report says, pull up, get out and start shooting, the whole "I was afraid for my life" story becomes verysuspect. That there is no claim of the officer trying to find out who the "strange man" was or to instruct said man to stop, put hands up, or anything that would have informed him of the situation suggests negligence.
The Reasonable Doubt Argument:I predict that should there be a criminal proceeding, the defense will say that the officer arrived and saw a person who fit the general description of the suspects at large get up from the ground. He would say that when he saw this "suspect" get up he thought that the person was attempting to effect an escape and/or harm the officers. So fearing that the suspect was armed and would shoot any or all of them, he fired his weapon. It is highly unlikely that any charge requiring criminal intent will be charged and if they are, they will be unable to prove criminal intent. I'd not even waste time on such a charge. If there is a civil case filed, the argument will be the same BUT since the burden of proof is "more likely than not" (51%) it will probably be the same argument. The key will be when the officer arrived and what he did and did not know at the time.
While there has been a lot of victory lap running and DNC taunting a long term view of GA 6 should have Republicans very worried. The linked page and this linked page shows why: In 2000 Republicans carried the district 75% to 25% In 2002 it was 79% to 20% In 2004 there was no organized opposition In 2006 Republicans won 72% to 27% In 2008 It was 68% to 31%. Possibly the first inkling of trouble. Skip 2010 where Democrats gave no organized opposition and we see 2012 where Republicans got 64% to 35%. by 2016 the Republicans were at 61% with Democrats polling near 40%. This special election saw Republicans drop to an all time low of 51%. With an outsider Democrat pulling near 50% of the vote. Republicans ought to be shitting in their pants. When your rival has gone from a low of "no contest" to nearly 50% of the votes. You have a near terminal case of cancer. While the DNC may be feigning being upset about the "massive loss", the fact is that policies they favor have a long term consequence of making areas that are historically hostile to them competitive. Remember, Democrats win by changing the demographics of a location. Once they have done so, generally speaking, they don't give it up. California is a stellar example of this. Democrats even have a legal way of keeping themselves in power: They have the two top vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, head to the general election. Since Democrats essentially run the state, it gives them a situation where Republicans are essentially shut out of certain offices. I'm sure the rule sounded good on paper. So yeah, Democrats have lost a bunch of special elections. The way I see it, it was an expensive exercise in finding out how much scale tipping remains to be done in target areas. 'Cause clearly Democrats are not going to change their policies.
Friday, June 23, 2017
Steve Sailor wrote a piece on Slate's latest puke on police and black people. Steve's point on his piece was the "whitening" of Yanez. But I think Slates' piece is worth further dissection. I will say though that for many black people, including myself a lot of people that Anglos don't consider white, WE consider white. White being a relative term. But that's another topic altogether. So let's dissect Mr Bouie's MANY mistakes.
Police officers like the killer of Philando Castile have an unbeatable defense when their victims are black: They were scared.No. Not really. As I discovered long ago during the Sean Bell trial the actual key here is mens rea. Criminal intent. Officers are assumed and presumed to not have mens rea. After all, if you are taking on the job of enforcing and upholding the law you are unlikely to have a criminal mindset. Not that there aren't persons of criminal minds who see police work as a means to skirt the law, but generally speaking, the average cop on the beat is not an undercover crook. Hence it is near impossible to stick any charge that requires criminal intent as a requirement. Hence why police are rarely charged much less convicted of things like murder. So mens rea is the first high hurdle. The "scared" argument comes after that and as we shall see, it is highly relevant and not just for black people.
If an officer believes someone could imminently cause serious injury or death—or if he fears for own his life—he can shoot. And when the victim is black, that fear is often all it takes to avoid official sanction.Actually every person in America has the right to shoot, stab, maim or inflict any other harm they deem necessary to prevent imminent serious injury or death or fears for his own life. What is actually "new" in America, historically speaking, is that civilians have been disarmed often leaving police as the only persons with ready access to a weapon. As mentioned before, the difference between a civilian and a police officer is the presumption of lack of mens rea.
Fear, for example, is why Officer Jeronimo Yanez was acquitted in the killing of Philando Castile. The day after the shooting, he attested to it in an interview with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, a state investigative agency. “I thought, I was gonna die,” said Yanez, recounting the seconds after Castile had alerted him to the presence of a weapon in the vehicle. For the jury that heard Yanez’s testimony, the officer was right to be afraid, even as his dashcam footage depicts a polite and compliant passenger. After the trial, a spokesman for the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association affirmed Yanez’s fear. “We can’t see inside the vehicle and, most importantly, we can’t feel officer Yanez’s fear,” Andy Skoogman told the Minneapolis Star Tribune.Well yes and no. As we saw from the dashcam, Yanez asked Castile to stop reaching three times before the shooting began. How many times do YOU need to be told to not reach for something? This isn't compliance. Compliance is stop reaching for whatever the fuck you're reaching for when told to stop reaching. But going futher, we are to think that Yanez's fear was unreasonable. It is because the driver is black rather than the reaching. Yet how many police have been shot by people who "reached for a weapon"? Bouie seems to think these things don't happen.
This same credulous acceptance of the narrative of fear is why Officer Betty Jo Shelby was acquitted in the killing of Terence Crutcher (she was “fearing for her life”); why a grand jury declined to charge Officer Timothy Loehmann in the killing of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old (he “had a reason to fear for his life”); and why a jury deadlocked in the case of Michael Slager, a South Carolina police officer who shot and killed Walter Scott during a traffic stop (he felt “total fear”).Credulous. I'm certain that Bouie has years of police experience to tell police what is and is not "credible". But lets run this down: Terence Crutcher, high on PCP was not following directions when he was shot. Michael Slager was assaulted by Walter Scott as Scott was fleeing after having been apprehended. Scott also did not follow directions to stay in his vehicle. Tamir Rice is the one case listed that I think was a storm of bad circumstances. You had a kid with a play gun that looked real. A call to police about a kid with a gun pointing it and video of an officer who basically got out shooting. There was no time for Rice to follow directions. So I'm mostly with Bouie on that one but the others show the clear pattern in most of these shootings: Not. Following. Directions. And now comes the slavery angle:
The latter would fit our history. Before the Civil War, Southern whites held a pathological fear of slave revolts, despite lauding slavery as a “positive good.” That fear led slaveholding states to create patrols, made up of white men in the community, who would enforce slave codes, with legal authority to capture runaways, interrogate enslaved people, and punish them if necessary. Scholars see these slave patrols as one forerunner to modern police departments, “the first uniquely American form of policing,” writes Katheryn Russell-Brown in The Color of Crime: Racial Hoaxes, White Fear, Black Protectionism, Police Harassment, and Other Macroaggressions.Whoah whoah whoah. Why are we taking a trip back to the 1800s? This is the usual "woke" bullshit that is exemplified by KRS One's little line: Officer, Officer, officer, overseer! Look, if you're in 2017 talking about slave patrols like any of you have seen a cotton plantation, much less worked on one, you are a damn and total fool.
Later, in the early 20th century, fear of black criminality would shape the laws, institutions, and even geography of America in the urban Northeast and industrial Midwest. In his book The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America, historian Khalil Gibran Muhammad notes that, in Chicago, both European migrants and “old-stock native-born Americans” often felt a “powerful bond of racial solidarity,” including a “shared fear of blacks as criminals.” White city dwellers “believed that African Americans were violent and deviant” and “sought various public policy measures to seal themselves off from them.”Here's the thing. Here's the question Bouie doesn't want us to ask: Were these fears founded? I'd have to quote a whole lot more of the article but this question is THE question. I have shown conclusively(1), with data (2) that black crime, particularly murder and non-fatal assaults is way out of proportion to the population of black people. In some cases things such as shootings would drop by 80-90% if black people simply were not present. This may come to a shock to many black people but there are places in America where murders haven't happened in 50 years. Where the only assault is domestic abuse. Where if your car is broken into while parked at home, it's likely to be someone from far away. In other words, this fear of the black criminal is not some figment of white people's imagination. It is real. They are finding this out in Sweden. They are finding this out in France. They are finding this out in Germany. Now does this mean that most black people are criminals? Absolutely not. In fact 90% of us are NOT. But that 10%? They are fucking it up for the rest of us. Hiding our heads in the sand and denying this will not help. When a cop pulls you over, you should remember that that 10% has put a flag on you. If you want to behave like one of the 10% when you're pulled over, well don't be surprised when you too find yourself underground or having lead pulled out of you.
I remember a long time back when I was on Facebook and Twitter. Someone posted something to the effect of all the modern buildings in Africa. The pictures were meant to prove that "Africans build shit like everyone else". What I did not know at the time was that much of the "new" stuff being built in Africa were financed and built by outsiders (non-Africans). Here we have yet another example
Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta recently laid the foundation stone for what will be the tallest building in Africa in the Upper Hill neighborhood of Nairobi. Construction is underway at the development site, and slated for completion by December 2019.Not for nothing but I think dealing with the horrific conditions of certain slums should be a higher priority. But that's just me. But back to the point:
The Pinnacle has heavyweight backing in the shape of Dubai-based investors Hass Petroleum and White Lotus Group, which are ploughing around $200 million into the project.As soon as I saw "lotus" I thought. Chinese. Annnnnnd:
he contract to build the towers has been awarded to China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCEC), which is among the world's largest construction firms and has delivered a string of major projects including the African Union headquarters in Ethiopia and the Beijing National Aquatics Centre.Yes, the African Union headquarters was built by the Chinese.
"Whatever happens in other parts of the world can happen in Africa as well," says Abdinassir Hassan, chairman of Hass Petroleum and managing director of the project. "Nairobi is a hub for East and Central Africa. Why would we go anywhere else?"Yes, but in other parts of the world, the native population generally has the money and the expertise to do these things for themselves.