Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

A Lesson In HBD

So yesterday I posted a little image about loser mentalities that included a photo of Usain Bolt murdering the 100 meters.

This picture is a reminder of how people do not understand (h)uman (b)io (d)iversity. Here we have a picture of the fastest [known] humans in the entire world and what do we see:

1) There are no women. This is not to knock female athletes. But the fact that none of the fastest humans on earth are female tells you that there is a fundamental biological difference between men/males and women/females. This very fact is why so called "transgenderism" is a fraud. Full stop.

2) There is no one who is not black. In particular not descended from West African stock. Yes there have been a few non-blacks in Olympic finals but that is a rare event.

3) Even among the elites of the elites, Usain Bolt is in a league of his own. Understand that he is not even TRYING at the end. He could have made a better time. I want to spend time here because this point is important. As certain people of certain political bents like to say, we are 99.99 (actually 97) percent alike genetically (Europeans have a relatively large amount of neanderthal DNA that is not present in [unmixed] African populations. For the sake of argument lets go with the 99%. That itty bitty difference in genes that the group of finalists in the picture have puts them at the far right of the distribution curve for speed. Bolt has that extra itty, bitty, infinitely small genetic variation that puts him far to the right of the rightmost of that right group.

It could be just a different encode of his fast twitch muscles. It could be a combination of fast twitch muscles and leg length encoding. I don't know but whatever it is it is variation on an already "winning" variation shared by all the runners. Here's the thing. If such a small amount of difference can have such a profound different at the most elite of the elite, imagine the difference between these "apex runners" and the ones who are "better than average" but failed to make the cut.

Question: Is there anything that the group that failed to make the cut, could do that would make it so that they can keep up with Bolt?

Question: If not, is there anything that those who failed the cut could do to keep up with these finalists?

Of course the answer is "nothing". Those who failed the cut will never be as good as these apex runners. No amount of nutrition. No amount of training. They will never become the apex runners.

Now lets talk human intelligence. the brain is subject to the same genetic pressures and expression as any other human characteristic. The merely average will NEVER be as smart as the most intelligent. It cannot happen. Certainly improvements can be made but they will never be parity. The elite group will continue to outpace, out produce, out perform the merely average.

Monday, May 22, 2017

A Lie Will Be The Truth

See, when I saw the headline, I was like, surgery to confirm one is a man (or woman)? Then I read the first paragraph and saw the trick.

I refuse to even use the phrase.

We Shame Ourselves

While groups of black folks push to have confederate monuments taken down and flags removed as if somehow these totems of history will magically result in things like say improved academic performance the joke is apparently on us:
A Project Baltimore investigation has found five Baltimore City high schools and one middle school do not have a single student proficient in the state tested subjects of math and English.
Lets stop here for a moment.

Breath.

Just how do you have a school in which none of the students are proficient in their native language? And yes, English is the native language of what James Baldwin called the American creation: The Negro AKA: African-Americans. We're not talking pre-K. We're not even talking elementary school. We're talking high schools. How do you reach high school and not have ONE STUDENT proficient in their native language.

Breath.

But Freddie Gray though.

Despite his tremendous loss, Warren is set to graduate this year from Frederick Douglass High School. It’s a school where only half the students graduate and just a few dozen will go to college. Last year, not one student scored proficient in any state testing. [my underlines]
Lets ignore the graduation rate. While black folks and their white liberal supporters are making a big deal about taking down "white supremacist" pieces of granite, limestone and marble. Schools named after great black abolitionists are producing students that don't have a single student that is proficient in their native language. The joke is on us.
“That’s absurd to me. That’s absurd to me,” says Warren’s mother Janel Nelson. “That’s your teachers report card, ultimately.”
No. It's the parents report card. That's the so called black leadership's report card.

But Freddie Gray though.

Project Baltimore found Frederick Douglass is not alone. Four other city high schools and one middle school also have zero students proficient.
The schools are:

Booker T. Washington Middle School
Frederick Douglass High School
Achievement Academy at Harbor City
New Era Academy
Excel Academy at Francis M. Wood High
New Hope Academy

There is now a statue of Robert E. Lee in a junk yard and two schools named after "great black leaders" producing students who cannot pass a state exam. If the reality of this situation doesn't stand out at you, I don't know what to say.
High school students are tested by the state in math and English. Their scores place them in one of five categories – a four or five is considered proficient and one through three are not. At Frederick Douglass, 185 students took the state math test last year and 89 percent fell into the lowest level. Just one student approached expectations and scored a three.
Not only did nearly 9/10ths of the students not make it to proficient, they weren't even borderline.

Freddie Gray though.

Warren told FOX45, he believes zero students are proficient at Frederick Douglass, because the state tests are more advanced than what the students are learning in class.
Per my last post

Loser Mentalities

Inspired by true events
Not to alarm you, but statistically speaking you are the problem. Your very presence. I can’t tell you what is the best strategy for you to stop blocking my path. I can just ask that you please get out of my way.
Loser. Mentality.

Oh by the way there is a place where white men "get out the way". It's called an HBCU. Work for one.

Monday, May 15, 2017

And Now We Destroy The Poverty Argument

The Poverty argument is as follows:

It is poverty that fuels gun crimes in black communities, not race. Therefore if you reduce poverty you reduce (or end) gun violence.

Now lets see how false this argument is and destroy it once and for all. And remember: I am not saying it, EXPERTS are saying it:

The overall rate of firearm assault was 5.0 times higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.5, 5.6) for Black people compared with White people. Firearm assault rates were higher among Black people across all victim residence incomes. Relative risk of firearm assault reached 15.8 times higher (95% CI = 10.7, 23.2) for Black residents in the highest-income block groups when compared with high-income White individuals. Firearm assault events tended to occur in low-income areas and were concentrated in several “hot spot” locations with high proportions of Black residents.[My underlines]
So let us clearly understand the underlined portions:

Regardless of income black people commit more gun crimes than white people do.

In case you think we didn't read that correctly:

Absolute rates for firearm violence decreased to near zero for White populations residing in the highest-income areas. Across all income levels, however, firearm assault rates remained higher in Blacks.
Though white gun victimization (and criminal acts) go to near zero for whites as they climb the income ladder, Black people STILL exhibit high levels (relatively speaking) of gun victimization AND criminal activity. Still not understanding?
Black residents of block groups with incomes greater than $60 000 per year had firearm assault rates similar to those of White residents of areas with incomes between $20 001 and $30 000.
So called "middle class blacks" have higher rates of gun violence victimization (and perpetration) than poverty struck white people.

It is Clear as a bright sunny day then, that ANYONE arguing that black gun violence is the result of poverty is a liar and a fraud.

n fact, Black residents of the city’s wealthiest block groups had the highest relative risk of firearm injury when compared with White residents. Therefore, unlike previous research in Chicago, race does not appear to be a surrogate for economic status in determining violent firearm injury risk in Philadelphia.3 Rather, our findings echo those of Kalesan et al.,5 who found that nationally, Black children were more likely than White children to be hospitalized with firearm injury regardless of neighborhood income level.[my underlines]
I would suggest that the Chicago data is WRONG and needs a revisit.

As I have said here repeatedly. Black Lives Matter is a fraud. White liberals who are pushing these theories are frauds who are literally getting black people killed.

White Liberals Keep Lying to Black People

I don't know how long it's going to take before the majority of black people understand that white liberals don't really care about them. White liberals use black people in order to pursue their own society destructive programs. Part of this is to re-enforce flat out myths about Black people. Here's one from Gizmodo:
When Ta-Nehisi Coates and Yona Harvey’s Black Panther & The Crew launched earlier this year, it proved that big publishers like Marvel can, in fact, still tell timely stories about real world issues, like how police brutality devastates black communities.
Police brutality devastates black communities? Really?
verb (used with object), devastated, devastating.
1. to lay waste; render desolate:
The invaders devastated the city.
Synonyms: destroy, sack, despoil, raze, ruin, level.
Antonyms: create, erect, develop.
2. to overwhelm.
. Police brutality is "overwhelming" black communities? Police brutality is laying waste to black communities? What kind of alternate reality does one have to live in to even think this to be the case, when overwhelming evidence to the contrary exists?

Does Gizmodo think that the spike in murders in Baltimore are the doing of police?

Through the first four months of 2017, Baltimore has experienced its highest murder rate in recorded history — and now federal officials are sending in some help...

There have been 108 homicides so far this year; last weekend saw five people killed. The only year that saw more homicides at this point in the year was 1993, when 110 people had been killed through the end of April. The city went on to record 353 homicides that year, the most in the city's history.

So who exactly is "devastating' black communities?

What about Chicago? Check this comment:

Chicago’s murder rate is high, and it has risen significantly in the last two years. But the recent rate of killings is not unprecedented: During the mid-1990s, Chicago experienced a higher toll of murders than it did in 2016.
Oh, it's bad, but not THAT bad. It's been worse so lets break out the bubbly and mock Donald Trump.

I mean really, it takes either a special kind of stupid to say that it is the POLICE who are causing "devastating" problems in black communities, or it takes a well planned organizational push to continuously put out fake news "on behalf of" black people.

So how many more black people have to be killed by liberal policy makers and the media before we, well the rest of us, wake up to the big BLM con?

The Flying Toilets of Kibera

I wrote about these some time ago. Back then there were only photos. Here is a video on the subject:

Link in case the video doesn't load here:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/04/deal-kibera-flying-toilets-170403111700090.html What I was unaware of was the "water cartels" and the garden hoses being used as pipes.

Yes, garden hose.

Oh and right next door?

https://qz.com/846027/drone-photos-capture-the-dramatic-inequality-of-nairobis-neighborhoods/

Look. I don't have a problem with golf courses. Don't have a problem with nice homes. I do have a problem with lack of running water and sanitation right next door.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Comey Put To Pasture

The sudden firing of Comey yesterday is yet another example of the "shock and awe of masculine leadership" that I discussed in an earlier entry:
This has had the effect of shocking the public because they have been used to cucked "leadership" that put's its fingers in the wind to find out which way to go. It will be but a short amount of time before mayors and governors, among others realize that they are not dealing with some beta, approval seeking male as president. They are dealing with a stone cold alpha male.
What I found most interesting about this firing, aside from it being a firing, is that unlike many removals by Obama, Comey was not asked to submit his resignation. He was put out. The letter was brief and to the point.

Comey should have seen this coming. That he did not, shows just how comfortable certain types have gotten in government. Comey failed to indict Clinton despite the fact that he had enough evidence to do so. Comey has allowed the investigation into the fake news Russia hacks to go on and on and on, even though he has stated himself that there is no such evidence.

And lets be clear, the evidence is that Russia preferred Trump to Clinton. The evidence is that Russian media decided to be favorable towards Trump which may have included false stories. While people may not like that, it isn't "hacking" and it certainly isn't criminal. American media does enough fake reporting on it's own. There are plenty of "media" on supermarket checkout lines with fake news on celebs and politicians. There is no high ground in electioneering.

And for all the discussion of 'interference" we had ex-president Obama weighing in on the French election on the part of his preferred candidate. Why is a US president making any presentation to foreign citizens on who they should elect to head their country? That is interference and there hasn't been much of a peep from the usual suspects. And this was a direct appeal. Can you imagine Putin making a video to the American people on Nov 7 saying you should vote for [candidate]? No? Exactly.

Democrats are hypocrites par excellence and the country is being shown it.

So for the other people in appointed office let's be clear. You work for the executive. You can be removed for insubordination (Yates) or incompetence (Comey). If you don't like the new boss, bring your resignation letter in the morning.

Wednesday, May 03, 2017

Kimmel Feels and The Unnatural State Of Being

Kimmel Cried. Obama tweeted. Women and effete men sniffled.

Who could be unmoved by Kimmel's story about his newborn son? And who, WHO could be so cold and heartless as to disagree with Kimmel on "no parent ought..." commentary? Feels for everyone!

Look, this is an unnatural world we live in. Take a look at the Planet Earth documentaries and you will note that there are no "rights" in the natural world. There is live or die. That is all. There is no right to healthcare. There is no right to water. There is no right to shelter or food. Indeed each day may well be your last. This is the world into which homo sapiens sapiens was thrust into. Our ancestors understood this rule quite well. As the apex predator (due to intelligence rather than brute strength) we were able to change our environment in order to survive and "prosper". So long as we were still in that natural world, we had a daily reminder that life is fleeting. Indeed so long as we ate by the fruits of our labour (that being hunting and gathering), it was always abundantly clear that nothing at all was promised to any of us.

Alas we, that is most of us living in high technology societies are very well insulated from the brutal nature of nature. Today we can speak of rights that do not exist anywhere but in our fevered imaginations and wishes. We think water is a right. We do not even stop to consider how the water that we consume is delivered to us. We do not consider the pipes, processing plants, etc. that goes into having that water in our homes. All we want is the water.

This brings us to Kimmel's tears. Is it sad that there are people who cannot afford certain medical care? certainly. Would I or anyone else suddenly afflicted with an illness wish to be cured whether we could pay or not? MOST certainly. To say otherwise would be dishonest. It's always easy to say "no one should have to pay..." When one is not the one doing the paying. You'll note that neither Kimmel or anyone else that is boo-hoo-ing about the state of healthcare is volunteering to pay for the medical attention of the millions of people that cannot afford it. After all, where do you draw the line of "no one should have to?" Why should it be limited to "parents"? Why should it be limited to "children"? The logical end point of the "why should" argument is that everyone and anyone should be able to get whatever it is they want/need regardless of the cost.

No problem then. Who pays for it? Now, I'm on record as thinking that this unnatural society should have a single payer medical insurance policy. Medical bills are paid for by the government and funded by general tax revenue. Anything short of that means that someone, a lot of someones are not going to get care. Period. Why?

Because everyone involved in healthcare has a right to be paid for their efforts. Free to you doesn't mean "without cost". When YOU do not pay for the products and services rendered to you, that cost doesn't magically disappear. Someone is going to pay for it. When the uninsured get treatment at the hospital, the insured pay. You can't be mad about your premiums (within reason) and also desire that everyone get treatment. You didn't think YOUR premium only covered YOU did you?

The doctor(s) get paid. Should they not get paid? The nurses get paid. Should they not get paid? Everyone down the the guy who delivers the toilet paper has to get paid. Trust me, there are a LOT of people on that chain. That nice hospital building has to be maintained by people who are not even medical professionals. They gotta get paid too. The electric company. The gas company. I could go on and on.

Is anyone suggesting that these people be forced to work without compensation? That's slavery. Maybe you think they should be paid less than they are. Who gets to decide what their compensation should be? You? Me? A government body?

A common answer is that the rich should pay. Well, the rich already pay a vast majority of taxes and relative to their population, underuse services. This doesn't include the various charitable contributions, including to hospitals that the rich make. How much more should they pay? Who gets to determine that? You? Me? A government body? And at what point is enough? Should the rich be taxed to the point that they are no longer "rich"?

Also, do most Americans, well hell, those in technologically advanced countries, realize that they ARE the 1% of the 1% of the 1% relative to most of the world's population? You may be making "only" $50k but to a cattle herder in Somaliland, you are Bill Gates rich? Should the cattle herders in Somaliland be able to confiscate your "wealth" and "income"? Why not?

So generally speaking, I'm not disposed to taking anyone who suggests that "no parent should..." until or unless they are willing to put up their own finances to back up their mouths. Jimmy Kimmel can afford a LOT of medical services, he should visit a few California hospital billing centers and start paying bills for people who make less than he does. After all, no one should have to worry about paying...

Monday, April 24, 2017

Coming Job Segregation?

The events surrounding O'Reilly has made me think that unless things change segregation, particularly between sexes, will become common in American labour.

I have no idea whether O'Reilly actually harassed any of the women that are accusing him of doing so, so this is not a defense of O'Reilly per se. From the blurbs I have heard thus far, no harassment has occurred. Now of course, I use the term harassment to describe unwanted behavior. And because I also require bad faith or bad intent on the part of the harasser, certain things, for me do not constitute harassment until the alleged harasser KNOWS that the behavior is unwanted.

So for example, O'Reilly is said to have commented on a black woman's looks while exiting an elevator. The comment in question being "looking good." How that comment in and of itself is harassment is beyond me. Did this woman dress up for her job to NOT look good? Of course the operating premise here is that if a man whom a woman has no sexual interest in, dares speak to her or make an advance on her, he is harassing her whereas if it is a man she IS interested in, then it is NOT. So generally speaking harassment can fall into whether a woman likes or dislikes you.

That's pretty dangerous for men and fertile ground for lawyers seeking rent.

As soon as O'Reilly was fired, I predicted he would return in the form of a podcast or Sirius station. I was proven correct. This is what Anthony Cumia did and it worked out very well for him. In fact a good deal of men who cannot make a living in the minefield that is left wing HR staffed corporations, are turning to self employment (which is why the recent actions by YouTube is problematic). Indeed the workplace is becoming so unsafe for heterosexual men with testosterone levels above 0, that it is safest to simply not interact with women at the workplace at all.

Again, all you have to do is see the example of "looking good". If a compliment can lead to HR actions, you sir, are fucked.

I often joke with certain coworkers that I'll be reporting them to HR after they say a comment that runs afoul of the so called anti-harassment rules. This includes comments about my clothes, looks, marital status or presumed religious affiliation. I have absolutely no intent on reporting anybody, but I just keep a mental tally of just how often HR *could* have been notified and somebody reprimanded or fired. The figure is quite high. As a matter of fact, if an accusation was all that was required, at least half of my co-workers would be fired. I'm not joking.

I'm talking discussions of dildos, S&M, cleavage, whistles and who could "get it".

Seriously.

In the interim I think that you're eventually going to see women's resume's heading to the round filing bin on the floor. This will be especially so with any woman with any gender studies degree or minor. Interviewers in the know will look out for key statements. These women will simply not get jobs. In places where these women make up a significant number of the workforce, particularly in tech, you will see walls go up between the men and women. Men with *significant* skills will either freelance or do as much "work from home" as is possible.

On a related note, I think that the O'Reilly event underscores another point: Do Not Settle! This goes along with the do not apologize for stuff you've said unless you are absolutely sure you were wrong. Part of what brought down O'Reilly was that his accusers could say, "look at all those settlements, why would you settle unless you had something to hide?"

Of course we know that companies often settle because it is less than the cost of litigation (particularly since it is highly unlikely the company can recoup legal costs from the plaintiff). On top of that the bad press is often not worth the effort. Thus a settlement is often not an indicator of guilt but rather a "convenient" way for the problem to go away. Here's the problem though. It seems that people who are under these agreements are talking. Personally I think those persons should be heavily sanctioned. If these settlements are going to become public and the entire point of limited media attention is gone, then we're left with the cost of litigation. I think it is best that these companies fight these charges wherever they appear to be false. Fire the bad actors, but if a complaint is, "someone called me hot chocolate" make them go to court. I for one am not awarding anybody shit for being called hot chocolate.

This is what happened to Ellen Pao. Everyone on the left thought (and still thinks) she had an airtight sex discrimination suit. Then the testimony came out and it was nowhere as clear. She lost her case. The defendants should have bankrupted her for that. I would have. When such accusations are made, they are looking to rob. This is theft while wielding a weapon. That weapon is the court.

Anyway, don't think there are not people out there saying, hmmm we can avoid sex/race discrimination complaints by not hiring... And if you, Black person find yourself the perpetual "spot" in a job, all those Black Lives Matter folks may be the reason why. After all, would you risk YOUR livelihood (your business) by hiring someone who is statistically likely to sue you at the drop of a perceived insult?