Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Crime in UK

There is a report on crime in the UK which can be found here:

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/crime-and-reoffending/victims-of-crime/latest

One thing that stood out to me was that this group "mixed" has a large percentage of victims:

The definition of "mixed" used in this report was:

In the US the "mixed" population would be lumped in with whatever the non-white parent was. So if we were to compare it to US figures the Black and Asian sections would balloon. It would seem that for the UK the "mixed" category serves to mask the true gross disparities in white vs. non-white victimization statistics.

Here we have the arrest rates:

You'll note the black arrest rate is far higher than the reported victimization rate which implies two things:

1) The crimes involve multiple perps.

and/or

2) Blacks are victimizing non-black groups.

Again the mixed population prevents a direct comparison to US statistics, but also again if we used the US "one drop rule" thing, the Black and Asian arrest rates would increase.

One of the pet arguments in left circles is that court systems regularly convict black (or non-white) suspects where white suspects are not convicted. The UK data show this to not be the case:

We can see that white suspects are convicted at a higher rate than black suspects by almost 10%. Though I say that a 10% variance is not significant.

Lastly we have in prison violence:

Once again black and mixed populations continue their violent behavior in prison way in excess of the white population. As noted before, if we used the US racial categorization scheme, the black (and possibly Asian) bar would be off the chart.

So to close I'd like to point out that in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, the usual suspects have come out for "gun control". Many black "activists" believe that gun control measures would prevent the issue of black on black violence. By looking at the UK data, a country where gun ownership is banned country wide and even possession of knives is prohibited, black crime victimization, perpetration and convictions STILL outpace that of the white population. Clearly then the issue is not the law.

Friday, October 06, 2017

More Data On The "Non-Existent" Races

Via Gizmodo originally from ScienceMag and the source paper:
Ever since researchers sequenced the first full genome of Neandertals in 2010, they have known that the ancestors of European Neandertals interbred with modern humans. By comparing the Neandertal genome with that of modern humans, they found a curious pattern: Present-day Europeans and Asians have inherited about 1% to 3% of their DNA from Neandertals, but Africans have not.
So Europeans are genetically a different type of human than the African.
All of this suggests that modern humans mixed with archaic humans at least three times after they migrated out of Africa. But that’s just a fraction of the intermingling that must have taken place. Neandertals also interbred with Denisovans. And the new study confirms that the Denisovans themselves did indeed interbred with a “superarchaic” hominin, possibly H. erectus, whom they encountered as early as 400,000 years ago. There are also hints that Denisovans interbred with modern humans in Asia more than once, based on different patterns in the distribution of Denisovan DNA in some Chinese and Melanesians. “One would think that mixing has occurred multiple times for a long time,” Castellano says.
Modern humans [in Europe] absorbed genes from archaic humans in Europe and Asia at least three times since moving out of Africa. So again, the African and the European (and Asian) are a different kind of human.
Europeans who still have genes from Neandertals that are shaping their health today. The inbred Altai Neandertal also got modern human DNA that may have been involved in speech, the immune system, and the production of sperm, Castellano says. And that fits with the theory that interbreeding was an important and rapid source of genetic diversity that could have been crucial for adapting to new terrain as modern humans spread into foreign lands.
Europeans got genes from archaic humans that did what? Impact speech? Isn't speech dependent upon brain development? Why yes, yes it is. So here we have a scholarly paper stating outright that the genes inherited by Europeans via their mixing with archaic humans changed their brain development. Not only that but these genes affected the immune system (which we would expect) meaning that there is a general difference between disease susceptibility between Africans and Europeans that is genetic in origins.
Many Neandertal variants associated with phenotypes and susceptibility to diseases have been identified in present-day non-Africans (6, 7, 10–12). The fact that the Vindija Neandertal genome is more closely related to the introgressing Neandertals allows ~15% more such variants to be identified (20). Among these are variants associated with plasma levels of LDL cholesterol (rs10490626) and vitamin D (rs6730714), eating disorders (rs74566133), visceral fat accumulation (rs2059397), rheumatoid arthritis (45475795), schizophrenia (rs16977195) and the response to antipsychotic drugs (rs1459148). This adds to mounting evidence that Neandertal ancestry influences disease risk in present-day humans, particularly with respect to neurological, psychiatric, immunological, and dermatological phenotypes (7).
But remember, there are no races. Race is [only] a social construct and all differences in humans are due to white supremacist oppression.

Wednesday, October 04, 2017

UK Falls Deeper Into Totalitarianism

[Edited 10-5-2017 8:30AM] From Breitbart quoting The Guardian
“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” declared British Home Secretary Amber Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.”
Not only does the UK government think it has the right to tell you what you can and cannot read. It deems it can tell you how many times you may read whatever it is the government deems "far right".

Also notice, and I missed this when I first posted it, but notice how there is no provision for reading "far-left propaganda". This was so obvious that I missed it sitting in plain view. Recall that in earlier posts I have made the claim that communists have essentially taken control of various so called "democratic" governments, including the UK. Here we see that they are establishing in law that their ideologies are the only legal ones. Opposing views are to be criminalized.

This chick, Amber Rudd, feels there is a "gap in the law". No, there isn't a "gap in the law". It is called freedom. Government does not exist to tell citizens what they can and cannot read or what they can and cannot think. If you told me the country I visited often as a child would pass a law that:

People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday.
I would have said you were mad. This is part of the "magic dirt" bullshit that liberals operate with and are increasingly imposing on society. If we pass a law against 'x' then people will stop doing 'x". No. People inclined to do "x" will find ways to do "x". What the government should be doing is not importing and deporting those persons who are inclined to bring harm to it's citizens. It ought not be trying to criminalize it's citizens who object [thus being labelled far right] to their countries and their freedoms being taken from them.

Statements like this:

According to the Home Office the updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be guilty of the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of “reasonable excuse” would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.
Should have Brits rioting in the streets. The government wants you to come up with a "defense" for reading or viewing material online? How do these words fall out of someone's mouth and not be immediately objected to by everyone else in the room? I watch what I want, as often as I want. Period. Reading and watching cannot be a crime. And since when are "academics" and "Journalists" afforded special status and rights that other citizens don't have?

"No Weapons Allowed"

If there is one image that completely and utterly shows how out of touch with reality liberals who wish to enact so called "gun control" legislation, it is this one:

This image taken from a video shown on Good Morning America, shows the sign that the shooter had to walk by when he was going to his room.

If anything underscores the absolute, rock solid argument that criminals and those who are to be criminals do not care about rules, laws, or whatever impediments are placed before them when they are seeking to commit a crime, this picture is it.

Liberals would have you believe that because there is some sign somewhere that says "gun free zone", that somehow criminals will stop and turn around, thwarted by The Sign. Only a fool, a damn fool believes this.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

They Don't Speak For Me

Why is it that whites and white looking people on the left feel that they have a right to speak on behalf on black people everywhere?
When we kneel in shul once a year on Yom Kippur we feel vulnerable. That’s how African Americans feel every day.
No. I do not "feel vulnerable every day". What kind of phobic moron would I be to feel vulnerable every day? This is such an insult to African-Americans.
And we Jews still aren’t doing enough to dismantle the American race privilege that we benefit from
Now this I agree with. I think Jews should remove themselves from their over-representation in media and finance for starters. That would be a most excellent start.
is there a fitting expression of solidarity that the Jewish community could make with the athletes that Trump has targeted?
Yes. Shut the fuck up. And if you can't do that at least tell the truth.
In other words, it often means something has gone terribly wrong.
Yes something has gone terribly wrong. I don't think you quite understand what it is though.
African-Americans don’t need to bow in shul to feel vulnerable to danger. To be black in America is to feel danger not just once a year, but all year, every year.
Really? Danger of what? From whom?
We need to acknowledge that we benefit from institutions, from schools to banks to workplaces to courtrooms to jails - that are stacked against African Americans.
Institutions like banks and media conglomerates....
Which means that they give unearned privilege to white people. Yes, even white Jews.
Glad for you to admit that. Jesus said something about rods, motes and eyes.

Monday, September 25, 2017

A Weekend Of Narratives

This weekend was a weekend of narratives. Two events happened this weekend that stood in stark contrast to each other. There were football games where players either refused to exit locker rooms for the US national anthem or got on field and made some show of protest. On the other hand was the Tunnel To Towers run in NYC where people of all types paid to run in honor of first responders who died on 9-11 and for first responders who serve communities from NYC to London, England. This morning when watching GMA, the former got all the air time and the latter were invisible.

To the brass (and presenters) of GMA, millionaire (at least in income) players of a game who's entire purpose is entertainment who are taking a knee over a completely fake narrative of black oppression in America is of more importance than thousands of ordinary citizens, most of whom have 5 figure salaries who paid for the honor of running in honor of those who serve the country and community daily and who are paid a small fraction of the salaries of the protesting NFL players.

Just let that sink in for a minute.

And understand that these protests are entirely contrived and entirely without merit. We know for a fact that the greatest danger to black lives are other black people. We know for a fact that the police use more force against white persons than black persons. We know for a fact that police officers, black and white, are more hesitant to use force against black suspects than white ones. We know that 9 times out of 10, when a deadly encounter happens between a police officer and a black suspect that the black suspect was at a minimum not following orders, actively trying to flee lawful apprehension or trying to kill an officer. I cannot understand how people in the black community feel that it is in their interest to support those who predate on our communities, making them unsafe and making suspects out of law abiding citizens.

Yes, Every time some black person, usually male, decides to assault or kill someone (which in NYC is the case in 90+% of assaults and murders), it makes every other black person in the community a suspect. You can't be mad at police for following up on a murder that involves a black male and then get mad when random black males are stopped and questioned. You don't worry about cats when it's the dogs that are doing the biting. So black folks need to be mad at black folks doing crime and the people that encourage and enable these persons to continue to predate on our community members. Recently where I grew up we have had a spate of car break ins and house break in's. Not a single mother fucker doing these crimes are white. Not a single one is a police officer and I'm supposed to be mad at white folks and police?

Fuck that in it's entirety.

I saw a photo somewhere which compared the NFL (and I suppose NBA) players to Jackie Robinson. Jackie Robinson broke "barriers". What barriers are these player breaking? What civil rights don't black people have in America? List the specific civil rights that black people in America do not have. You can't name one because this isn't 1960. It's 2017 and black people can actually now get away with violating the civil rights of other citizens and the media (and DNC) will cover for them.

These athletes aren't brave. Not a single one of these highly paid athletes will risk their lives and head to Chicago (or other city with high levels of black on black murders) and confront the people committing those murders. Not. A. Single. One. They will go to Miami Beach and party. They will go to LA and NY and shop. They might go to Monaco or wherever else and show off, but when 500 people are shot in Miami they don't have SHIT. To. Say. They are cowards. Each and every one of them. And all these news casters acting like they are so concerned. Those ones on GMA who live in high rises on the upper West Side (Robin Roberts), Who live in New Jersey (Strayhan) and down the Jersey shore, Long Island or Connecticut. None of these people who are nodding their heads and tut-tutting Trump live anywhere near the same people their money and status allow them to not. Live. Near.

Hypocrites, each and every one of them.

And then, then, we have the Sudanese guy who shoots up a church. This went entirely uncommented on for the first 30 minutes of GMA this morning (I had to go to work). When Dylan Roof shot up a church bible study meeting in Charleston, there was back to back coverage. The silence was deafening this AM. I thought shooting up a church was the evilest of evilest things a person could do in America. I've essentially cut myself off from broadcast TV as I'm tired of wasting my time on propaganda. This is CNN's home page right now:

Here's the Washington Post:

Here's the NYTimes:

A church was shot up and the lead everywhere are highly paid athletes.

If by now you don't understand the power of The Narrative and how there is a concerted effort to keep certain things out of view, then you are beyond help. When [mostly] black athletes are paid high 6 figures to millions for entertainment can honestly stand up (or kneel) and talk about how they (or at least black people) are oppressed in 2017 America, when these athletes owe their livelihoods to the fact that they are in America and are not oppressed (cause actual oppressed people don't make millions) and it's "hateful" to point that shit out, you know that all semblance of sanity has left the building and exited the parking lot.

The owners aren't going to discipline OR fire players because they depend on these players for their income. Understand that only if the owner's income streams are threatened will they do anything. These same owners disciplined players for 9-11 commemorations:

Williamson was going to wear custom patriotic cleats during the Titans’ home opener against the Vikings on Sunday, the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but those plans changed when a league representative called to inform him about a looming fine for violating uniform code...

In August, the league prohibited the Dallas Cowboys from wearing a helmet sticker honoring local police.

Last season, the NFL fined two Pittsburgh Steelers players $5,787 each for first-offense uniform violations –running back DeAngelo Williams for wearing "Find the Cure" in his eye black to promote breast cancer awareness, and cornerback William Gay for wearing purple cleats to raise awareness about domestic violence.

The New York Giants' Odell Beckham and Victor Cruz plan to wear patriotic cleats in Sunday's game against the Cowboys. The Tennessean has reached out to the NFL for comment on whether these players have received special permission or are simply willing to pay the fine.

So let's be clear. The NFL owners are not about free speech. They are not about athletes making 1st Amendment political statements. The NFL owners are scared shitless that their black players will accuse them of being racist and them getting the Donald Sterling treatment. They cannot afford to fire their players because then they will have no one to play and therefore no income.

And they think that their audience is sufficiently SJW that they need to pander to this bullshit. If they find that the fans are not having it, which will only come about when there are empty seats and record low levels of viewership, then they will change their tune.

Regardless though, this weekend has show us all, in no uncertain terms what narratives are in play.

Monday, September 18, 2017

The Hypocrisy Test

With so much being discussed about DACA, I often see that people have "misalignments" between what they think about their personal (immediate) property and family and their nation and fellow citizens. Below is a test to see how you rank on the hypocrisy scale.

Answer Yes or No to the following questions:

Personal:

1) In my house (place of dwelling) I determine who can and cannot enter.

2) In my house (place of dwelling) I ultimately determine if and when it is time for non-residents to leave.

3) If I came home and discovered someone in my house (place of dwelling) who did not belong there, I would expect them to leave.

3a) I would expect that I could call the authorities to make sure said person left if they did not comply with my demand.

3b) I would expect recompense for anything said person may have broken during their "stay".

3c) I would expect the authorities, if called upon, to punish said offender under relevant law.

3d) I agree with laws against trespass against personal property.

4) If a visitor to my house (place of dwelling) does something that threatens or otherwise makes any member of my family uncomfortable, I reserve the right to have that person removed from my house (place of dwelling).

4a) If that person refuses to leave, I reserve the right to call upon the authorities to remove the person.

5) Strangers have the right to enter my property whenever they please regardless of how I feel about it.

6) Strangers have the right to partake of the food in my house whenever they please regardless of how I feel about it.

7) I have waited in line and brought all proper paperwork to rent a property. I expect others to do the same.

8) I am going on a cruise with my family. I paid for my room. It is fair that the cruise ship allows a stow away to be placed in my cabin with my family.

National:

1)In my country I (the citizens) determine who can and cannot enter.

2)In my country I (the citizen) ultimately determine if and when it is time for non-residents to leave.

3)If I discovered someone in my country who did not belong there, I would expect them to leave.

3a) I would expect that I could call the authorities to make sure said person left if they did not comply with my demand.

3b) I would expect recompense for anything said person may have broken during their "stay".

3c) I would expect the authorities, if called upon, to punish said offender under relevant law.

3d) I agree with laws against trespass against illegally entering the country.

4) If a visitor to my country does something that threatens or otherwise makes any citizen uncomfortable, I (the citizen) reserve the right to have that person removed from my country.

4a) If that person refuses to leave, I reserve the right to call upon the authorities to remove the person.

5) Strangers have the right to enter my country whenever they please regardless of how I (the citizen) feel about it.

6) Strangers have the right to partake of the [goods and services provided by my government] whenever they please regardless of how I (the citizen) feel about it.

7) I paid all my taxes and got my paperwork per the law. I expect others to do the same.

Scoring: for the Personal give yourself 1 point for answers as follows:

1-4a: Yes
5-6: No
7: Yes
8: No

For total of 13 points. Subtract 1 point for every answer not matching above.

For the National give yourself 1 point for answers as follows:

1-4a: Yes
5-6: No
7: Yes

For a total of 12 points. Subtract 1 point for every answer not matching above.

Now add the two scores.

Tally:

25: You are a consistent person.

Less than 25: You have a contradiction somewhere you might want to check.

13: You are a hypocrite of epic proportions.

Less than 13: You probably stumbled upon this blog by accident, perhaps the "feeling lucky" link in the Google search page. You simply cannot be serious.

General Moral:

The nation is an extension of the personal. National rules generally reflect the culture and expectations of the people. If you don't expect people to enter your home willy nilly, then you cannot at the same time be OK with people entering the country willy nilly. Your national politics should largely reflect what you expect in your personal behavior and expectations.

Thursday, September 07, 2017

Michael Bennett: Epic Liar

This morning I saw a report on GMA where Michael Bennett lied about his arrest in Las Vegas. The report on GMA was so biased I couldn't believe it was allowed to air. There wasn't even a "lets see what the police have to say" part. Bennett did his crocodile tears bullshit as he spoke of not being able to see his daughters:
"The Officers' excessive use of force was unbearable," Bennett wrote. "I felt helpless as I lay there on the ground handcuffed facing the real-life threat of being killed. All I could think of was 'I'm going to die for no other reason than I am black and my skin color is somehow a threat.'"

Bennett told reporters Wednesday that during the incident he was thinking about his wife and three daughters "and how much they mean to me."

Of course, as is now unfortunately typical, the video evidence proved otherwise:

All those black people the police could have up and decided to arrest but didn't. How does Bennett explain this? How does ESPN and ABCNews meaning Disney corp. explain giving this liar a platform? The story headline should not have been:

Michael Bennett: Cops drew guns on me for 'being a black man in the wrong place at the wrong time' It should have been:

Michael Bennett lies about LVPD while trying to make racial commentary.

This is the new Left Crow. This is the real "white supremacy": It is where white liberals make space for and promote black people being treated like children and not made to account for their behavior and words and those who object are made to be non-persons subject to RICO levels of civil rights violations and criminal violence.

Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Republican Plantation Revealed Again

Back in July I posted about how the Republican party is a plantation for white [conservative] people similar to how the DNC is a plantation for black people:
If anything shows how the RNC is basically a plantation for white folks, it is the failure to repeal the ACA. Whether you agree with repealing the ACA or not is not important. What is important is that the RNC spent most of the Obama administration discussing and declaring how the ACA needed to be repealed and replaced with something "better" (IMO anything not single payer for a "basic level" of coverage with a free market for anything else is not "better"). They campaigned on it. They have governors sue the govt. They got a "conservative" supreme court justice to declare a penalty a tax, in clear contradiction to the actual text. But then against massive odds Trump became president.
The Republicans say whatever they think will make the gullible white people who are not aligned with the DNC to vote for them and then once [back] in office, continue to be the right wing of the DNC, where they believe in what the DNC believed in yesterday. Our most recent "revelation", at least for those not paying attention, was the Republican response to Trump's DACA kinda-sorta- repeal.

We already knew that DACA was unconstitutional. For that reason alone, both Dems and Republicans should be shoulder to shoulder against that program. They are not. While we fully expect the DNC to be the traitor party that it is, we see how low the RNC has fallen, in which its members, who are supposed to be representatives of actual US Citizens, lining up to represent the interests of foreign nationals.

When you have half of the people in government (conservative estimate) working on behalf of foreign nationals you have an occupation government. However; how many of these persons who have publicly declared themselves agents of foreign nationals will be returned to their seats after the next election?

I have little sympathy for the DACA folks. They are the victims of government officials that refused to do their duties. Their parents should have been deported a long time ago. Had that happened these DACA folk would have been in their home countries a long time ago with their families. The fact that government officials (across party lines) failed in their duties and in many cases have broken immigration law and no prosecutions happened (and continue to NOT happen) is a slap in the face of every citizen (and legal immigrant) who finds themselves looking for proof of identity when they open bank accounts, purchase cars, get drivers licenses and the like, all following the laws and expecting those same laws to be applied to everyone else.

It is a slap in the face of people who for decades paid property taxes into school systems for their children and grandchildren to have funds diverted for bilingual education for children who should not even be in the classrooms. For expanded classrooms that decreases per-pupil teaching time. For monies that are spent on school meal programs for children who should not be in the school and should not be on federal food programs to begin with. A slap in the face of citizens who face water shortages due to overpopulation. The wages that are depressed, the jobs that are no longer available (automation notwithstanding).

These agents of foreign nationals, calling themselves Republicans don't care about you or your "rights" Mr. white man. All they want from you is the product of your labour and your "obligatory" vote come election day. If you comply with the latter (since the former is not exactly voluntary) you are signaling that you like the plantation very much.

Friday, September 01, 2017

Two Maps

1) Map of travel paths taken by Africans to get into "white supremacy":

2) Map of travel paths taken by African-Americans who claim "white supremacy" is the worst thing they have to deal with:

Monday, August 28, 2017

Equal Protection or Second Class Citizenship?

The continuing fallout from the election of Donald Trump has revealed a lot about the left. I've already discussed that the left is essentially a communist organization that has coopted an entire mainstream political party (Democrats) as well as gotten a second to act as it's convenient idiot, but it has also gotten its tentacles into academia with un-fireable professors, studies departments that lack basic rigors of science as well as operatives ensconced in HR departments countrywide. There these people create complete unconstitutional "codes of conduct" and the like where Left PC doctrine is enforced with those found at "fault" taking their very livelihoods into their hands. But it gets worse.

Back when Russia decided it was in it's best interest to take Crimea back from Ukraine major financial transaction companies decided to block financial transaction with certain Russian financial entities. This was the first time I knew of where a private financial company acted as an agent of governments, without a court order of any kind, to impose "sanctions" on a third party. At the time I didn't see this for the huge red flag that it was. I did say that both Russia and China would be best served by making sure they had financial systems in place that could bypass Western systems. I had no idea that US citizens would be put under the same screw.

After Charlottesville we saw a number of companies that previously were all about "net neutrality" decide that certain people could not only not use YouTube Facebook or Twitter even though they had not violated any laws OR the terms of service, but these companies went even further. They stole domain names, colluded to deny internet service to those who they disagreed with AND denied the ability to do basic financial transactions via common public platforms.

Currently this nefarious activity is being directed at Stormfront. Whether one likes, agrees with or otherwise has some affinity to Stormfront is irrelevant. The fact that a domain name, which is the property of the person who first registers it, can be stolen without a peep from the relevant regulatory and justice bodies should disturb anyone who understands the value of equal protection under the law.

Stormfront is an easy target but don't be mistaken. This is a test of power that must be met with a strong show of justice from the government. As one "far right" organization is taken out, the organization or person that was next to them on the spectrum becomes the next target. Soon, the one who thought he was "too mainstream" to become a victim of this mob finds himself the next victim. Understand: The dominoes are falling.

This is especially alarming because the US (and elsewhere) is fast becoming a cashless society. Whether it be paying a toll on a road, accessing subways and other mass transit. Whether it be paying for clothes and food. Whether it be carrying on everyday business. If companies that provide these transactions can unilaterally decide to cut a citizen off from these essential services we have a serious problem. It is arguable whether we can say that Facebook or YouTube "has to" let you use their services in order to make a living. It is an entirely different argument whether PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, etc can deny your legal financial transaction because it doesn't like your politics.

Imagine for a minute that you said something that some lefty doesn't like (and it's a lefty, because I've yet to see anyone on the right, including so called White Supremacists call for anyone to not be able to make a living or to have their internet access blocked, IP stolen or ability to do legal financial transactions blocked). Imagine they decide to "contact" whomever to mark you as a "white supremacist" or a "[black][yellow][Brown] White Supremacist" and various institutions decide to no longer extended financial services. You are, oh, buying gas and now your Apple Pay or Google Pay is no longer accepting payments. Perhaps you're trying to pay your mortgage. Sorry. You're trying to pay your EZ-pass. No go. This is a very very real possibility right now.

Now say you're self employed, perhaps you employ other people at your business. Now you can no longer take payments from your customers. You can't pay your vendors. You can't pay your employees. This is entirely possible. This is not funny.

This is not America.

Why is all this happening? It would be easy to blame Democrats or "The Left" but Holder is not in the Justice Dept and Obama is not president. The blame lies squarely on Trump and Sessions. I'm going to focus on Sessions here. Since the campaign we have seen unprecedented levels of political violence mostly by leftist groups. We have seen a level of lawlessness, where governors and mayors have openly violated immigration law or stated their intent (which is what is needed for criminal prosecution) to violate immigration law. Various govt. officials have brazenly told police under their watch to allow persons designated "nazis" to be beaten and to have their constitutional rights violated. All of this has happened with mice level peeps from Sessions. This is unacceptable. Where there is a lack of law, lawlessness escalates. Paypal etc. have done what they have done because the persons responsible for setting the tone have failed to do so. Even a failed attempt at prosecution is better than no prosecution at all.

Furthermore; as others have noted, if these large internet companies, particularly those that deal with peoples financial transactions and intellectual property are going to discriminate against people based on their political opinions (real or imagined) then they should be brought under regulation. Either all citizens have equal protect and equal access to services, which was the entire point of the civil rights movement, or we have a state where there are second class citizens.

Monday, August 21, 2017

The Best You Could Come Up With

While various black and white faces call for the destruction of monuments of various historical American figures, recent events show one of the reasons that black folk fail to make real progress. Here's what is trending as a replacement for Confederate soldiers:

No seriously. Given the opportunity to suggest replacement for Robert E. Lee, Negroes have come up with Missy Elliot. I have even seen suggestions for Michael Jackson.

Seriously.

I mean it's not like if your going to replace confederate monuments to one of the most significant wars in US history, if not THE defining war after the war for independence from England, you would suggest someone like Sojourner Truth or Fredrick Douglass. Not Harriet Tubman. No, the first thing that comes to mind is a rapper.

They didn't come up with Garrett Morgan or any other black person of science. Heck, given the recent overrepresentation of Katherine Johnson you would think they would have picked her. But nope. Missy Eliot.

Not Fannie Lou Hamer. Not Barbara Jordan. Missy Elliot.

And I'm not even getting into more political figures like Garvey or Martin Delany. If anything this is a perfect example of why black people in America continue to fail. This exaltation of rappers, singers and ballers at the expense of scientists and real deal activists is part of the reason why we continue to be missing in the elite levels of modern societies and are left complaining about racism and klan members most of them haven't seen hide nor hair of.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Communist Infiltration of US

I posted a link a video in my last post but I want this to stand alone.

This is because it is very clear that no one in the mainstream public is calling out the Communist in the room. This includes people at all levels of government.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

America Is Broken

[edit: 8-16: added embedded video] Back in the 1950s a group of people had the politically supported position that certain other people did not deserve the same rights of citizenship that the popular people had. These people had major (and minor) businesses and corporations behind them. Those businesses denied service and accommodations to those persons and groups deemed "outside the norm". The popular group had entrenched themselves in the government and conspired to make sure that the laws that were written to apply equally to all citizens were not applied or applied only when it served their interests.

As a result of this cooperation between the state and business, millions of citizens were deprived their rights. They could be harassed on the street. They could be fired from their jobs (if they got hired). When they tried to peacefully assemble to exercise their constitutional rights they were beaten by agents of the state. When the state didn't do the beating, they stood by idle while citizens with the "right ideas" beat on the people with the "wrong ideas". After all those people had the "wrong ideas" and "wrong identities" so who would and should care.

People who thought that this blatant disregard for the law and the dangers of such state condoned violence were called "traitors" and Communists. Many of them were cowed into silence due to the threats they received. They had to live in fear of random mobs showing up where they worked or lived. Their employers were warned that if they continued to employ the "bad people" their own businesses were in danger.

When the "bad people" had meetings, angry mobs would surround them with weapons. Often these mobs consisted of people who wore masks or other means of disguise. On the few times that the people being disenfranchised retaliated against the people beating on them, the media would use their actions to show how uncivilized and barbaric the "bad people were" which was proof that they shouldn't be allowed to have "rights".

Fortunately the American people came to understand that this arrangement was detrimental to society. Yet now in 2017 the entire lesson has been forgotten. Once again businesses and corporations are aligned with government to protect a particular narrative. They are using their power to deny service and accommodations to those who fall afoul of the particular narrative. The police have been once again used as a tool, not of upholding the law and constitutional rights, but of The Narrative. I believe that what we saw in Va. over the weekend, ends MUCH of the support that police had in right leaning communities. It was one thing to see Berkley police being Berkley police. But a southern police allowing communists to run around unmolested? I'd never thought I'd see it. Which brings me to my last point: The US Government and major corporations have been infiltrated by Communists.

I know this sounds McCarthyite but of all the "reporting" on VA from the MSM and various government and ex-government officials, no one has named the communist. Antifa is communist organization. Didn't we have a whole cold war with countries with that ideology? I seem to recall a whole "take down this wall" moment. Wasn't the entire problem with Cuba the fact that it is communist? Why hasn't the news madia pointed out the communist? The answer is because the communist is in the position to shape the news so that the communist can maintain the hidden hand.

I remember watching a video of a {ex?] Russian intelligence officer discussing how they planned on taking down America. They would infiltrate the institutions (education, etc) and once they got their ideas into students in particular, these students would then enter areas of influence where they would direct policy.

This is why Antifa can go without critique in a country that actually fought wars against communists. This is why you can find so many Americans who say that Americans have too much freedom of speech and too much privacy. Ideas that were common in communists countries are now common in the intellectual elite in America. Nazis don't have free assembly rights? Where is that in the constitution? Nowhere. All citizens have free assembly rights and the state has a legal obligation to protect those rights. Why is this even something to be discussed or argued? Free speech applies to everyone and ESPECIALLY for those who we do not like, agree with or my find personally lower than the dirt under shit.

The government response to Va, from Trump and Sessions on down has let the left know that it is open season to commit violence against those whom they disagree with. America has just become a much more dangerous place to live. If you are to the right of Antifa and they can tell you can have your financial life and "limb life" in danger. On the other side, if you're not white and you are out and about and some neo nazi or white nationalist or just some right of center person who feels threatened, realizes he has no non-violent means of being heard and having his legitimate issues addressed (which doesn't mean all his issues are legitimate) decides on venting his anger decides he's gonna take it out on the next non-white person he sees, well you're fucked.

I agree that Trump (and Sessions) commentary was not enough. Trump should have named names. All. The. Names. Neo-Nazis and Antifa. He should have named government officials who fail to enforce the law. By state and by name. How do you declare your city a sanctuary city AND deny American citizens their right to peaceably assemble and petition the government? This is straight up treason.

When government officials are traitors you have a seriously broken country.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

So I Lied

One of the most golden things to come out of the Google Manifesto (GM) thus far is to watch lefties who typically cite "science" as backing up claims about human caused climate change, often noting that 99 or so percent of climate scientists agree on the subject, now turning around and claiming that the science behind known behavioral and psychological differences between genders (and races) is suspect and fake. It reveals, to those now paying attention how the left is not interested in science as much as they are interested in any and everything that they can weaponize against everyone who is "not Left".

Aside from that we have seen a gender based version of the "rage of a privileged class" phenomenon that I wrote about recently:

This information is critical if you want to understand the "rage of a privileged class". There is a "large" population, in terms of raw numbers, of very bright black people. However because the black population is relatively small, that number is minuscule in relation to the population as a whole:...

So here's the thing. If you are one of those black people who are on the far right side of the IQ distribution you are a rare bird (statistically speaking). However, it is likely you also interact with many other rare birds. Because of this you likely think that there are more of you than is represented in the population. Because of this, the following chart burns you up inside:

The same thing applies to the reaction to the GM, there are many bright women who do high level tech as competently as their male counterparts, but statistically they are a small group (just as the men who do this work, more on that later). Furthermore, most women who are THAT bright choose to do other things with that intellect (as seen in where women gravitate to in terms of advanced degrees and career choices) that siphons them off from CS fields which further impacts their numbers. This is all known stuff. But a certain victim/siege mentality has taken hold of modern Western women where we get nonsense like the following (linking to Steve Sailer 'cause he's always worth reading):
For instance, what if we replaced the word “women” in the memo with another group? What if the memo said that biological differences amongst Black, Hispanic, or LGBTQ employees explained their underrepresentation in tech and leadership roles? Would some people still be discussing the merit of the memo’s arguments or would there be a universal call for swift action against its author? …

I thought about all of this, looked at my daughter and answered simply. “No, it’s not true.”

It's one thing to lie about some fat white man who crawls up and down chimneys (some of which simply don't exist) with a impossibly small [often] black bag for the amount of toys he allegedly has, and places these presents under a decorated tree and takes the time necessary to eat cookies and drink milk while keeping a schedule where there is about 5 hours of darkness to cover the entire globe.

It is one thing to lie to your kid about some fairy that comes to their bedroom with whatever currency is in circulation and plops one under their pillow and retrieves whatever tooth is there.

But lying to your kid about a known and verifiable scientific fact because you're too chicken shit to tell them how biology and the world actually works is diarrhea level of parenting. At some time in the near future this girl, should she be at all bright, will find out her mother is a grand level liar and may well lose a lot of respect for her. But let's address the epic level straw man argument offered here:

For instance, what if we replaced the word “women” in the memo with another group? What if the memo said that biological differences amongst Black, Hispanic, or LGBTQ employees explained their underrepresentation in tech and leadership roles? Would some people still be discussing the merit of the memo’s arguments or would there be a universal call for swift action against its author?
Firstly there is hardly "universal calls" for swift action against Damore. The only way you can think that such an environment exists is if you live in a rather opaque bubble. However to the point here, the same argument made by Damore in regards to gender diversity at Google can in fact be made about Non-Asian minorities in the technology field. I've discussed this multiple times already:
That's very few people getting top level PHD's in computer science. I'm sure that they are in high demand as well. According to that paper. CS BS degrees awarded topped out in 2003 with around 22k degrees awarded. when we look at the ethnic and racial breakdown of those awarded said degrees we find that "Black or African-Americans" get 4.6% of those degrees [Pg 7]
Whites take 64.8% and Asians 15.3%

When we look at gender we find that women take 29.5% of Masters to 70.5% for men. When we look at Master's degrees by race and ethnicity we find:

Black or African-American: 2.6%
White 31.2%
Asian 12.4%
Non-resident Alien 50.4% (Why is "Non-resident Alien" recorded with ethnicity?)

When it comes to Phd level degrees, Men hold 80.2% of the degrees to women's 19.8% Black or African-American's hold 1.4% of PhD level CS degrees
Whites, 34.3%
Asians 12.3%
Nonresident Alien 49.6% (again why is this in the ethnicity section and WHO is it hiding?)

And from another post of mine:
Look. If HARPO Studios, created by none other than Oprah Winfrey herself cannot manage to employ 60% African-Americans at her studio why the hell should anyone be mad at Google or LinkedIN? Someone ought to send the EEOC to Harpo studios and get them to explain why a black company apparently cannot find qualified black staff.

I mean how is it that Oprah Winfrey could not find a BLACK CEO to run her company?

Why all this disparity?

That little bump? That's the Black IQ distribution mapped in proportion to their population demographics. This is why Google hasn't been able to bump it's black population in it's high IQ roles from 2%. There's no more to get! Why does the Hispanic population at Google go from 2% to 5%? Because you can be white AND Hispanic, not mention you're white and boom! White Hernandez is put in the diversity column.

But let me get back to the victim mentality issue and the issue of why there is so much "outrage" going on. When women see that men are at the top of most hugely rich and successful companies they have been trained to see "men". When men see men at the same positions they don't see "men" they see successful individuals. We know that those men at the top are such a small proportion of the population of men that we KNOW that gender is NOT the determining factor and barely a factor at all in their success. After all if simply being MALE got you even half the success of the men at the top then half the male population would be uber rich. So we do not use our dicks as crutches.

We KNOW that those people at the top of the heap, be in business, sports and to an extent, politics, got there by doing things that the average person won't or can't do. Let me give an example:

I play Blackjack. Like most people, when I started out I won big (as in 10x my buy in) my first time out and thought I was The Shit. I went back with more money and lost it. Most people would have packed it in and moved back to slot machines or never touched a casino again. Casinos are NOT for the risk averse. So the fact that I did not stop playing put me in a category that most people would never get into. My gender has a statistical impact on the decision as men/males are less risk averse than women. At the Blackjack table this is also borne out as most Blackjack players are male (go look).

The next thing is that I decided that I would research the game and found out about Basic Strategy(BS). Knowing basic strategy reduces the house edge. Unlike many people who are willing to put money on the Blackjack table, I committed to learning BS and playing it no matter what. I have often advised people to learn it. Most of the people I have made the suggestion to decided against it. "Too hard", "too much".

Then I spent hours (and spend hours) practicing to know what to do as soon as the cards hit the table. I practice against whatever conditions I expect to see at the casinos I frequent because different rules require different but similar strategies. How many people are willing to spend 4 hours playing a day to just train themselves? Not many.

So again, my decision to learn BS on top of being willing to risk larger amounts of money put me in a class of people that most will never reach. And believe me, learning BS is NOT HARD. It is actually harder to control your emotions at a table than it is to learn the right plays. Which brings us to the issue of emotionalism. Again, my sex brings a statistical advantage here. Males are less emotion prone than women. When "gambling" one MUST be emotionally stable as to not chase losses or have a heart attack. Seriously. I've seen people laid out on the floor.

So to recap, I'm relatively successful playing BJ because I put in the required effort and made decisions that the vast majority of people will never make. Success at the high levels of tech are the same. Very few people have the inborn talent needed (IQ, impulse control, etc) and willing to take the time necessary to hone their skills which often requires social isolation, which is something we know women are less likely to do because generally they are more social. We KNOW this.

So Susan Wojcicki is a liar and she should be removed from her position by the board as you shouldn't have liars heading your company. But she's not the only liar. We are seeing that a whole breed of power hungry liars are ensconced in businesses and Academic institutions that have serious impacts on society. We see that they keep blacklists, we see that they are willing to use their power to censor. We see that they are willing to promote and act out violence against people who disagree with them. Everything is laid bare and they are willing to lie to their children as well as yours in order to maintain their power. Susan Wojcicki admits she is a liar. We must commit to telling the truth and stand by the facts.

Monday, August 07, 2017

The Google Manifesto: First They Came For Brandon

So over the weekend various left leaning publications were triggered by a fact based memo written by a [currently] anonymous Google employee that discussed diversity and his issues with how Google deals with it. Those right of the current left, meaning anyone from the moderate position on down were alarmed at how such a fact based note could be the source of much venom on the left. I was not one of them because I saw this coming a long time ago.

Brandon Eich, formerly of Mozilla was fired"made to resign" from his job for, wait for it, donating money to a campaign against legalizing homosexual marriage. He did not advertise his opinions on the matter. He did not discriminate, harass or otherwise make the work life of any of the employees under his charge difficult. He maintained a professional attitude at all times (that we know of) and did his honest bit to make Mozilla great. Then he was pressured to resign. I wrote about this back in 2014:

Essentially, under the law, Eich was subject to a hostile work environment by other employees at Mozilla. That is an actionable discrimination claim. The management at Mozilla (meaning HR) did nothing to make it clear to the employees of Mozilla that their actions constituted discrimination and harassment under employment law. I'm not saying that the employees with issues with Eich don't have a right to hold and discuss their positions on Eich's donation.
Since Eich had a clear religious exercise right to support the movement with his money Mozilla was clearly in the wrong. Yet Eich allowed Mozilla to get away with wrongful termination. He should never have "resigned" and should have sued Mozilla into bankruptcy court. But so called conservatives were too busy trying to play the "I'm not a homophobe" card in order to curry (or maintain) favor with the left and allowed this to go unanswered. As I've said before, the bully always tests the victim before escalating. The pimp always tests the "ho" for compliance. Once he knows she can be easily manipulated to do his bidding, she's his to do as he pleases. The moderates and the so called conservatives have been hoed by the left. Everything is now a target. The very same people who will yell at you about the "science" of undeniable man caused climate change, will howl bloody murder if you present statistics and facts about IQ distribution, genetics and other hate statistics like racial crime rates. You know you have it bad when hospitals will leave a newborn's sex blank so they can fill it in later with the "chosen" gender.

One of the reasons this kind of bullshit can happen is because there is actually a two class citizen system in the US. Due to this concept of "protected classes" certain groups of people are subject to discriminatory actions that others are not. This isn't reverse discrimination, it is discrimination. Full stop.

We are seeing this viewpoint discrimination spread like weeds on an unkept lawn. AirB&B is allegedly informing persons attending a "Unite the Right" gathering, that they are not welcome to use their services. Understand that if you object to renting to two men who are going to fuck each other in your house, AirB&B will boot you from their service and you might get sued, but if people are in town to attend a rally AirB&B disagrees with that same property is banned to you. Legally there is nothing that can be done unless a "religious blanket" is used as cover (a lot of organizations do this for this very reason). This needs to change. Either the Feds need to allow all businesses to discriminate on any basis whatsoever or they need to amend the law to prevent AirB&B, Twitter, YouTube, etc from discriminating against any public user that does not violate terms of service and those terms of service cannot include viewpoint discrimination. In other words, Twitter should allow Hebrew Israelites to talk about crackers and white devils all day long and allow Stormfront types to talk the same shit about black people. If not then neither the Hebrew Israelites OR the Stormfront types should be allowed on the platform. And if one is allowed and the other not, then the company should be liable in civil court. Either we all get service or none of us gets service.

But I've gone off the main point. The point here is that this Google event really started back when Mozilla was given a pass. Had Mozilla been sued into bankruptcy as it should have been. Had the EEOC ran in there and fined the hell out of them, Lefty organizations would have been put on notice that workplace discrimination and harassment would not be allowed and the [currently] anonymous Google Manifesto author would not currently be in fear for his job (and I assume it's a him).

Saturday, August 05, 2017

Caved To The Homosexuals and Got Trannies

So there's this article over at Takmag that I am almost in full agreement with: Resisting the Tranny State
And that, right there, is why trannies annoy the hell out of me. A tranny is someone who claims, “I was ‘assigned’ the wrong gender at birth, and I need to be the real me.” Okay, fine. Go be whatever the hell you want to be! Go be a chick with a dick, or a man with a cooter. It’s absolutely none of my business how any adult decides to express him/her/itself sexually. But the thing is, these days trannies are not content to just go be trannies; they insist that we become accomplices to their fantasy.
And this is where the author and myself (and persons like Jordan Peterson) agree. See I don't much care for trannies. But I don't spend my time wondering what they do in their personal lives. They do them, I do me and I'm good. But of late they have managed, by dint of guilt ridden white people who afraid of anyone calling them anything that ends in "ist" or "phobe", to get the state in on forcing themselves on the rest of us. We all know that trannies are sick in the head. It's called gender dysphoria. No sane medical professional would listen to someone explain how they are actually a female and then proceed to chop off whatever primary and secondary sex organs the person has and then give them a lifetime prescription for hormones so that they can live out a mental disease that will likely end in suicide anyway. No sane lawmaker would actually be like, yeah, we'll pass a law making it illegal to refer to a male as a male and actually gives armed agents of the state the ability to enforce this rule on pain of death. But that is where we are in 2017.
Straight men are now told that it’s “transphobic” to prefer their women penis-free. The tranny argument is “If I think I’m a woman, you need to see me as one, even if I have a wiener.” Straight men are no longer allowed to find penises sexually unattractive, because trans activism is about changing human nature itself. It’s nothing more than the newest iteration of the New Soviet Man, that 20th-century fallacy in which communist ideologues claimed that with enough reeducation and coercion, mankind could overcome every natural instinct the state considered counterrevolutionary.
And now we get to where I part with the writer:
With the gay marriage issue, wherever you stand on it, the fact is it really doesn’t affect non-gays. Oh sure, Christian conservatives and “traditionalists” will make the “slippery slope” argument (“If you allow gays to wed, it might not impact your life immediately, but over time it will erode the moral fabric of our nation and one day a satanist cannibal will eat your sister”), and there have indeed been individual cases of compulsion involving wedding cakes, but still, it’s just a fact: Two men in Miami tying the knot has absolutely zero bearing on my life or yours.
See this author, like many fail to understand how the tranny situation came about. See the same social rules that kept homosexuals in check, kept the other parts of the coalition in check. Once you compromised with one part of the clique you compromised with the entire clique. Furthermore; this guy fails to understand how these people operate. This concept isn't original with me but I'll repeat it here.

What these organizations do is take a step that alarms the public. The public gets alarmed and the organization stops and waits for the population to calm down. Once that happens they push again. Rinse and repeat. Each time the excuse is, well it doesn't affect you directly so what's your problem? Slowly but surely the inches add up and the public has been thoroughly infiltrated or changed and it's essentially too late to go back because going back requires quick and sharp changes that very few people have the stomach to do (see illegal immigration).

This is why the successful movements don't go full revolution, they go reform. Each reform adds up and in the end you get the same end as the revolution. So yeah, the guy getting married in Miami absolutely affects you. Because once one state has legal homosexual marriage, then the other states have to deal with it in the form of discrimination lawsuits. Then the schools get pressured to represent "all families" and so now your kid or grandkid is taught about "my two dads" and there's nothing you can do about it except spend massive amount of your net worth on private school or the home schooling. Then even though the constitution clearly states that your religious beliefs and exercise thereof cannot be abridged by the state, the state will shut down your business cause you want no parts of a homosexual wedding.

Therefore knowing that there are long term domino effects to caving to homosexuals, it is the height of short sightedness and non-consideration of one's posterity to act like just because a wedding in Miami doesn't actually affect your life, that it won't affect those that come after you.

So yeah, the current tranny situation is a direct result of caving on gay marriage. Cause and effect.

MAGA or MIGA?

"General McMaster and I are working very well together,” Trump said in a statement emailed to the New York Times. “He is a good man and very pro-Israel. I am grateful for the work he continues to do serving our country.”
-Brietbart

I've said this of the left and right, Why do they have to kiss up to Israel? Do we run our government for the benefit of American citizens or for the benefit of Israel?

Tuesday, August 01, 2017

The Growing Lefty Censorship Movement

Having lost what little decency the left had left, when Trump won the election the [tech] powers that be decided that free speech and free expression of ideas (that don't directly incite violence) could no longer be accepted. In fact, the left made a great leap into censorship when it came to the subject of illegal immigration and the fake refugee conspiracy being used to ethnically cleanse various European nation states. And that's what it is: ethnic cleansing of Europe. Google/Youtube has just raised the ante on this behavior:
Today, YouTube clarified how it plans to handle videos that don’t violate any of its policies but still contain offensive religious and supremacist content: hide them and make sure they can’t make any money.
In essence YouTube is saying that any speech it doesn't agree with is subject to censorship. I con't care what they call it, it is censorship. I cannot see how Youtube can legally restrict a user video if it violates no terms of service. What is needed here is a law firm to take all of these companies to court and to ask for business ending awards. Yes, business ending. Remember what happened in 2008 when Lehman Brothers was allowed to go under? Yeah, We need a decision that hurts Google/YouTube so badly that it has to shut down operations.

This is what is missing today. Stone cold, law enforcement. You have mayors and governors talking about being sanctuary cities and using tax funds to help illegal aliens. All of which is against clearly written law. The US has become one great big scofflaw nation. People simply expect that "the little people" or "those people over there' have to follow the rules and the rest can observe that which they feel are "just". "Just" being whatever the overton window is open to at the moment.

YouTube also announced today that it has added to the list of NGOs it is working with to help determine what content should be hidden. These organizations include the No Hate Speech Movement, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and the Anti-Defamation League, which recently drew the ire of far-right outlets and pundits by publishing a list of alt right and “alt lite” personas.
YouTube (and Twitter) is full of lefty organizations that not only engage in "hate speech" but many times call for outright violence against those they consider "right wing". Yet there are absolutely no consequences.

Saturday, July 29, 2017

The Republican Plantation Revealed

I've always known the Democratic party was a plantation. Black folks, particularly black women are used to get votes and then Democrats do nothing for them, except maybe divert taxes to them in the form of programs that among other things do nothing to drop murder rates and other rates of crime. Basically the DNC reminds black folks about King Jr., KKK and voting rights and black folks fall in line. The RNC is similarly situated.

If anything shows how the RNC is basically a plantation for white folks, it is the failure to repeal the ACA. Whether you agree with repealing the ACA or not is not important. What is important is that the RNC spent most of the Obama administration discussing and declaring how the ACA needed to be repealed and replaced with something "better" (IMO anything not single payer for a "basic level" of coverage with a free market for anything else is not "better"). They campaigned on it. They have governors sue the govt. They got a "conservative" supreme court justice to declare a penalty a tax, in clear contradiction to the actual text. But then against massive odds Trump became president.

Now the Republicans had their opportunity to do exactly what they told their voters they would do and what happened? Fail. Some say that Trump was wasting time and political capital with this ACA repeal. It may be but I think he was using this to totally expose the RNC for the two faced party we know it to be. I think this also explains why Priebus was let out to pasture. He couldn't deliver what the RNC said they would do so why keep him around? At this point the RNC should be a dead party walking.

The question now is whether white [not liberal] people will stay on the Republican plantation like blacks stay on the Democrat plantation. It's clear that these so called conservatives are not trying to conserve anything but their jobs and income streams. They consistently stay as far to the right of the left moving overton window, that they believe in the same things that were considered extremely liberal just 20 years ago. I mean really, THEY BACKED HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT!

So how do you know if you're ready to get off the plantation (be it Democrat or Republican)? If you don't care if you're called:
Racist
Sellout
Homophobe
Anti-immigrant
What-Ever-The-New-Shit-Is-Phobe

Then you are ready to walk off the field. If not, well enjoy the continued betrayals.

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Good Video Links

Two videos that say what I say.

1) Sharia Compliance. Earlier this year I wrote that the DNC is Sharia compliant:

Under Sharia and/or simple "rules of Islam" it is forbidden to insult the prophet and criticising Islam is blasphemy. In a Christian (or other non-Islamic country) such rules wouldn't mean more than the dust on the street. If one is NOT a Muslim, such rules are non-binding since you haven't agreed to adhere to them.
See, there is a difference between respecting someone's values and being subject to them. I don't eat pork. I don't expect that any and everyone around me not indulge. Just don't feed it to me. Same with alcohol. Not my business if you carry or imbibe (as long as you're not driving) but I have no place to make you change your behavior because I dislike it. If it bothers me that much I should not be hanging around you. My beliefs and taboos are my problem not yours. Sargon of Akkad understands:

Essentially what these Muslims (and the lefties that support them) are doing is making us submit to Islam. Fuck that in it's entirety.

2) Sessions foolishness: I'm bothered by Sessions decision to double down on the entirely unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture. Citizens should never be subject to having their property (including money) seized by the state just because the state *thinks* (with whatever flimsy reasoning) you may have committed a crime. Cernovich makes this plain:

Saturday, July 22, 2017

Not Just Any Police Shooting

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.

The Business of Population Management

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 and Woodson

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

The Hypocrisy of Allure Magazine

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:

Say, how many obese women do you see?

Right.

Monday, July 10, 2017

Videos Be Racist Yo!

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

Perhaps Work On Their Own Countries?

The "Pope":

Here's an idea. Fix up your own country. How do these people think Europe got to be a stable rich area? If you think it's all slavery and colonialism then why is Singapore, Korea and Japan so well off?

Yet more proof that the liberals of the left strongly believe in the inferiority of the African and believe the only way to "help" them is to take care of them.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Looks Like A bad Shoot...Might Not Be

St. Louis:
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.

Never Suck Up To The Left

Even though Trump did this:

He still gets this:

Lesson: Do not suck up to the left. They hate you. Period.

Republicans Ought To Be Very Worried About GA district 6...And Elsewhere

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

The Mass Denialism of Black America: The Castile Example

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.