Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

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.

Work Begins On Tallest Sky Scraper in Africa....Built By Chinese

I remember a long time back when I was on Facebook and Twitter. Someone posted something to the effect of all the modern buildings in Africa. The pictures were meant to prove that "Africans build shit like everyone else". What I did not know at the time was that much of the "new" stuff being built in Africa were financed and built by outsiders (non-Africans). Here we have yet another example
Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta recently laid the foundation stone for what will be the tallest building in Africa in the Upper Hill neighborhood of Nairobi. Construction is underway at the development site, and slated for completion by December 2019.
Not for nothing but I think dealing with the horrific conditions of certain slums should be a higher priority. But that's just me. But back to the point:
The Pinnacle has heavyweight backing in the shape of Dubai-based investors Hass Petroleum and White Lotus Group, which are ploughing around $200 million into the project.
As soon as I saw "lotus" I thought. Chinese. Annnnnnd:
he contract to build the towers has been awarded to China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCEC), which is among the world's largest construction firms and has delivered a string of major projects including the African Union headquarters in Ethiopia and the Beijing National Aquatics Centre.
Yes, the African Union headquarters was built by the Chinese.
"Whatever happens in other parts of the world can happen in Africa as well," says Abdinassir Hassan, chairman of Hass Petroleum and managing director of the project. "Nairobi is a hub for East and Central Africa. Why would we go anywhere else?"
Yes, but in other parts of the world, the native population generally has the money and the expertise to do these things for themselves.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Why The Castile Jury Went The Way It Did

I'll admit I was kinda surprised at the verdict in the Castile case. I wondered what the jury was presented with that the general public did not know about. Here it is:

You see the three times that Castile was asked to not reach in his pocket before officer Yanez even unholstered his weapon? That's called reasonable doubt. As soon as the first request to not reach was made, Castile should have stopped moving. In fact, Once he announced that he had a gun he should have asked the officer how he wanted to proceed.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

This Wouldn't Pass The Jury Duty Test

This investigation of Trump has reached epic proportions of foolishness. I have been critical of so called "special prosecutors" and the like since I cast a questioning eye on what happened to Bill Clinton. For those not old enough (or informed enough), Ken Star was appointed as a special prosecutor or independent investigator due to the alleged illegalities involving Whitewater. In that case there was a Savings and Loans investigation in which the Clintons were seen as witnesses. Whatever you may think of the Clintons, there was at least the cover of an actual criminal proceeding of actual criminal acts by somebody. The problem was that Bill Clinton was impeached not because of an actual finding related to Whitewater but because Bill lied when asked about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This is the problematic part.

Why was there even a question about Bill and Monica? What bearing did it have on Whitewater? None. The Whitewater investigation was allowed to grow in scope way beyond it's intent and became a means of hurting a president that Republicans didn't like.

Today we have a far more blatant and brazen act of political assassination. Democrats and Never Trump Republicans have made it clear they want Trump out of office. In sane times such blatant partisanship would sink any so called "independent investigation" because such partisans cannot be trusted to act objectively. If we recall, this entire "investigation" started out as investigation into Russia interference but has now morphed into "obstruction of justice". How you can claim obstruction of justice when there is no criminal investigation (or civil investigation) ongoing in which someone has been properly served is beyond me.

Of course the claim is that by firing Comey, Trump "obstructed justice" because Comey was investigating Russia. Lets take the argument on it's face. If a District Attorney decides to not prosecute a criminal case against a suspect, is that obstruction of justice? If a State's Attorney tells his underlings to not press a case against an individual and to drop charges, is that obstruction of justice or is that the person using their legal powers of discretion? If it is use of legal powers of discretion, then Trump has not "obstructed justice". Trump, as chief executive has the power to ultimately decide who in the justice dept. does what. Congress of course is free to to whatever it wants under it's own constitutionally provided powers. But this is not even the worst of it.

Those of us who have done jury duty knows that when we are subject to questioning to get onto a jury we are asked many questions. The purpose of these questions is generally to weed out those who may be prejudiced for or against the parties involved. So for example, if the case involves a police officer and you are married to a police officer it is likely you will be removed from the jury pool. It's not that you're a bad person, it's just that the court has to eliminate even the appearance of prejudice. We know that Comey used his "memo" (which, as of this writing has not been delivered to congress) in order to get an investigation of Trump started. This is a clear partisan motive. This very statement is reason enough to have this farce stopped immediately. This is clearly not about alleged criminal activity, it is about politics.

Worse though the people involved in the investigation have ties to Hillary Clinton and the DNC. If this was a potential jury, these people would be removed. Again, this doesn't mean they are bad people. This doesn't mean they are incompetent. This means it looks bad and when it comes to investigations the investigators shouldn't have any kind of appearance to "have it in" for the target.

But speaking of obstruction of justice, why hasn't such charges been leveled at Clinton? We know that she purposely had data removed from phones and servers. THAT is obstruction. This is on top of the removal of classified information from govt. servers. Comey himself said that she was negligent. Negligence is covered under the relevant statute. If Trump can be merely investigated for exercising his lawful power to fire the head of the FBI for any reason he chooses. Hillary should be in jail right now and Lynch should be cooling her heels in there with her.

But again this is something we would expect in a sane world and sane government. But we don't have that.

Monday, June 19, 2017

Because That's The Mission?

Saw this at UNZ:
To many students, the announcement amounts to cultural sterilization, an effort to turn the most interesting, diverse, and accepting dorm into another haven for aspiring doctors and engineers.
I dunno, but isn't the purpose of going to MIT to be a doctor (medical or other) and/or engineer? It's almost as if a growing portion of the current student body (and faculty) think the purpose of these schools is to be one big self-esteem booster by allowing and and everything left of right to be done.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

What Did Obama Know And When Did He Know It?

So yesterday I saw a report on Arstechnica that stated:
The scope of the attacks was so broad, Bloomberg reports, that in October of 2016, then-President Barack Obama directly called Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin on the "cyber-hotline." The cyber-hotline "red phone" was set up in 2013 by Obama and Putin as part of an effort to reduce the risk of a "cyber incident" escalating; Obama used it to present evidence of the attacks and warn Putin that the intrusions could trigger a larger conflict between the US and Russia.
Now this, if true is a big deal. Therefore we MUST go to the original Bloomberg article.
In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter.
That idea would obsess the Obama White House throughout the summer and fall of 2016, outweighing worries over the DNC hack and private Democratic campaign emails given to Wikileaks and other outlets, according to one of the people familiar with those conversations.

After the Obama administration transmitted its documents and Russia asked for more information, the hackers’ work continued. According to the leaked NSA document, hackers working for Russian military intelligence were trying to take over the computers of 122 local election officials just days before the Nov. 8 election. [my underlines]

So according to this reporting, as soon as July of 2016 and as late as "days before" Nov 8, the Obama administration apparently KNEW of "Russian hacking". What did Obama tell the public during this time?

Here's Obama on August of 2016:

Obama ridiculed Donald Trump's recent suggestion that the election system could be rigged, called on the candidate to act like a president since he's soon to be briefed on confidential information and implied that he didn't believe the billionaire businessman could be trusted with America's nuclear codes...

Of course the election won't be rigged. What does that mean?" Obama said, struggling to disguise his contempt. "If Mr. Trump is suggesting that there is a conspiracy theory that is propagated across the country, including in places like Texas where typically it is not Democrats who are in charge of voting booths, that's ridiculous. That doesn't make any sense."

Did Obama or anyone else know, in AUGUST about this alleged Russian activity? Lets' assume he did not. Lets move forward.

Here's a report from the NY Times dated Oct 18 2016:

At a news conference in the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said, “I have never seen in my lifetime, or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place.”.. fell to Mr. Obama to rebut Mr. Trump’s assertions. The president did so with obvious relish.

There is no evidence, he said, that a presidential election has ever been rigged. He said there was little indication that it could be, given that elections are run by state and local authorities, with people from both parties supervising polling sites and ballot counting.

Mind you Obama was referencing charges that internal election rigging could occur, BUT Obama said directly that "there is no evidence of a presidential election ever being rigged and that there was "little indication that it could be"

Well this is either a flat out lie or Obama did not know at this time of the alleged Russian hacking.

Here's a later report from after the election:

“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” it added...

The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials that they did not see “any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day.” The administration said it remained “confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was borne out.” It added: “As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective.”

We know this is after Obama phoned The Kremlin, because Bloomberg says so. So Obama is purposely not telling the public what he allegedly knows. Why? The reason given back then was that to discuss the scope of what they "knew" would have influenced the election. Now I suppose the argument is that publishing this information helps to depose Trump who was elected under what they told the public was a fair election.

Now personally I'm not buying into the entire Russian hackers argument. We already know that intelligence agencies can and do create code and mount operations that look like some other agency. I also believe that Putin is using this US "own goal" of public discrediting of their own election to bolster his own image. The elected officials in Washington and elsewhere, both Republican and Democrat are doing far more damage to the US "democracy" [sic] with their so called "resistance" than anything Putin could have dreamed up while high on LSD.

Monday, June 12, 2017

A Time To Rethink

If you have followed this blog from its inception (a very long time ago), you will note that I used to be left of center. I'm probably still a bit left of center but consistently test as a moderate. These days, to be moderate is to be considered a Nazi. I don't exaggerate. In some cases I had changes of positions. Why? Because I decided to be honest and challenge the things I believed. That is, I looked at the data and realized that the things I believed were simply not supported by the facts. I could not in good conscience continue to advocate for things I knew to not be the case just because said evidence was "bad" for black people. Furthermore, I could not simply be silent on the matter(s). Understand, there are a lot of people who know full well that their ideologies are based on bullshit and rather than be honest, they simply stop speaking on the subject and hope nobody notices. This is particularly the case when people are PAID to believe in and speak on the thing they know to be bullshit. I think the the professors at Evergreen are at such a crossroads. A second (only 2 eh?) professor has spoken out and I want to look at that:
My most rewarding teaching experiences have been when my mostly left leaning students have prompted me to examine my own views on controversial issues.
This is a serious problem IMO. In my opinion it is teachers that should be prompting their students to examine their own views on controversial issues. If teachers, particularly at a supposed institution of higher education, are being challenged by their students, rather than by their peers, then I think there is a problem here. While new students will bring in ideas and experiences because they live in a different generation and time, the bedrock principles shouldn't be challenging.
I would like to think that students have also benefited from being exposed to the occasional “redneck” perspective in the classroom and on field trips.
You would think but clearly for a significant population of students and faculty/staff have not benefitted from such exposure. I would hazard to guess that because these contacts are relatively brief rather than something they have to live with. I would hazard to guess that for a lot of these students, dealing with the rednecks are considered "oh here we go with THOSE people today" kind of attitude.
Many of the farms we visited were my clients, who always looked forward to the annual visits by Evergreen’s “strangely dressed students with piercings and tattoos” that seemed to be much more inquisitive and insightful than their land-grant university counterparts.
I have worked on farms and dealt with "country folk". They are generally quite welcoming of people and generally friendly. They respect people who are competent, even if they are "strange" and are generally not two faced.
I believed that I had found the antidote to the ever increasing disease of polarization and identity politics that has been dividing our rural and urban populations.

Now Evergreen has taken from me the medicine needed to cure the illness.

You thought. I wonder, has this person not noticed the changes that were going on before then? Is he implying that the students just woke up one day feeling like everything is racist? And if the students could wake up in such a way how did Evergreen take the medicine away? I think Everygreen itself is a part of the problem.
the college is now contributing to the vilification, paranoia and irrational rhetoric that fuels hatred and violence. The antidote has now become toxic.
I agree that the college is contributing to vilification and paranoia but I believe that the college has been systematically and structurally creating students and faculty who vilify and create paranoia. This stuff doesn't happen overnight.
It is about a collection of professors that are so blinded by their advocacy, that they cannot fathom different viewpoints.
No, this collection of professors who passed "go", collected their $200 and are now persons who indoctrinate. Their letter shows that they are not interested in discussion or scholarship, they wish to pronounce what is and isn't acceptable and punish those who refuse to stay in line.
I recently met with a student who was angry that she was told to shut up at a student rally, based solely on the amount of pigment in her skin. She did not comply, and was called a racist. I asked her if this bothered her. She said: “No, because I am not racist.”
It should bother her. In fact, that is why she was angry. Faculty and Staff and admin of Evergreen should find it unacceptable that they are graduating students who think that the appropriate response to trying to stifle dissent is to call someone racist. Seriously.
To the faculty, too afraid to speak out: I urge you to walk toward the fire. After all, if this brave student is a bigot, then I guess I am too. They are just words. You will not lose your job, but you might lose your dignity.
Evergreen should be bothered that they have created a climate in which faculty and staff, who should be the adults in the room, are afraid to speak freely. And again, this did not happen overnight. I guarantee that this is a culmination of slowly eroding right of free speech. And yes, unless the faculty are tenured they very much risk losing their jobs. Staff members have even less protections than teaching faculty.
This morning was the first time that I was actually nervous coming to campus. Not because of threats of white supremacists, but because I was worried that someone on campus would think that I might be one of them.
You know, maybe, just maybe so called "white supremacists" are not the real and immediate problem.

Thursday, June 01, 2017

Newest Data on Egyptians

So there has been a report in the journal Nature on the genetic makeup of some mummified remains in a part of Egypt. Not a few commentators have been using this report to assert that Egyptians were white, some to the extent of “nordic”. However; those of us familiar with Egypt wouldn’t be surprised by the findings in Nature. Let’s discuss. First we have this in the abstract which is important:
in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies.
This is well known, even among the pro-black “hotep” crowd. No one has ever claimed that Egypt was 100% black with absolutely no one else living there. Indeed Egypt was the place to be during it’s time so we expect to find all kinds of people there.
The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. 
It is important to note here that Egypts ages are broken up into Old Kingdom, Middle kingdom, New Kingdom and then Roman period. The remains discussed in the piece are from the last period of Egypts history. To put this into context, imagine that in the year 6000 someone dug up remains of the US and found the population of 1990s Harlem, NYC and asserted from those findings that NY and indeed the entire United States were typically African.


Secondly, the geographic location puts these individuals in Middle Egypt and closer to the delta region rather than upper Egypt. This is important since one would expect that Egyptians in upper Egypt would/could be more like the persons in Nubia and Ethiopia rather than those closest to the sea and Arabia (which was a part of ancient Egypt at points in it’s history). Hence I find the following statement suspect:

Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times.
Rather it should say “ancient Egyptians in the middle region during the new kingdom...” because that is what they studied.

First a quick primer on Egypt. Egypts Old Kingdom is the age of the Pyramids (2613-2180) BCE.

Secondly Upper Egypt

is quite close to Nubia and is in what we now call Sudan (The black land). I’m quite certain that no one considers the Sudanese to be European by any stretch of the imagination. One cannot discuss the genetic make up of “ancient Egyptians” and not discuss upper Egypt.

We can see from the article that the mummies are located far away from upper Egypt (Luxor for reference in Upper Egypt)

So we can argue that not only is this set of mummies not representative geographically, but also chronologically.

I want to stress here that I am not discussing or critiquing specific DNA results or techniques. I am wholly unqualified to do so. This is an argument about representation. I will say however, that the “discovery” that Yorubas are not represented in the gene pool of these mummies puts the last nail in the coffin of those persons who like to claim that West Africans are somehow the descended of some “Asiatic black man”. Enough of that nonsense. Carrying on:

The archaeological site Abusir el-Meleq was inhabited from at least 3250BCE until about 700CE and was of great religious significance because of its active cult to Osiris, the god of the dead, which made it an attractive burial site for centuries2.
This means that the area was inhabited by persons prior to the unification of the two lands under Menes. This also means that the mummies under study were no earlier than 1550 BCE. A nearly 2000 years after the unified Egypt came into existence. Again, I would ask whether we would see the current population of America and state with any sanity that because we see all these different races of people here now, that it must have been that way in 1776. Indeed the authors themselves state as much:
 However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made. [my underlines]
Many reviewers apparently missed this point. Also:
Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55
Which is what I have been saying from the beginning.

I believe what we have here is twofold:

1) The writers themselves used language that implied that Egyptians were not “Africans”. Indeed by the accompanying charts their claim appears to be that they are using the term “sub-Saharan African” to mean “West and South African” genotypes. Which none of us should be expecting.

2) Writers, particularly those with rightward affinities and perhaps white identitarian types, didn’t read the actual Nature article or did not understand what they were reading and thought the study was representative of the entirety of ancient Egypt.

I’m also going to suppose that not a few black outlets will not report on this article because they think it says what it doesn’t. That or there will be an attempt to dismiss the article as a whitewash. Such head burying will help nobody.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

The Moment You Realize Liberals Have More In Common With ISIS

< I saw a lot of stuff from the right that I considered even racist when Obama was running and elected. But the things I have witnessed from the time Trump announced until yesterday I never thought possible. But now I completely understand just where liberals stand.

I'm all for free speech and actually don't think the secret service should be involved. But for any patriotic citizenry that respects the office of president, Griffith should be a complete persona non-gratis anywhere she attempts to be that is not her private property.

And not only because of the disrespect of the sitting president. No, the raising of the head in the style of ISIS, who have killed people and shown their heads in the same manner, is an insult to all civilized people and victims of ISIS.

Monday, May 29, 2017

The Teachers Leave Because...?

A tale of narrative collapse within a single article. First we have the bait:
Nearly 200 teachers have quit their jobs in D.C. Public Schools since the school year began, forcing principals to scramble to cover their classes with substitutes and depriving many students of quality instruction in critical subjects.
See the teachers are quitting and depriving the students of quality instruction. See the setup. See the first thing I asked is: Why would a teacher up and quit in the middle of a school year? Of all the times that is the worst. There must be something very wrong going on to cause them to make such a decision. Well, 16 paragraphs later you find the reason:
Several former Ballou teachers told The Post they did not want to leave mid-year and felt bad about the consequences for students. But they said a number of problems drove them to leave,from student behavior and attendance issues to their own perception of a ack of support from the administration. They also raised questions about evaluations. Some veterans said that in previous years they had received high marks from administrators, but this year they were given what they believe are arbitrarily low evaluation scores. [my underlines]
So we have a trifecta of issues: If teachers are leaving in the middle of the school year then these three problems must REALLY be a problem. And if these three problems are THAT bad then who or WHAT is really "depriving many students of quality instruction"? Could the case really be that the student [mis]behavior, poor attendance and silly lefty "disciplinary" policies the real reason for that. I mean if you were subject to this:

How long would you stay?

Right. Carrying on:

Langford said she asked administrators for help with behavior problems in her classroom — but didn’t get it.

Her classes were large. One had more than 33 students. She said the students were very far behind and lacked the foundation needed to be successful.

“A lot of them felt really discouraged about math and used other methods to lash out,” Langford said. “I couldn’t address those problems they were having on my own.”

So again. It's not the teacher's fault. The students are out of control and the administration is too worried about being called racist. The students are ill-prepared many because they were socially promoted or given sympathy grades.
Langford said she threatened to quit two months into the school year but was hopeful she would get support to manage her classroom. She said nothing changed. In January, she decided to quit.
See, colleges can sell all the utopia bullshit they want to their naive students. They can call people like me "sellout" and "uncle tom" all they want, but when people are hit with reality it comes reallllllllll quick. 2 months and she was "fin to leave".
Ballou has about 930 students, and all qualify for free or reduced-price lunch because they live in poverty. Many come from homes where their parents didn’t go to college. The school ranks among the city’s lowest-performing high schools on core measures. Its graduation rate in the last school year, 57 percent, was second-lowest among regular high schools in the DCPS system.
Let me say this, parents not having gone to college is not an excuse. It is about expectations. Period.
“Students simply roam the halls because they know that there is no one present in their assigned classroom to provide them with an education,” Brokenborough said. “Many of them have simply lost hope.”
I call bullshit. I bet a lot of these students were roaming the halls when the teachers were there. Besides why are students roaming the hall? When I was in high school one could not be in the hall while class was in session without a hall pass.

This also shows how unprepared these students are for college. Why not still go to class and, I don't know, study the material you have to cover? What, you only study if you have too? Oh OK.

Iyonna Jones, an 18-year-old senior, said in one of the letters that security guards tell the students lingering in hallways to go to class, but she has a substitute teacher in her math class and doesn’t feel she is getting the instruction she needs.
Let me share a story. In jr high school we had a substitute teacher who basically tried the take attendance and do nothing tactic. We took it for about a week. Then we complained to the higher ups. We actually demanded that she teach us out material or they find someone who would. She was replaced shortly. Yes, she was a bad sub. They exist. But students (and parents) can and should do more. But if a class is unmanageable due to ill behavior, you cannot blame the teacher.

Who's Jobs?

So I was reading about the guy in Portland who stabbed up a two men who objected to the verbal harassment of two Muslims on a train. The article showed that he was a Bernie Sanders supporter and has images of many of his Facebook posts. I want to discuss one of them:

That last one: give people back their jobs. "Their jobs". As if employees somehow own the jobs for which they were employed to do. No. A person owns their labour as it is the production of their bodies. Since slavery is not legal, no one can be compelled to give away their bodies and therefore their labour (with due recognition of 13th amendment exceptions). That is all a person owns. Said person can choose to sell his labour to other persons. Said person can decide to sell the product of their labour (goods) to other persons. Said person, if they have enough capital may decide to labour for themselves to increase that capital (ie: advantaged gambling). A lot of people do not understand that the entity that "owns" a job is a business. I will refer the reader to Rich Dad Poor Dad where the author shows that an employee is one who "has a job" and a self-employed person who "owns a job". The image above imagines that most Americans are self-employed and "own" a job when they actually just "have a job". That is, they are selling their labour for a wage. When the wage-giver no longer needs the labour, they can end the job. After all THEY own it.

This is, of course, a relatively new thing. Before mass industrialization, the vast majority of people were owners of their jobs. Most people engaged in farming or some skilled trade such as iron working and carpentry. In a more modern America you got people such as electricians, mechanics, and the like. But as industrialization swept the western world people shifted from self-employment (owning their jobs) to working for some corporation.

With the rise of automation, many people are slowly waking up to the fact that they do not own jobs. A machine can do your job and doesn't require a salary or any benefits. As machines get better and better, more humans will find themselves displaced from the labour market. And please understand that "labour market" means a [super]market where people offer their labour, people are NOT offering jobs because they do not own a job.

This is why it is misguided to hate on "rich" people. You'll note that many governments that "nationalized" businesses in the name of "owning the means of production" thought they owned some magic "job". Then later when the business fails, the people riot. Why? because the govt. didn't create the job.

The rich create businesses. More accurately they create systems. The business is a physical manifestation of said system. The system requires x amount of labour (the jobs). So jobs are a product of the system. Too many people think that jobs just magically appear on the internet job sites. No, they are the product of someone taking a significant risk to finance a system. If a system can run without the creation of "jobs", it will not produce any. You may want to sell your labour to said system, but no system is required to hire you.

To repeat: You do not own a job. It is not "yours".

This is why though I sympathize with the $15/hour movement, I see it as a long term loser. All this does for the long term is lead the actual job owners to seek to lower the cost of the "jobs". Companies are already responding to these pressures and it will only accelerate.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Stop Rolling Over For The Islamic Bully

Let me tell you a story from my past life:

I used to have a nasty, snap of the finger temper. At some point around age 9 something in my head clicked and it stopped. Mind you I still have a temper, it simply is not hair trigger anymore. Due to this change in behavior I began to tolerate a lot of shit. A lot. This peaked in high school where I became a regular victim of bullying in the school cafeteria.

No, this is not a woe is me story.

I dreaded going to the cafeteria and not just because of the food. Every day I would have food thrown at me. Beef patties, milk in and out of their cartons, Pizza and the occasional fruit. All sat through this and took it for months. Violence was "wrong" and I didn't want to risk my education (and my life) getting into it. Besides there were 3 or 4 of them and one of me. So I just kept my head low and hoped that that they would get bored.

On occasion I would go to the library, partially because there was a girl in there I liked very much but was too chicken shit to speak to (a whole other story but being scared in one part of your life usually shows up in others. Just saying). But I still had to go to the cafeteria. And then it happened. The one beef patty too much flew through the air and hit me.

That was the day I stood up, went over to my tormentors and let them know that someone was going to get dead the next time such an event happened. And believe me, this wasn't a suggestion. At that point I was actually prepared to put someone permanently into the ground the next time this happened.

I don't know whether it was the look in my eye or what but after that there was no more food throwing. A lot of other bullshit stopped too. Oh and I finally spoke to the cute girl on the library.

Here's the point. Muslims in Europe are the food throwers of this story. So long as they are tolerated, they will continue to behave in the way that they are. The only thing that will stop them is the very real guarantee of overwhelming violence in return for any more "activities". This is the only thing bullies understand. Either you are a compliant/easy mark or you are something or someone to be avoided at all costs. Right now Europe is the easy and compliant mark. They are doing everything wrong. They are Sharia compliant.

They harass their citizens when they speak out asking for the state to do it's job. They jail citizens who speak ill of Islam. They censor their own people and culture so that the bully may rape their children, take over ever increasing areas of their lands and threaten their very way of life. Citizens in the UK must now tolerate the Army wandering around their neighborhoods because "diversity" and "terrorism" is something they must accept in "modern" England.

When foodstuffs were being thrown at me for months on end, not a single person lifted a finger to help me. Nobody stood up for me. I was the loser who was laughed at for allowing myself to be a victim. This is what is happening around the world. the UK (and indeed much of western Europe) is the laughing stock of the Islamic world. Why? Because no self respecting Muslim would allow what is happening to the English to happen to their people why a foreign agent.

It is not to late for the UK (and France) to do what is necessary but the longer they wait, the longer they continue to roll over for the Islamic bully, the harder the solutions become to execute.

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.


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.


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: 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?

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".


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?

Sunday, April 16, 2017

The Real Reason Black Kids are Failing In School

This is a play on the opinion piece that showed up in the NYT entitled "The Real Reason Black Kids Benefit From Black Teachers". This piece of agitprop is the typical liberal stuff seen in the NYT. I'm in no way arguing against black teachers teaching black students; I'm all for it. The problem, once again is the liberal ideas that are the problem. In a previous piece I showed the completely racist concepts that are being taught to new teachers:
So lets be clear. Hackman is saying that it is white or "acting white" if one is "honest, hardworking disciplined, rigorous and successful." Therefore to be non-white is to be dishonest, lazy, undisciplined, lax and generally a failure. Moreover to be black is to be emotional ("How you're doing") and to not be able to master the language.
This NYT opinion piece is yet another example of the belief that black children, indeed black people, simply cannot be expected to live up to the standards expected of other people:
Still, we live in a world of zero-tolerance policies, where students are kicked out of class for the “insubordination” of refusing to move to a different desk or for drinking juice, and where everyday misbehavior can elicit a call to the authorities. I find myself wondering, have the adults responsible never wanted to sit near their friends? Did they not drink juice in high school? Can they not see younger versions of themselves in our kids?
Indeed it IS insubordination for a student to refuse to comply with an adult's instruction. This used to be something understood by black people. Used to be called "respecting your elders". If a teachers says, move to x,y or z location, you go to x,y or z location whether you liked it or not. I don't want the black teacher who wrote this to be anywhere near my children and you shouldn't either.

And while I agree that there are completely ridiculous calls for police for things that shouldn't even be seen as bad behavior such as male child making a gun with his fingers. As many reports can be seen, the behaviors that are precipitating police calls are often straight up violence directed not only at other students but against teachers.

Part of the purpose of teachers is to get students to understand submission to authority. This is supposed to enhance this lesson from the home. When a student is disrespectful of a teacher, it is to be considered disrespect to the parents as well. I know when I was growing up, there was no way I could disrespect a teacher and expect my mother to defend my disrespectful behavior (which is something we see in schools now).

I recently saw a discussion where an African-American was complaining about all the Africans being recruited to colleges with a corresponding drop in "slave ship" black enrollment. One of the major reasons for this is simply that African and Caribbean blacks generally still have the cultural "don't shame us with your behavior" rules intact. This leads to greater scholastic achievement among these groups. Maybe African-Americans need to get off the Black Lives Matter wagon and get on the "why didn't you do what you were told?" wagon.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Sean Spicer's Gas

Yesterday the usual suspects wet their panties as Sean Spicer made a historically correct but badly worded comparison between WW2 Germany and the current civil war in Syria. The usual suspects went on to claim that Spicer was denying the holocaust (he did no such thing) and that he should resign (or be fired) for his alleged trespass on the feelings of a certain powerful minority. As a result of this, people will continue to be miseducated as to WW2.

Lets get this out of the way. In WW1 the warring parties discovered a potent use for chemicals. They could release various gasses in a battle field and the enemy would essentially suffocate to death. No armaments needed. No risk of lives (except for a change in wind direction). The results were so abhorrent to the parties involved that it was decided that gas would not be used in any future conflict between these parties.

Indeed when WW2 started the British, for example, deployed gas masks to it's people because it feared that the Germans would not live up to their end of the deal. History shows that Nazi Germany, for all it's faults, did not use chemical arms during it's war. The prevailing wisdom is that they did not want to be attacked that way.

This is what Sean Spicer was referring to. Syria is in the midst of a war. It has allegedly used chemical weapons against those in open warfare against the government. The closest German analogy that could be made is if jews in Germany had picked up arms, en mass, against the state and were gassed in retaliation. We know that no such thing happened. Jews were indeed gassed by Germans when they were taken to various camps. But that was not a part of the war. That was Nazis being Nazis. War or no war Jews were headed for a bad end in Germany.

Assad may not be the most likable figure but he did not come to power or stay in power by spraying chemicals on various outgroups like say Saddam Hussein did (with the US's full knowledge). Furthermore, while the usual suspects are panty wetting over Sean Spicer's comments. Various ISIS affiliated groups have indeed gassed various non-Muslim groups and engaged in ethnic/religious cleansing with a fervor matching the Reich, if not it's industrial level and we can't even get a moratorium on letting people from such regions immigrating to the US

Strange isn't it.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Friday, April 07, 2017

How To Justify An Invasion 2.0

Back in 2013 I wrote:
First you make an announcement that "chemical weapons use" is the "red line":
This has the effect of letting all opposition parties know exactly how to get the US involved. Then, SURPRISE, someone decides to announce that Syria has used chemical weapons:
'Cause as the election of Obama has clearly shown, Liberals are down with imperialism and intervention and regime change so long as it's on "liberal" terms.
And check. Oh what are the "liberal terms"?

See the dead babies. So the only thing I missed back in 2013 was actual blatant military force as opposed to merely "supplying" rebels.

Now last time it was shown in many outlets that the gas attack ascribed to Assad was actually committed by one of the Al-Qaeda aligned groups. Given that the media got the initial story wrong last time, you would think that the second time there might be a call for cooler heads and an investigation. Last night showed that wasn't on the table.

There are obvious questions about this gas attack first among them is "who benefits"? One should ALWAYS ask "who benefits" when something like this happens. Lets look at Assad. It is widely agreed that Assad has been gaining ground against the various ISIS aligned groups trying to take over Syria. To what benefit does Assad gain from using gas in a fight he's winning knowing it will bring international attention of the negative sort to him AND his allies?

The media's answer to this as far as I can tell is that Assad, believing that Trump meant it when he said "I have no interest in being the president of the world" and that he has no interest in involving the US [further] in Syria, could use gas against the population without consequence. This is similar to the Saddam invasion of Kuwait where it is believed he thought that the US would have no objection.

It's a plausible explanation, though it doesn't prove that he did the gassing. However, what supports this line of thinking is that unlike the previous gas hoax, this gassing was allegedly accompanied by aircraft (to which we have no video or radar proof). I do not believe any of the rebel groups have airplanes so this lends support to such a claim.

But the downside to this is that after the 2013 event, Russia put it's reputation on the line by essentially guaranteeing that all chemical weapon stockpiles owned by the Assad govt. would be collected and destroyed or removed. The use of gas by the Assad govt. would therefore shown that the Russians were incompetent, tricked (incompetent) or knew full well that Assad still had chemical agents to use.


There are ISIS/rebel sympathizers within the Assad military who were willing to false flag.

The former point looks bad for Russia. I have read conflicting reports that Russia was informed prior to the strike. If Russia was informed why didn't they (or did they) warn their ally? I have also read conflicting reports that Russians shot down a number of the incoming missiles. If this is the case then we have witnessed an actual shooting war between the US and Russia. Consider that. Anyway, if Russia was tricked by their ally in regards to chemical weapons, It stands that Russia would be very displeased with Assad and would probably been amendable to non-military actions against Assad since that would forestall a shooting war with the US.

In any case, the destruction of the airbase where the gas supposedly was flown from, means any real attempt at finding physical evidence is gone (how convenient) so all we have is speculation.

Moving on from the actual strike we have to deal with potential fallout. First, anyone who follows any of the larger "alt-right" persons and groups on the internet knows that they are NOT happy in the least bit. If these persons and groups remain unhappy, Trump has likely lost his re-election as of Thursday 11PM. Why? Because I honestly believe that it was the alt-right and those of similar interests who put Trump over the top in those states that went from Obama to Trump. Trump won due to increased white turnout in those states. By betraying one of his oft stated campaign commentary (not promise) he may have soured these people who thought they had elected someone who was a non-interventionalist.

Working in favor of Trump is that folks tend to have short memories and there is still 95% of his presidency to make up.

Assad may be more of a long term problem. Assad may yet go out like Ghaddafi. If that happens ISIS gets Syria. ISIS will not show it's appreciation of US help by recalling the Jihadis it has sent out to Europe. No. There will be more Jihadis going to or converting IN Europe. Even more of a long term problem is that Assad could simply decide to allow Jihadi's free exit from Syria to Europe (and elsewhere).

Lastly, operatives and organizations that want Trump to intervene in places now know which button to push to get him to do things he wasn't elected to do. This could probably be the biggest problem.

Thursday, April 06, 2017

Selective Standards and The Rice Claim

The media has been discussing Trump's comments about Susan Rice's "unmasking" of US persons (presumably including Trump and persons who associate with him) as possibly criminal. They have asserted that Trump has made "baseless" claims. Therefore Trump's claim should be taken with so many grains of salt. Normally I'd be OK with such an assertion. A allegation is just that, an allegation. Proof must be offered before we can say whether an allegation is true or not. Furthermore the object of the allegation should be given the assumption of innocence until such claims are backed up with evidence. The problem is that these same "high road" media were not so keen on dismissing allegations when the subject matter did not include Trump.

Of course the biggest one of recent memory was rape hoax of UVA. The media ran with this story for weeks even though the story had glaring red flags. Why? Because it "supported" the other great rape hoax of our age: The Campus Rape Epidemic. This epidemic does not exist and data from universities clearly contradicts such a claim, yet everyone from then president Obama on down repeated this claim.

Even more egregious is the fact that across the US, universities have created systems in which the rights of those accused of sexual assault (who are usually men) are stripped of their constitutional rights such as legal representation and presumption of innocence, and are often punished simply because someone (usually female) simply made an allegation.

If a random woman can point a finger at a man and claim he committed a crime and people support that then none of these people can have a problem with Trump pointing a finger at Susan Rice. But we know that none of this is about fair and equal treatment.

In regards to the actual issue at hand with Rice. The media is [once again] distracting the viewer/reader by trying to say that the accusation is that Rice unmasked AND leaked the information. That's not really what the evidence shows and I don't actually think that's what happened. What the evidence shows is that at some point last year someone decided that getting info on Trump was a good idea.Whether it was because they honestly thought that Trump has endangering national security or whether it was political we do not know. We do know that a FISA warrant was requested, denied and requested again. We know this.

We know that at some point someone unmasked US persons (this is likely Rice). We know for certain that at least one of these persons was Flynn. Thus far we also know that Flynn did nothing illegal during whatever conversations he was having or he would have been charged already.

We know that at someone's directive, information was either declassified or at least lowered in classification level so that a wider net of agencies or persons could access said information. Since certain US persons (including Flynn) were unmasked that meant a wider set of people now had access to these persons information.

We know that someone in this now widened circle leaked this information to the press. This person or group of persons committed a crime which is what ought to be investigated here.

The press took this information and used it's 1st Amendment cover to print it.

Now it is entirely possible that someone who had access before the information had been made available to a wider audience was responsible for the leak. This is something for the investigation to uncover.

We also know that in all the time that Trump and his associates were being monitored that there has been no illegal activity shown. If there had been it would have surfaced by now. This tells us that the whole Russia angle is a straw man meant to mislead the public so that the actual crime that we know happened (the leak) goes un-investigated until either the leaker dies mysteriously. Disappears mysteriously, has an accident that leaves them unable to recall or something along those lines.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Economic "Privilege" is not "White Privilege"

So this AM I was listening to the Steve Harvey show. This is a rare event. My iPod was dead so radio or road noise. So this woman calls in to talk about how when she moved to California she realized that "White privilege is real." I awaited to hear what event(s) transpired to make this woman come to this conclusion. Her example was that at a prestigious firm she worked for, she overheard an apparently very wealthy white man tell someone that he gave his son an option. He could use the college fund money for college or to fund a movie.

Chick was shocked that he could offer his child such an option.

That is NOT White privilege. That is economic privilege. There are many black millionaires who can make the same offer to any of their offspring if they so choose. Do you think that Oprah Winfrey's kid, if she had any, would be hurting for cash? Is Oprah white now?

P-Diddy, who's black the last time I saw, gave his son a Bentley for his birthday

Do you think P-Diddly's son is hurting for cash or doesn't have options?

This is what happens when black people buy into "White (Life is a crystal stair) Privilege" nonsense. Too many black people think that white people simply have shit fall into their laps, just because Less Melanin(tm). There is no doubt that a country with a majority white population is going to be geared to that population. There is no doubt that people tend to stick to their own. But that shit happens in China, Japan and Africa. Matter of fact, it's so bad in Africa that you gotta be the right kind of black (read tribalism) to get favors and "better" treatment.

For any and all racism I've experienced (and will experience), I'm way better off than the numbers of white homeless people I run by while I vacation in Miami Beach. My net worth is above the average of most white people in America and I'm black. Very much so thank you very much.

Too many black people like and live off seeing themselves of total victims. I don't. I see my circumstances as exponentially and logarithmically better than any of my ancestors who disembarked slave ships or lived under colonialism. I keep stuff in perspective. A lot of what black people THINK is white privilege is nothing but class differences. And to be frank, I don't hate on people who worked their asses off so that their kids can have options they didn't have (or did have and want to preserve).

And Y'all Are Still Talking About Pyramids

One of the things that happen when black folks get "conscious" is that they get Pyramid Struck(tm). Pyramid Struck is when, in order to boost one's self esteem in regards to race, you point out, at every moment possible that "we built pyramids!" Ahh, to bask in the knowledge that ones ancestors built admittedly impressive monuments that showed knowledge of mathematics and astronomy (some of these are in fact aligned with known stellar phenomenon). But the problem with being Pyramid Struck is that you're talking about something that happened back in 4000-2000BCE. This is 2017 CE. What. Have. You. Done. Recently?

I had been thinking of this phenomenon as I drove across a bridge and observed the replacement bridge being built along side it. I thought of all the knowledge and technological knowhow that goes into planning, constructing and maintaining a bridge of that magnitude. Today I saw a video on rebuilding an old automatic transmission as seen here:

Look at all those pieces. Now Mr. or Mrs. Pyramid Struck(tm) where is the African designed and built automatic transmission? Where's it at? It's time for black folks to stop being Pyramid Struck and start thinking as Garvey said: Anything any man has done you can do also. But if you don't (or can't) do so, then don't be surprised (or even mad) when people look down at you.