Monday, April 24, 2017
The events surrounding O'Reilly has made me think that unless things change segregation, particularly between sexes, will become common in American labour. I have no idea whether O'Reilly actually harassed any of the women that are accusing him of doing so, so this is not a defense of O'Reilly per se. From the blurbs I have heard thus far, no harassment has occurred. Now of course, I use the term harassment to describe unwanted behavior. And because I also require bad faith or bad intent on the part of the harasser, certain things, for me do not constitute harassment until the alleged harasser KNOWS that the behavior is unwanted. So for example, O'Reilly is said to have commented on a black woman's looks while exiting an elevator. The comment in question being "looking good." How that comment in and of itself is harassment is beyond me. Did this woman dress up for her job to NOT look good? Of course the operating premise here is that if a man whom a woman has no sexual interest in, dares speak to her or make an advance on her, he is harassing her whereas if it is a man she IS interested in, then it is NOT. So generally speaking harassment can fall into whether a woman likes or dislikes you. That's pretty dangerous for men and fertile ground for lawyers seeking rent. As soon as O'Reilly was fired, I predicted he would return in the form of a podcast or Sirius station. I was proven correct. This is what Anthony Cumia did and it worked out very well for him. In fact a good deal of men who cannot make a living in the minefield that is left wing HR staffed corporations, are turning to self employment (which is why the recent actions by YouTube is problematic). Indeed the workplace is becoming so unsafe for heterosexual men with testosterone levels above 0, that it is safest to simply not interact with women at the workplace at all. Again, all you have to do is see the example of "looking good". If a compliment can lead to HR actions, you sir, are fucked. I often joke with certain coworkers that I'll be reporting them to HR after they say a comment that runs afoul of the so called anti-harassment rules. This includes comments about my clothes, looks, marital status or presumed religious affiliation. I have absolutely no intent on reporting anybody, but I just keep a mental tally of just how often HR *could* have been notified and somebody reprimanded or fired. The figure is quite high. As a matter of fact, if an accusation was all that was required, at least half of my co-workers would be fired. I'm not joking. I'm talking discussions of dildos, S&M, cleavage, whistles and who could "get it". Seriously. In the interim I think that you're eventually going to see women's resume's heading to the round filing bin on the floor. This will be especially so with any woman with any gender studies degree or minor. Interviewers in the know will look out for key statements. These women will simply not get jobs. In places where these women make up a significant number of the workforce, particularly in tech, you will see walls go up between the men and women. Men with *significant* skills will either freelance or do as much "work from home" as is possible. On a related note, I think that the O'Reilly event underscores another point: Do Not Settle! This goes along with the do not apologize for stuff you've said unless you are absolutely sure you were wrong. Part of what brought down O'Reilly was that his accusers could say, "look at all those settlements, why would you settle unless you had something to hide?" Of course we know that companies often settle because it is less than the cost of litigation (particularly since it is highly unlikely the company can recoup legal costs from the plaintiff). On top of that the bad press is often not worth the effort. Thus a settlement is often not an indicator of guilt but rather a "convenient" way for the problem to go away. Here's the problem though. It seems that people who are under these agreements are talking. Personally I think those persons should be heavily sanctioned. If these settlements are going to become public and the entire point of limited media attention is gone, then we're left with the cost of litigation. I think it is best that these companies fight these charges wherever they appear to be false. Fire the bad actors, but if a complaint is, "someone called me hot chocolate" make them go to court. I for one am not awarding anybody shit for being called hot chocolate. This is what happened to Ellen Pao. Everyone on the left thought (and still thinks) she had an airtight sex discrimination suit. Then the testimony came out and it was nowhere as clear. She lost her case. The defendants should have bankrupted her for that. I would have. When such accusations are made, they are looking to rob. This is theft while wielding a weapon. That weapon is the court. Anyway, don't think there are not people out there saying, hmmm we can avoid sex/race discrimination complaints by not hiring... And if you, Black person find yourself the perpetual "spot" in a job, all those Black Lives Matter folks may be the reason why. After all, would you risk YOUR livelihood (your business) by hiring someone who is statistically likely to sue you at the drop of a perceived insult?
Sunday, April 16, 2017
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
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
Back in 2013 I wrote:
First you make an announcement that "chemical weapons use" is the "red line":Check.
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:Check.
'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. OR 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
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
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).
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.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
"I have family on both sides of the lens but I got a chance to see what happens with a citizen versus a police firsthand, and I have to tell you, I was scared for my life to the point where I could have acted different. And if acted different, something else would have happened to me," Jean told ABC News' "Good Morning America.”I suppose LAPD is no better than TonTon Macoute. But lets be real here. Wyclef is being a dramatic B.I.T.C.H. looking for drama and the press has given him a platform for his hysterics. Lets look at the report to see why any sane reporter should have challenged Mr Jean on his drama-queen behavior.
The episode started just after 1 a.m. Pacific time, when deputies were investigating a report that a man and a woman had been robbed at gunpoint and beaten at a Sunset Boulevard intersection.So the police got a call about a violent crime featuring a use of a firearm. So this is not a speeding ticket. This isn't expired registration. This isn't broken taillight. This is a looking for an armed suspect.
Sgt. Duncan said in a telephone interview that the suspect was described as a black man with a dark hoodie who fled in a gold or tan Toyota.Unfortunately a typical description of perps of violent crimes in urban areas. Don't hate me, hate the statistics. Wyclef needs to be MAD as hell about those statistics! Now we know that the police are looking for a black male in a hoodie, in a Toyota.
deputies pulled over a vehicle matching that description driven by a woman with a male passenger. When the man, who later turned out to be Mr. Jean, was seen wearing a red bandana, the victims, contacted by radio, said that the suspect had also been wearing one, Sgt. Duncan said.So police stopped a vehicle that matched the one seen at the alleged crime scene. With two passengers, which fits the profile, dressed in a manner that matches what the police were told. How is this "profiling"? It isn't. It's called police work.
Mr. Jean and the woman were told to get out of the car, and Mr. Jean was handcuffed and detained, Sgt. Duncan said. They were released when the victims said there was no female in the getaway car, and the three deputies and the sergeant at the location with Mr. Jean were also informed that the real suspect had been arrested elsewhere.The police had no choice but to behave as if the person they had stopped was the suspect. This means taking control of the situation and making sure that the suspect, believed to be armed, cannot draw their weapon. This means handcuffs. No it's not a nice thing to have happen. But that is what police do to protect themselves against criminals who may intend to kill them. Also of note, the "real" suspects were arrested not that far away from Wyclef. Which means that the police were doing their jobs in stopping vehicles that matched what they were told rather than some made up excuse to harass Mr. Jean.
Mr. Jean’s first tweet was posted at 4 a.m. Eastern, and was followed by a series of them describing what happened. Around 9 a.m., he summed up, “I was asked by the police to put my hands up. Then I was told do not move. I was instantly hand cuffed before being asked to identify myself.”Because police should do policing according to the policing expertise of Wyclef Jean. Right.
Mr. Jean’s descriptions about what happened to him were circulated on Twitter, with some remarking that it was an example of how quickly black men are treated as suspects in their encounters with law enforcement officers.Except of course the suspects were in fact black and therefore the police actions were completely justified. When is the media going to stop giving crybaby drama queen attention whore black folks platforms for their nonsense?
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Pat Buchanan asks the same questions I did in regards to the hearings:
How could DNI Director Clapper and CIA Director Morell say that no connection had been established between Trump’s campaign and the Russians, without there having been an investigation? And how could such an investigation be conclusive in exonerating Trump’s associateswithout some use of electronic surveillance?[ my underlines]This is the first thing I thought. They've been investigating Trump and co since July of 2016 and there wasn't any electronic surveillance of ANY KIND?
More questions arise. If, in its investigation of the Russian hacking and a Trump connection, the FBI did receive the fruits of some electronic surveillance of the Trump campaign, were Attorney General Loretta Lynch, White House aides or President Obama made aware of any such surveillance? Did any give a go-ahead to surveil the Trump associates? Comey would neither confirm nor deny that they did.Comey would neither confirm or deny. This is spook speak for "yeah we do but we cannot say due to legal issues". Comey was at other times willing to confirm or deny items. Therefor the ONLY reason to not confirm or deny something is because it IS the case (or NOT the case if that is relevant).
Again, the only known crimes committed by Americans during and after the campaign are the leaks of security secrets by agents of the intel community, colluding with the Fourth Estate, which uses the First Amendment to provide cover for criminal sources, whom they hail as “whistleblowers.” Indeed, if there was no surveillance of Trump of any kind, where did all these stories come from, which their reporters attributed to “intelligence sources”?Now I've seen these reports in various media outlets. They specifically mention FISA warrants and the like. Were these warrants asked about at any time? Side note, you have noticed that even though the following has been said:
“On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. … There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”Why are we still seeing "Russia ties and Russia hacks" new leads?
Monday, March 20, 2017
On occasion I get to look at the winners of various IQ dependent contests and note who is present and who is absent. For your consideration Pwn to Own:
Sunday, March 19, 2017
So I had the pleasure, extreme pleasure of watching Denzel and Viola do their thing in Fences. I personally think this was his best performance since Training Day. Yes, I know people think that Malcolm X was the highlight of Washington's career but I disagree. Now The Book of Eli was also a good Denzel film but this Fences was, in my opinion, Denzel's best performance. But this isn't an ode to Denzel. Rather the point of this post is a very poignant scene between Troy and his son which I think is relevant to black people today:
Cory: How come you ain’t never liked me? Troy: Liked you? Who the hell say I got to like you? What law is there say I got to like you? Wanna stand up in my face and ask a damn fool ass question like that. Talking about liking somebody. Come here boy, when I talk to you. .. Straighten up dammit! I asked you a question… what law is there say I got to like you? Cory: None. Troy: Well, all right then! Don’t you eat every day? (Pause) Answer me when I talk to you! Don’t you eat every day? Cory: Yeah Troy: Nigga, as long as you in my house, you put that sir on the end of it when you talk to me! Cory: Yes…sir Troy: You eat every day. Cory: Yessir! Troy: You got clothes on your back. Cory: Yessir. Troy: Why you think that is? Cory: Cause of you. Troy: Ah, hell I know its cause of me… but why do you think that is? Cory (hesitant): Cause you like me. Troy: like you? I go out of here every morning… bust my butt putting up with them crackers everyday… ‘cause I like you? You about the biggest fool I ever saw. (Pause) It’s my job, it’s my responsibility! You understand that? A man got to take care of his family. You live in my house, sleep on my bedclothes, fill your belly up on my food… cause you my son. You my flesh and blood. Not cause I like you! Cause it’s my duty to take care of you. I owe a responsibility to you! Let’s get this straight here, before it go along any further… I ain’t got to like you. Mr. Rand don’t give me my money come payday ‘cause he likes me. He gives me ‘cause he owes me. I done given you everything I had to give you. I gave you your life! Me and your mama worked that out between us. And liking your black ass wasn’t part of the bargain. Don’t you try and go through life worrying about if somebody like you or not. You best be making sure they doing right by you. You understand what I’m saying boy? Cory: Yessir[My underlines]This dialog just hit me. I see black people wandering around the US wanting to be liked. They think people need to do shit for them because they like them. And so if people are not doing shit for them, then they must not like them. I've said it many times here, that black people are seen as and treated as children. Just like Corey. Liberal white folk think it's their job to clothe us, feed us and put roofs over our heads. Indeed since most of our children are not even in homes with their fathers, the white man, in the form of the government, is The Man of the house in many of our homes. Too many people out here trying to be liked. So busy trying to be liked that they are getting taken advantage of by folks smiling in their faces.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Many people do not understand how a "pro black" Garveyite would be posting against BLM and things such as that. It's quite simple: Africa for the African, Asia for the Asian and Europe for the European. Simple. You should be comfortable and safe in your own homeland. Thus for anyone running around with Red Black and Green needs to be able to answer the following question:
Thursday, March 16, 2017
The time has come. Maybe even past due. Let me rewind first. In the infamous Dredd Scott decision the Supreme Court ruled that black people have no rights that white men (people) were bound to respect. Today Dredd Scott has been returned in whiteface. Today the American citizen has no rights that non-citizens are bound to respect. Let me repeat this: The American citizen has no rights that a non-citizen is bound to respect. Indeed not only do non-citizens have to abide by the law that is dutifully and zealously enforced against citizens but the ruling elites and their "judges" are in plain view in their seditious and treasonous activities because they are certain that there are no consequences for their behavior. With their gated communities, secret entrances and security personnel and technology along with the general law abiding nature of the very citizen they shit on, they do not fear the warranted exacting of justice that their treason calls for. As they say, incentives drive behavior. In the past, judges that made the kinds of decisions such as the ones we witnessed yesterday would have feared for their jobs if not their very lives. Today, insulated from such direct consequences, the "judges" of the day have free reign to willfully commit treason. And be clear. Treason is exactly what we are seeing. Bold and unfiltered. Trump's first travel ban was unlawfully blocked. I have already explained why in a previous post so I wont go into it again. Trump then revised the ban in order to comply with the ludicrous and wholly unconstitutional reasons given for the blocking of his original ban. Yet another set of "judges" decided that this "made for compliance" ban was also "unconstitutional". Herein shows why we are supposed to be a country of laws and not of men. It simply should not be possible for a executive order that is made in compliance with relevant congressional law to be blocked by a judge AND then again when the so-called "unlawful parts" are modified to address the alleged illegality. What this shows is that the bans have nothing to do with law but with the whims and caprices of whoever is looking at the order. This is law by man. Under the law, the best any of these judges could have done is said that they strongly oppose the ideology that Trump has in regards to Muslims or whomever but that the law is very clear (and it is) as to the powers given to the executive (and notice I say executive not Trump) to determine who may or may not enter the country for whatever reason. And that if the people don't like the law then they should get their representatives to pass another law to address their concerns. That is how the US democracy [is supposed] to work. The current situation is kind of like video games from back in the day where if you made a mistake you were forced to go back and play from the last checkpoint. A frustrating experience to be sure but those were the rules. Of course since players are impatient, game developers had to make it so that you could save any point in the game so that if you died due to a mistake you could just pick up from the last save point, which was usually much closer to point of death and not have to play through stuff you already mastered. Similarly these people don't want to trudge through the long democratic process and risk losing and having to go through all that again. So better to get to the last save point via a judge willing to be treasonous and keep having a go at the boss until they win. Back to the matter at hand though. You'll note that these judges and indeed the people who support them simply do not believe that the US is a sovereign nation that can include and exclude whomever. Indeed they do not see the US as they see their own private property (or leased). This is the fundamental problem. The disconnect if you will. The United States was founded on the Blackstonian idea of limited government, protections of the individual citizen against the power of the state and the principle of a man's house as his castle. I have found that liberals are either unfamiliar with Blackstone or English common law (a total failure of the educational system) and therefore do not understand the nature of nationalism (or if they do, they simply do not care...to a point). Simply stated, the English idea was that a man's castle was his. His rules apply in his house and the state couldn't just barge in there and do whatever it wanted. A community is a collection of men's castles. On the community level, no outsider can just walk in and do whatever they pleased. If one entered a community and offended the locals in some way, they could remove you and you have no appeal. While these communities generally had customs regarding strangers, strangers could not expect to change the fundamental cultures and folkways of that community. If they didn't like it, they could leave. Bye. You'll note that this collection of communities only works if they share a common set of values and customs. All throughout human history, wherever a community diverges in customs and values, they split apart and form new communities. A nation is a collection of communities which are collections of men's castles. Same rules apply simply on a larger geographic area. Again it must be understood that a nation has a set of values and customs that grow out of the communities that make it up. A nation cannot long exist where it's communities are fractured, with different values and customs and competing for national dominance. What liberals are doing is saying that the national castle doesn't exist. At the same time, if you tried to impose yourself on a liberal's individual castle you would likely find yourself arrested. Hence they have not made the connection between the nation as a greater community that is an expression of the "castles" within. Worse, though is that now the liberal sees itself as separate from or worse should dominate the "not liberal". Judges are supposed to be neutral agents in these conflicts. They are not supposed to be swayed by the why a law was passed and "intent" comes to play only when the letter of the law is in serious dispute. For example, speed limits on highways were imposed in the US for reasons of reducing gasoline consumption in response to the Arab oil embargo. Now states will claim that these limits are for safety. Can you imagine going to court to argue against a speeding ticket by stating that the "intent" of the law was for consumption and since my car gets xMPG relative to whatever the MPG was at the time of the passage of speed limits, that the ticket should be thrown out? Me neither. Do you even think you could make a safety argument like since the vehicle you are driving is 5x safer than when speed limits were imposed, that the safety argument is moot. Besides you had your seatbelt on, were indicating when changing lanes, and generally going with the speed of traffic so what was the safety hazard? No, me neither. Yet a "judge" decided to block a lawful executive order because of something Trump and/or his staffers said. This is what passes for jurisprudence these days? There is a saying that (paraphrasing) where justice is not evenly applied, the law abiding see no benefit in being so. And understand that we are currently in a low level civil war. States that are outright saying they will not cooperate with the federal government are in open rebellion. No different than 1861. Understand that the violence visited upon "non-liberals" at various institutions of "higher education" are the shots fired. The only question now is whether the troops are going to be deployed to "save the Union". Sessions has the AG job. It's time he stop pandering to them and blathering about Russia and wiretaps and get to work.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
The Federalist has a good rundown of the events at Middlebury. I would end up quoting the entire article as it underlines my previous commentary that university officials have essentially stopped running the show at universities. I will however point out one thing:
I assume the students who physically assaulted Stanger will be met with some kind of punishment, though it is hard to see that anything other than permanent expulsion would convey the right message. Be that as it may, the problem remains with the hundreds of students who gleefully ignored the college’s strictures on demonstrations and protests. The number is so large as to make the imposition of significant sanctions impossible. The better course is probably to impose that sanction on the administrator or administrators who allowed the situation to veer out of control. The next time a Middlebury president is faced with such a situation, he or she might have greater presence of mind.This is the "too many illegal immigrants to deport" argument. I don't buy it for illegal immigrants and I don't buy it for these "students". I put students in quotes because if universities are not breaking them of their anti-intellectualism, then they are not teaching, they are indoctrinating. It is of paramount importance that the administration make full examples of every student that can be identified. At a minimum they should be suspended with anyone involved in the assault permanently expelled with all loans due immediately with extortionate rates of interest. OK. Maybe that's extra but it should be clear to all prospective students parents that if their kid does this bullshit, it will cost them dearly I know that the fear of losing potential future students motivates many administrators and trustees to allow this nonsense but believe me, there are more students and parents willing to have a safe, rule enforced environment for their children than are given public/media attention. That suspensions and expulsions have not happened (or at least been publicized) shows that these colleges and universities still don't get it and it will not be long before the "deplorables" on campus will not allow themselves to be assaulted without response. When this occurs there will be massive lawsuits that the universities (and govt if publicly owned) will lose for they are establishing a pattern of neglect for the safety of students and faculty.
Tuesday, March 07, 2017
So I ran across this report this morning and had to discuss it because I'm certain it will show up on the left as "proof" of systemic bias against African-Americans by the justice [sic] system. lets get at it:
Teen. Since Blacks commit FAAAAAR more violent crimes than whites, particularly in large cities is it in any way surprising that when wrongful convictions occur that blacks would be overrepresented relative to their US population demographics? No. Not at all, except for people who don't know this. Going back to the paper:
African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated. They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in “group exonerations.”This is the great liberal "population demographic" argument. Since black people are 13% of the population they must be 13% of everything else, except where they are entertainers, where they should be well overrepresented. What this opener conveniently leaves out is that while African-Americans are 13% of the population they commit on average 7X the amount of murders than the white population. You would think that if one were to discuss the criminal justice system in any honest manner you would be sure to point out all relevant data. Now knowing that African-Americans commit 7X the amounts of simple murder lets look at their next statement that 47% of 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations are African-American. 47% of 1900 is 893 persons. How far back does this registry go back? It goes back to 1989. That's 28 years. that's 31 persons per year. While that is certainly 31 more people than should be wrongfully convicted (per year), it pales in comparison to those who have been arrested for ONLY murder and ONLY in NY City where in ONLY 2015 59% of 306 persons (180) arrested for murder were black. For whites it's 6.8% or 18. Eight.
Teen. Since Blacks commit FAAAAAR more violent crimes than whites, particularly in large cities is it in any way surprising that when wrongful convictions occur that blacks would be overrepresented relative to their US population demographics? No. Not at all, except for people who don't know this. Going back to the paper:
Judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people. A major cause of the high number of black murder exonerations is the high homicide rate in the black community—a tragedy that kills many African Americans and sends many others to prison. Innocent defendants who are falsely convicted and exonerated do not contribute to this high homicide rate. They— like the families of victims who are killed—are deeply harmed by murders committed by others.Well, 7x eh? I wonder why? Oh wait, discussed above.
African-American prisoners who are convicted of murder are about 50% more likely to be innocent than other convicted murderers. Part of that disparity is tied to the race of the victim. African Americans imprisoned for murder are more likely to be innocent if they were convicted of killing white victims. Only about 15% of murders by African Americans have white victims, but 31% of innocent African-American murder exonerees were convicted of killing white people.It's almost like whites don't care for people who kill their people. Shocking. But another thing we should note is that when interracial murder happens it is overwhelmingly black on white rather than the other way around. And given the OJ Simpson fiasco I would use the term "innocent" very carefully. Under US law a defendant has the presumption of innocence. The state must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so results in a "not guilty" determination. All that means, legally is that the state did not meet its burden, it doesn't mean that the defendant did not commit the crime. Nor does it mean that the defendant was not involved in the crime. A defendant may well have been involved in the crime but the state was unable to prove he (or she) "was the trigger man" due to lack of evidence. Thus it is improper for the authors to behave as if these exoneration statistics are evidence of targeting of black people for charges rather than innocent people caught up in high crime areas due to the criminal activities of their peers and neighbors.
Most wrongful convictions are never discovered. We have no direct measure of the number of all convictions of innocent murder defendants, but our best estimate suggests that they outnumber those we know about many times over. Judging from exonerations, half of those innocent murder defendants are African Americans.While I'm certain that most wrongful convictions are never discovered, kinda like male victims of domestic violence, it is pure speculation on the part of the authors to suggest that it is "many times". What the authors are attempting to do is cast doubt on the entirety of the justice system by implying that a statistically large number of people are wrongly convicted. As shown above, the data simply doesn't support such a contention. Even if the numbers were off by an order of magnitude, it would STILL pale in comparison to those properly arrested and convicted for crimes.
Assaults on white women by African-American men are a small minority of all sexual assaults in the United States, but they constitute half of sexual assaults with eyewitness misidentifications that led to exoneration. (The unreliability of cross-racial eyewitness identification also appears to have contributed to racial disparities in false convictions for other crimes, but to a lesser extent.)Again, like murder, rape is largely an intra-racial affair. However as data shows, when inter racial rape occurs, it is overwhelmingly black male as perpetrator. Going back to the NYPD stats, we see that whites were 18% of rape victims. However whites were only suspects 9.4% of the time and arrested 6.8 percent of the time. If only half the suspects of white rape victims are white, then who represents the other half? Non-whites of course. Half of the rapists of white women are non-white? That's rather large! Lastly the drug portion of the report contains a statement I find highly suspect:
In Harris County, Texas, however, there have been 133 exonerations in ordinary drug possession cases in the last few years. These are cases in which defendants pled guilty, and were exonerated after routine lab tests showed they were not carrying illegal drugs.How would a lab test show that a person was not carrying illegal drugs? A lab test can show that someone did or did not have a drug in their system but at the point of arrest a person either had drugs on their person or in the property that they were arrested in. There is no "lab test" that can determine that a bag of weed was on the floor or on a couch. it is clear that this report is front loaded with assumptions and presumptions about black people (perpetual victims) and the police (malevolent enforcers of racist laws). If they were interested in actual justice, meaning convictions for those who commit the crimes and predate on other black people as well as exonerating those wrongfully caught up in enforcement policies, they would not hide the crime data from the reader.
So Ben Carson spoke and caused a storm by referring to slaves as immigrants. In a strict "movement of people" sense it's not a completely wrong statements. But the problem is the larger conflation of people movements into the US and the social and political legacies of those movements. I have long argued that it is a mistake, historically and politically to conflate the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade (henceforth referred to as the Maafa) with any other concurrent and subsequent movement of peoples into the United States. The Maafa stands alone in US history as the movement of people as literal property from one geographic location to the US, with the stipulation that offspring of said property (odd thing that property could reproduce...)could maintain the status as property. Other groups that were brought to the US, even those who were indentured servants and treated in the same manner as African slaves (due exception for children), were voluntary. Furthermore, while persons who came to the US long after slavery was legally done with, came, voluntarily and retained relative advantages of not being Black and subject to the various laws that marginalized black citizens. For those who don't understand, this is where the "white privilege" argument comes from. There may indeed have been "No Irish" and whathaveyou signs and social policies in place against various non-black new arrivals, but when it came down to it, the Irish, etc. "became" white in the social racial hierarchy just as how in states like Virginia, native Americans were declared legally "black/colored". For those who don't understand, this is why there is a "social construct" of race, referred to in the US as the One Drop Rule, that is totally different from the scientific determination of races based on genetic traits which can be readily ascertained in a lab. But back to Carson's blunder. The real problem with Carson's statement is that it accepts the "we are all immigrants" line. The failure of black "leadership" to maintain the unique nature of the African presence in America is how other NAM (Non-Asian Minority) groups feed off the Black struggle and eventually marginalize not only founding black Americans but also the white founding populations. It should not need to be said that volunteering to leave one's country of origins to wander across a desert, risking bodily harm and death, to trespass on another nation is not the same as being captured (in whatever circumstances), sold as property and thrown onto a ship, fed near starvation diets and exposed to disease, disembarked and sold once again for the sole purpose of providing "free" labour to some plantation owner. It is the failure of black leadership to keep NAMs off our narrative that has allowed groups to leverage grievances to which they have no rights to at the expense of black folks. Thus this is the real problem with Carson's statement. We are not immigrants, we were property transformed into citizens by law who then had our rights and privileges as citizens trampled upon by other citizens. Our claims to redress is wholly different than that of anyone who volunteered to come here and certainly comes before any foreign national who wishes to come here.
Saturday, March 04, 2017
One of the reasons why I don't write in this space as much as I used to is because the daily bullshit has worn on me and I can think of many other things to do with my time than respond to every bit of nonsense I read about. I mean it's so bad now that I don't even watch the news except for local news. For example. I just had ABC Word News Tonight on for all of the time it took for the lead story. It was that Donald Trump accused Obama of wiretapping him. Ok. But not ONE mention of the black guy who had been arrested for making a number of anti-semitic calls that I have had to hear about nonstop all week. Not only had he made many of these threats but he was a Hillary supporter and had been fired for creating "news" out of whole cloth. Had this guy been a white Trump supporter it would be news all day every day for at least a week. But today's nonsense comes from The Independent, which is a "news" outlet that specializes in the most outrageous "liberal" bullshit. Today they posted the following
Actor Riz Ahmed has delivered an impassioned lecture expressing his views on the importance of diversity in the media and how failure to embrace it is pushing young people towards Isis.Really? This is insulting on the level of the co-worker of mine who, with a serious straight face told me that the reason black people kill each other is because they are feeling oppressed,including not seeing themselves on TV. As I stood there listening to him pontificate on why black people do x,y and z. It apparently never dawned on him that he was telling a black person about all the reasons I should have killed a few people, robbed a few people, be on welfare, etc. The fact that I, and millions of other similarly situated black people never committed a crime, ever (and that's the vast majority of us) never even made it into his all knowing mind. However, this "any excuse will do" mentality when it comes to non-white people, and it is ONLY applied to non-white people is hallmark leftism. Say Riz, what the fuck did Arabs do before TV? Oh right! Crusades and Jihads. No Riz, the reason why young Muslim men join up with ISIS is because they want to and believe in the call to Jihad against the infidel in Dar Al Gharb. It has nothing to do with diversity. This diversity call is nothing more than cover for infiltration and take over.
He continued: “If we don’t step up and tell a representative story... we are going to start losing British teenagers to the story that the next chapter in their lives is written with Isis in Syria."British teenagers are not joining ISIS unless they have accepted anti-native narratives. The children of foreigners to Britain on the other hand... These "excuse" narratives must be met head on wherever they appear as to expose the underlying inferiority ideology behind it.
Friday, March 03, 2017
Serious question. Let us look at what happened recently at MiddleBury College
Opening remarks were delivered by the College’s Vice President for Communications and Chief Marketing Officer Bill Burger, AEI Executive Board Member Ivan Valladares ’17 and Middlebury President Laurie L. Patton. AEI Co-President Alexander Khan ’17 introduced Murray. After Murray arrived at the podium, students began to protest. Approximately twenty minutes after the protest began, the College canceled the live event in Wilson Hall and decided to live stream a private conversation between Murray and Stanger. That live event will be made available through the College’s News Room.Side note. Murray went out of his way during a previous event to point out that he did not think Trump was fit to be president and generally did not care for the man. Despite that he STILL gets called a white supremacist. When will people understand that there is no pleasing the left? The left has constantly moving goalposts and the safe zone you were in today is foul territory the next. Simply refuse to play the game. Now that said, I will point out that there is a high probability that 99% of the persons doing the protesting had not read any of Murray's work. How do I know this? Because when I was on the left I blindly took the word of my "better educated" peers that the Bell Curve was racist and that it declared with "racist pseudoscience" that black people were inherently inferior to white people. Because of this, there was no need for me to actually read the book. I should trust that my peers knew what they were talking about and object whenever the book or person was mentioned in any kind of positive light. This is what we are dealing with. The worst part here is that such an attitude is apparently prevalent on a university campus where reading primary sources and doing research on ideas "good" or "bad" is supposed to be a requirement of education. When you have a mass of students who are protesting a presentation of someone's work whom they have not read it is a failure of the administration. Students entering an institution of "higher education" should be informed in no uncertain terms that while they have freedom of speech and congregation, they will be removed from campus for disrupting sanctioned events without appeal. To be fair, the first time should be warning, a second a semester suspension without refund of any fees and the third a lifetime expulsion from said institution. There are cameras all over campuses these days so it is easy to find out who has done what. Furthermore, institutions need to be purged of faculty and staff that encourage victim mentalities and disruptive events. Clearly things like tenure and academic freedom make for a tricky enforcement of such rules but the growing lawlessness on campuses demands that those abusing said privileges be checked. Getting back to Murray though. Once you have read The Bell Curve you realize that the primary subject of his work are white people of various economic backgrounds. His discussions of black people are relative to the data revealed by studying white folks. In other words, once he establishes that poor, low IQ white people are essentially up the creek without a paddle, then clearly black people who on average score even lower than whites are in even worse trouble. Also, never mind that Murray shows that high IQ black folk tend to out earn their white counterparts. Never mind all that. And besides if were saying that IQ tests are racist, then what we are saying, in no uncertain terms, is that there are things (like tests) that white people are better at than black people. Therefore admitting an inferiority. But as I discussed in yesterday's post, everyone thinks black people are stupid children so it comes as no surprised that the protesting idiots only serve their own belief in black inferiority. These protests to shut down dissenting views (aka: alternative facts) from being uttered should be a final warning to university officials across the nation. Either the university is a place of free exchange of information or it is not. If it is not then it is not a university but an indoctrination camp and people ought not spend money on indoctrination camps.
Thursday, March 02, 2017
There's a book called "Rage of a Privileged Class" which I haven't read but discusses the discrimination that black recipients of Affirmative Action feel. A recent post by The Audacious Epigone underscores some of this. To understand what I'm discussing you need to know that generally speaking the average IQ of whites is 100. Some writers, generally liberal, will attempt to show this as the average human IQ. It is not. Black Americans are generally 1 standard deviation below whites, with an average IQ of about 80-85. And for those who think that IQ is "white supremacist", Asians have an average IQ of 110 or so. It's a "neat trick" for white supremacists to invent a test that they get clobbered on, isn't it? Anyway. If you understand this you understand why, regardless of the amount of money and effort poured into "inner city" schools, test scores still lag (around the same SD). It is even known that accounting for income, generally speaking Black test scores of the highest income earners, on average are just about level of the average score of poverty stricken whites. 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:
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Anyone paying attention knows that the court system or justice system [sic] has been wandering out it's lane frequently of late. If the courts were a Tesla, every warning ding and light would be going off and perhaps the car would have pulled itself over and come to a stop. Market Ticker shares my concern about how bad this has gotten:
Folks, you may agree or disagree with the action Trump took. This Ticker isn't about that. It's about the willful, intentional and unconstitutional acts of the 9th Circuit that continue a long tradition in the US Court system of acting as if controlling law, including the Constitution, does not exist whenever it suits some particular group of people. Any government body that does such a thing by accident must be called out. If it was an accident then said body will immediately correct its mistake. Any government body that does such a thing through evidenced intent must be disbanded and removed from power. If it is not, when such a means exists (and it certainly does, as the Constitution gives the power to Congress to disband or reorganize any part of the court system; the only Constitutionally-required court is the Supreme Court) then all such co-conspiring components of the government have declared themselves illegitimate.The point about whether one agrees with Trump or not is THE bedrock point here. Justice isn't about what policies you like. Justice is about the proper and consistent application of the law. Period. If the law is simply a suggestion, then no law has to be observed. And mind you I think there are many laws that are in fact "suggestions" in practice. No, actually they are a form of state taxes as a lottery. Think speed limits on highways. Almost nobody does the posted speed limit. Modern technology makes it entirely possible to fine each and every person on a highway who is speeding. It isn't done because if everyone got a fine in the mail, there would be an uprising like we've never seen before. But this is beyond the point. Point here is that the 9th circuit as well as recent decisions by the Supreme Court, among others (1),(2),(3) shows a distinct hostility to the constitutional rights of citizens in the service of liberal ideology. In case one thinks me unqualified to speak on legal matters, see The Hill :
Whether or not a particular judge or panel of judges likes the policy judgment made by the president, it is the president, not the judge, who was elected to make that decision. Indeed, the notion that a single federal trial court judge can take it upon himself to determine national security and immigration policy, in the face of explicit determinations made by the president with the full support of law actually adopted by Congress, is so far beyond the judicial role as to pose a serious threat, not just to our national security, but to the rule of law. That a panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the order does not place it on more solid footing but rather merely expands the lawlessness to a higher court. One can only hope that the Supreme Court will put a stop to this usurpation, and quickly. Otherwise, we as a nation have a much bigger problem to confront than terrorists seeking entry to the United States.And speaking of the 9th Circuit. I understand that north of 75% of its decisions are reversed on appeal. 75%. If you had an employee that did their job incorrectly 75% of the time, would you still employ that person? If you had a contractor who did work on your property and 75% of his work had to be revisited by another contractor, would you hire that contractor again? I think that if a court is full of personnel that cannot do their basic job, those persons should be removed from their jobs. Now I'm all for respecting the decisions of the court. But that support is predicated upon the courts doing their jobs correctly 99% of the time. If the courts are not going to do their jobs properly, then as predicted by the founders, good men will not see the point of being law abiding. We know where that leads.
Sunday, February 05, 2017
If you want to know why Black America is still in the shit, you can look at one large reason right here: Remember, Black on Black crime is a thing. And so long as it is a thing, you're going to have large police presences in black communities. Never mind that "police violence" against those who are not committing or have not committed a crime represents less than 4% of police "violence". Look! Squirrel! Furthermore when we talk about schooling, IQ is a thing. Until Black America tosses this mis-leadership class that makes a living infantilizing black folks and diverting attention from our own group failures by blaming "nazis" and "white nationalists", which the recent riots have proven are NOT in charge, Black folks will continue to see high levels of disfunction. As a podcaster said, Incentives drive behavior.
Thursday, February 02, 2017
Wednesday, February 01, 2017
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. In America, a nation founded by Christians, the framers made sure that the people had both freedom of religion AND freedom of speech (including the right to speak against any religion) were part of the sovereign document. This is important because we are now seeing just how far the DNC (and leftists in general) are down the rabbit hole of submission to Islam.
Vincent Tolliver, who previously ran an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in Arkansas, told The Hill in an email he didn’t believe his rival Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) should become chairman because of his Islamic faith, citing the religion’s positions on homosexuality. “His being a Muslim is precisely why DNC voters should not vote for him. Muslims discriminate against gays. Islamic law is clear on the subject, and being gay is a direct violation of it. In some Muslim countries, being gay is a crime punishable by death,” Tolliver wrote. “Clearly, Mr. Ellison is not the person to lead the DNC or any other organization committed to not discriminating based on gender identity or sexual orientation. I’m shocked [the Human Rights Campaign] has been silent on the issue. A vote for Representative Ellison by any member of the DNC would be divisive and unconscionable, not to mention counterproductive to the immediate and necessary steps of rebuilding the Democratic Party,” he continued.For stating this, Tolliver was expelled from the DNC. I suppose he should be happy he was not beheaded while being recorded on video. If the DNC had any respect for the constitution of the country it tries to get people elected to serve, it would have simply allowed it's voting members to not vote for him as their show of disapproval and move along. Oh, and this from an organization that was ready to use Bernie Sanders' Jewish heritage against him. Sharia compliant DNC.
Here's Russell Simmons:
Def Jam Records founder Russell Simmons, who once called himself an “every weekend” guest at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, claims his friendship with Trump has ended. When asked by the New York Daily News if his relationship with Trump is still ongoing, Simmons said, “Not anymore, I’m sure he doesn’t consider me a friend after some of the statements I’ve made.”See Trump, or anyone else, is allllll good while they [apparently] agree with you or keep their mouths shut. Now Simmon's could have supported Hillary and still be a friend of Trump. All he could have said was: "Hey, yeah, I don't agree with your politics but you've never disrespected me..." But nope. Apparently Simmons (who I really don't pay attention to) felt the need to toss his friendship over politics. And understand that he isn't the only one. And it's not only friendships.
According to The Hill, Simmons said, “I said, ‘I’d rather Kim Kardashian be president,’ so he called the office and that was the end of our friendship.” Simmons says he declined to take Trump’s call.Lets just understand this statement. Kardashian is famous because she fucked a black celebrity on tape. The entirety of her "fame" is for wearing dresses, going to parties and posting pictures and videos of herself and lastly being married to Kanye West. That's all. Meanwhile the sitting president, turned a $1 million dollar investment into a billion dollar fortune. Rode the ups and downs of the NY real estate market and despite having serious financial setbacks (and it is through failures that we learn), came back on top and then ran a successful presidential campaign despite all his "friends" and supporters from his previous life, take repeated and public shits on him. And this man would prefer Kim K for president. This is why a great deal of us have come to realize that celebrities are worth NOTHING more than the entertainment they provide us and in this day and technological age, we don't have to pay to see their work or hear their music.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Last year I kept hammering on the subject that the DNC has essentially become the party of traitors. They had internalized and integrated so many persons who are by and large, so mad at white males, that they have no duty to country or other citizens. While this used to be the provence of small minded first level "conscious" black folks, in the 8 years since Obama took office, it mastasticized to the rest of the left like a swiftly moving cancer cell. Since Trump has followed through on his wall and "ban", the left has dropped the mask and with it all pretense of patriotism and civic duty to other citizens. The treason is in full view of the public and they are so arrogant and so haughty and believe in their own infallibility that they do not even believe there will be any public consequences for their actions. Here is Bill de Blasio, Mayor of NYC: here said:
“We’re not going to see families torn apart over a very minor offense,” the mayor told Tapper “But is grand larceny or drunk driving a very minor offense?” Tapper asked. “Drunk driving that doesn’t lead to any other negative outcome, I could define as that,” de Blasio responded.Let us understand. de Blasio believes that the law shouldn't apply to illegal immigrants. Imagine you, Mr Citizen getting pulled over at a DUI patrol stop and were caught with an illegal alcohol level in your blood. Can you imagine telling a police officer that since there was no "negative outcome" you should be free to go? What about Eric Garner? He didnt' sell a legal product to children. There was no "negative outcome" to his actions. He's dead. It's time we start asking these lefties about their alleged support of "Black Lives Matter" when they don't think they or illegal immigrants ought to be subject to the same laws as citizens are. Lets not forget that it is a crime to simply be in the country without permission. And lets be clear, De Blasio and his ilk don't even think that an illegal immigrant should be deported if they commit a "negative outcome" because De Blasio and his ilk have been releasing known illegal immigrant criminals out due to "sanctuary city" policies. This brings me to Jeff Sessions. I believe the REAL reason why Democrats are doing everything they can to not confirm Sessions is because their lawyers have told them, in private no doubt, that by their own actions and statements they are criminally liable for breaking federal immigration law. They have seen in the past week that Trump is not like any president since maybe FDR. He will follow through on his promises. They see the writing on the wall. Perp walks have a high probability of happening should Sessions be confirmed. They know this. They are like teenagers who had the house to themselves and didn't realize the parents just pulled in the driveway. The party is over. The adults are back and the traitors are going to be dealt with. I urge all Democrats, particularly the black ones who may be reading this to seriously think upon the party you are aligned with. The lines are very brightly lit here. The only question you need to answer is "how many citizens are you willing to have maimed, killed, unemployed or underemployed in order to support DNC policies?" Any answer higher than 0 makes you a traitor.
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Judge Donnelly following the example of certain Supreme Court justices [sic] made a ruling that is in direct contradiction to the law as passed by Congress:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.I'd underline the relevant parts, but the entire section is clear on it's face. This judge had no standing whatsoever to interfere with the lawful execution of powers granted to the president by Congress. Understand that this is behavior fits into the larger treasonous pattern of behavior that has been normalized under Obama and festering in Democrats since Bill Clinton left office. They are making themselves known now that Trump has dropped the hammer on sanctuary cities. You have elected officials who took an oath of office, such as the one for NYS:
[Oath of office; no other test for public office] Section 1. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ......, according to the best of my ability;" and no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust, except that any committee of a political party may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any such committee, and a state convention of a political party, at which candidates for public office are nominated, may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any committee of such party. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)Who are out there absolutely violating said oaths and the public, well left leaning public, loves it. It comes down to this. Either we follow the laws and have an orderly society or we have a society in which laws are enforced on the whim of whoever holds office. The latter encourages lawlessness and resistance to legitimate enforcement of law (see BLM). The former forces us to accept things that may not be emotionally pleasant but necessary. Children avoid the emotionally unpleasant. Adults accept them as a part of life. An adult is in the White house and he is dealing with children in various offices.
Friday, January 27, 2017
The first president I remember was Carter. I liked him because he seemed nice. I thought "nice" was a good quality. I was child. I didn't know better. Like many children of the 70's and beyond, I grew up in a single, mother lead household. This meant that ale authority in the home was a foreign concept to me. I never had to negotiate a father. Men who came to the house knew to be "nice" to me in order to stay on good terms with my mother, except one. I hated him. The one male figure that was there in the later years, an uncle, was "nice". A provider was still dependent upon my mother for shelter. The only other male "authority figures" I knew were the few male teachers I had in school who's ability to punish was very limited and elders and pastors in the church I attended. Most of those men were "nice" and very few of them, well actually only one, commanded any respect from me whatsoever. I say all this to point out that Americans by and large are unfamiliar with strong male leadership. Obama was a very passive, feminine president. His way of handling conflict was very feminine in that it was the passive aggressive type rather than direct and confrontational. It worked for him because many Americans are really only familiar with that kind of man. I was always off put by an Obama that crossed his legs. In my opinion, men crossing their legs is an extremely feminine act. It goes against our anatomy (we have narrow hips not wide ones) and the idea of not allowing my testicles and penis space to hang out, bothers me. If you noticed, Obama would change to "legs open" when dealing with more masculine people, though he would occasionally fall back to crossing his legs. This was one of the things that struck me about Trump. I have not seen Trump sit with his legs crossed. Now it may have happened but I haven't witnessed it. When I saw that, I knew we were dealing with alpha. Now let me get to the point of all this. Since Trump has taken office, he has executed a number of items that he said he would execute. 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. A lot of the noise we're hearing from left leaning women is because they understand that they hold exactly ZERO sway over alpha men. Alpha men could give a fuck about any particular woman's approval (aside from perhaps his mother and even THAT is limited). And when it comes to a group of women he has no sexual interest in, who serve no purpose to him, that is, NOT PRODUCTIVE, he doesn't give them the time of day. These women know this. This why a bunch of them marched all over the US. They are scared to death that the gig is up. They are not really afraid of Trump himself. They are afraid that his success would be seen as an example by other men whom they have been able to emotionally and financially manipulate. And so this feminized country where "he wouldn't dare" is a common refrain, Trump's willingness to build the wall has shocked the public. That he will make Mexico pay for it (by any number of means) is also shocking to them. They are all saying "he can't do that!" Well yes he can and he can because he has the will to execute. This will to execute is what has been lacking in the Republican party. They are still behaving as cucks with their howls about The Wall and sanctuary cities because they have been trained to seek approval before executing. As I said earlier, these folks are going to realize that they are dealing with an actual man. For example, when Trump announced that the government exists to serve the "citizens". it is a reformulation of "this is my home, this is my castle, these are my people and I decide who gets to come in and who gets to stay." It is a very masculine statement that could never have come out of Obama's mouth or any Democrat for that matter. And understand that the ISIS Jihadis and other countries where men are not nearly as cucked recognizes this. Males ALWAYS recognize the higher status male and very few have the guts to stand up to him to take his crown. See for all their talk about "unfit to serve" as president, the opposition only shows that they are unfit to run any business. You cannot run a large successful business that regularly takes risks without being willing to execute. You cannot run such a large enterprise without the large balls to negotiate from a position of strength or the appearance of strength. To people who are unaccustomed to risk and live the "need approval" life, these things are absolutely alien. However; to those of us who know, we recognize this. The left has tried to vilify alpha behavior as "hyper-masculine" and "bullying" (mind you there is such a thing as bullying but that's a different convo). In this way, masculine behavior: taking charge, executing, not bending to female emotional blackmail for example, is seen as negative. This is why these women's marches have many many males (many of whom raised by single mothers) that speak so much gibberish about rights their wives already have or how the government rather than them, should be providing for their wives and [usually] female children. And I note the female children because many times when I hear men trying to cuck other men, they lead with "I have daughters". And? That you have a daughter is no excuse to try to enslave other people's male children. So yes, this new administration is going to be a master class in manliness for a lot of boys and young men who have not seen such examples on TV (where simpering, idiot males rule) or in their lives. There will be errors and mistakes. They happen but even those will be lessons in how men should handle fails.