Plantation Mentalities

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Black people believe in White Supremacy more than any other racial group out there. Black people are apparently unable to help themselves and so need the Democratic party to "help them". I think Barkley has it all wrong. Black people need to get off THEIR ASSES and help themselves.

When I decided I wanted to seriously build wealth, I did not ask the Democratic party for help. I cut my cable. I turned off as many lights as possible. I got myself on a very restrictive budget. I paid off all my debt. I made a calendar of all spending for the year that I could foresee. I didn't go out. At all. I had no vacations. I traded in my car for a beater and got off the car payment treadmill.

I don't buy expensive clothes. I buy store brand food unless there is a significant difference in taste or quality. I have an old computer and buy them second hand as to not get hit with depreciation.

Nothing I did requires or required the help of Democrats. Nor did it require some change to the tax code. What I did was practice discipline. You do what you have to to do what you want to. But to many people want to do whatever they want to and then get mad when they don't get the results they expected and then want other people to bail them out of the consequences of their bad decisions.

6 years from now Black Alabama will be in the same state that they are in today. Mark those words.

An Important Warning From Alabama

And so Roy Moore's aspirations to become a senator are doused. Many are celebrating. I'm not going to comment on the politicking of the event. Whether one agrees with the platforms or Moore or Jones is not of vital interest to me since I see both parties as being owned by the same elites who are not really interested in the welfare of the citizenry. What is concerning to me is the roll that accusations of what is legally child molestation played in this election.

It should bother every and anybody who is concerned about "justice" and fairness, when anyone can decide, 40 years after the fact to raise accusations of serious legal implications. This is especially true with Moore because those same persons had multiple opportunities to make their claims when Moore was a judge and was in the Alabama and national public eye. It was only after having defeated the party preferred candidate did these accusations become public. To say that this was somehow coincidental is to believe the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale.

But politics is politics. We expect mud slinging. Fine. But what was really at stake here was the inherited idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty. That it is entirely unfair to a person to have accusations leveled against them decades after the alleged event. It is without a doubt that had this ambush not occurred that Moore would now be senator elect of Alabama if for no other reason than that decent people do not like persons who are child molesters. But the thing is, there is no evidence that Moore is or ever was one.

The accusation leveled against Moore was of an event that occurred some 40 years ago. What court can go and find evidence of this event from 40 years ago? What witness is going to be reliable 40 years later? What is worse in this case is that we have an actual forged document. Now lets' be clear about forgery, since if this piece is shared on Facebook, they might flag it as "fake". If a document is modified from it's original form then it is forged. So for example, if I write a check for $100 and fail to sign it and someone signs my signature as if I had done so and passed that off to a bank to cash it, they have forged a document. The entire document doesn't have to be made up from scratch. ANY modification of the document that is presented as if it was the original IS forgery. When the yearbook was presented to the public, the signature of Moore including the "D.A" and commentary was presented as written by Moore. This turns out to be not true. This was admitted to by the accuser 1 week prior to the election. Had this been presented in a trial, the evidence would be thrown out and the jury instructed to disregard. Hence legally there is no grounds to convict Moore. Moore, had he been given his day in court would have been acquitted of any and all charges. However; Moore did not get his day in court and may never get his day in court. Now that he has been defeated at the ballot box, there is no need for his accusers to continue. I expect that they will become silent and the event memory holed at least until Jones is seated. Moore will be permanently stained. And so will the nation.

Why? Because now we have ample evidence that we can accuse people of things and ruin their lives without consequence. The accused, if innocent, will unlikely be able to "prove" their innocence, which itself is a profound shift in American culture, because they will unlike have any evidence. How do you prove you didn't grab a booty? How do you prove you didn't go for that kiss? How do you defend against an "off color" joke that you thought was OK because you thought you had a relationship that allowed for that? What if you DID have a relationship that allowed for that kind of joke but some HR policy (or God forbid actual legislation) allows for someone else to be offended on behalf of the person they think to be the victim to make the accusation? Good luck. Of course businesses keen on reducing their liability for the sake of reputation and insurance premiums, not to mention the EEOC and whatever other 3 and 4 letter organizations that are ready to pounce, will quickly sever ties to the now untouchable.

So whether Jones is best for Alabama is for Alabamans to figure out. They have 6 years to deal with that decision. But the new standard of how to lose jobs and other opportunities is going to be felt by everybody. Because now all of us are officially on notice that a single accusation of something "inflammatory" enough in the minds of HR (if one is subject to an HR) can be the end of one's financial life. If it happens to you and you didn't object, on principle, the way Moore has been treated by the press on the issue, then you got what you didn't care about and have no one to blame but yourself.

PS: Since Alabamans are so against the 30 year old chatting up teenagers, I hope they are consistent and pass legislation that modifies their age of consent laws to address that. Failure to do so will only show just how hypocritical the entire situation is.

The Rot Runs Deep

The Feces in the FBI stinks so bad that even CNN cannot ignore the stench:

A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said.

This is actual obstruction of justice. Clear cut.

This is also an example of why the US needs to designate English as the official language. It is clear from this report that simple words, which a lay person may not pick up on, can be the difference between jail and not jail. I knew that Comey was full of shit when he made that speech about "extreme carelessness" but to see that it was more than Comey shows a conspiracy to protect Clinton which morphed into a conspiracy to "get" Trump. This entire investigation should be stopped immediately as the entire process has been shown to be compromised and a clear political head hunt.

CNN has also learned that Strzok was the FBI official who signed the document officially opening an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to sources familiar with the matter. As the No. 2 official in counterintelligence, Strzok was considered to be one of the bureau's top experts on Russia.

So in the space of one week we have seen the extent to which the state policing apparatus has been hijacked by liberals/Democrats for political ends. It has been revealed that lib/Dem officials in Charlottesville purposely mishandled the Unite The Right demonstration with the police chief specifically wanting to have potentially fatal violence occur even though weeks prior the same agency provided proper police protection to an actual Klan rally.

We have an 5x deported and convicted felon get away with killing a citizen in San Francisco which was the direct result of "sanctuary" policies enacted by the city and approved by the state.

And now we have this.

I repeat my call for citizens on juries where a citizen is charged with anything short of anything resulting in bodily harm *against another citizen or legal resident* to exercise their right of nullification and decline to convict unless or until this situation is addressed. We may be forced to pay taxes and feed the system but we certainly do not have to cooperate with allowing the govt to selectively enforce laws against our fellow citizens when they fail to enforce the law against those who are not supposed to be here or against liberals of all stripes.

Peddling "Stay Broke" Mentalities

Not long ago I posted on a recent Pew report on different politically leaning groups. I noted that there was a class of perpetually aggrieved Liberals who are Democrats by a large margin who simultaneously believe that:

Immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents

And

Hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people

. A recent article in RT contained the following image:

More peddling of "stay broke" mentalities. If you are dumb enough to think that "The rich" got that way only because they either popped out the womb to money or simply managed to exploit everyone around them (which of course requires no effort, planning or "can do" attitude to pull off), then what you are saying is that it is impossible for the not rich to every become wealthy.

Look. Stop listening to these fucking losers. Below is a guy who is what one would consider "rich". Listen to how he did it.

He clearly wasn't born "rich". He didn't exploit people. So how exactly did he do it?

And yeah, Grassley is largely right. Broke/poor people often stay poor because they spend money (and time) on stuff of little to no value beyond a momentary feeling of satisfaction. And no, it's not an either your poor or you're a multi-millionaire. There's a whole lot of middle ground where many would be very comfortable.

See when you realize that the above happens, then you realize that these people pushing the whole "the rich get rich by exploiting the poor" is largely bull. Now lets be clear that there are in fact people getting rich off of exploitation. But these people are a small proportion of "the rich" (who themselves are a small proportion of the wealthy).

Kathryn Steinle: Victim of Liberal/Democratic Policies

I pondered some time back during the campaign for president whether we should ask Liberals or Democrats how many citizens they were willing to have killed in order to protect foreigners. In essence it was a question of whether these folk are traitors in the very real sense of the word. You see, if any candidate for office was OK with allowing foreigners to kill citizens they are not only unfit for office, but should be seen and treated as the traitors that they are. Of course such a question was never put directly to any of the candidates but we do know that not only is the question relevant, but it has been answered, many times, including yesterday.

An undocumented Mexican immigrant was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges on Thursday in the killing of Kathryn Steinle, whose death while out walking on a San Francisco pier became a touchstone in the national debate over immigration fueled by Donald J. Trump.

The man, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, who was also found not guilty of assault with a firearm, was convicted only of being a felon in possession of a firearm. …

Now admittedly, I had not followed the case as I have had other things in my life to do and trust me on this, following such cases and writing blog entries on them is very time consuming. Just see my series on Sean Bell or Trayvon Martin. The reason I make this note is because I was unaware that the defense was claiming that the defendant had been trying to shoot a seal and the bullet hit the ground and then struck Steinle.

Ms. Steinle, known as Kate, a 32-year-old medical equipment saleswoman, was walking along Pier 14 in San Francisco when she was struck by a bullet and collapsed into her father’s arms. Mr. Garcia Zarate acknowledged firing the weapon, but said it was an accident.

Evidence was presented in court that the bullet had ricocheted before striking Ms. Steinle.

If we take this story at face value and assume it to be true, then we cannot be surprised that there was a not guilty verdict for anything that required criminal intent. I've posted this many times before but we cannot assume that homicide=murder. Murder is a charge of mens rea. Lacking that you can only rise to criminally negligent homicide, sometimes called manslaughter. This is important because Zarate is on record having admitted to firing the gun in a public space. Generally speaking one cannot discharge a weapon in a public space for reasons other than self-defense and not be charged with a minimum of reckless endangerment. Since Zarete had already confessed to discharging the weapon, we know that he was being reckless.

My understanding is that the defense lawyers, probably seeing that this argument would get their client convicted made a new argument that Zarate had accidentally discharged the weapon because the weapon had a "hair trigger". I have seen persons more familiar with guns that I am say that such an argument is weak at best because there is supposed to be some kind of drop test for such arms and that the weighting of the trigger on that model does not fit with the defense claims. I cannot say either way about this because I am unfamiliar with firearms. Therefore I will stay with the "I tried to shoot a seal" statement and base the rest of the post on that.

So having discharged a weapon in a public space in blatant disregard for the safety and lives of others, Zarate should have been found guilty of criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter. Period. For the jury to not have returned such a verdict means that we have an epic case of jury nullification. Mind you am I NOT OPPOSED to jury nullification. As a matter of fact, I think that as a consequence of this verdict (among other things) that until the states and federal government gets it's act together, that citizens refuse to convict other citizens of any crime or tort brought by the state or non-citizens short of murder. If "our" government refuses to properly enforce the law, then so will we. Jury nullification is legal and it can cut both ways.

Having said that, I think that the larger issue is not whether the jury gave the Steinle family the finger in an apparent attempt to "resist Trump", it is the fact that her killing could and should have been prevented. We know that his convicted felon had been deported no less than 5 times. We know that the agencies charged with enforcing the laws of the land acted to protect a known felon and illegal migrant from further deportation. We know that the state of California and the city of San Fransisco conspired to protect this felon. THIS is the real problem.

As I have written before:

I'm going to focus on Sessions here. Since the campaign we have seen unprecedented levels of political violence mostly by leftist groups. We have seen a level of lawlessness, where governors and mayors have openly violated immigration law or stated their intent (which is what is needed for criminal prosecution) to violate immigration law. Various govt. officials have brazenly told police under their watch to allow persons designated "nazis" to be beaten and to have their constitutional rights violated. All of this has happened with mice level peeps from Sessions. This is unacceptable. Where there is a lack of law, lawlessness escalates.

Where are the RICO charges? Why are these cities and states still getting federal money? It's easy to point at the jury. It's even easy to point to the officials in the city and state but ultimately it is the failure of the big dogs in Washington, you know, the ones who put troops on the ground to get desegregation done, to put the smack down on these cities and states that is the real problem. And I'm not letting Trump off the hook here. The AG reports to and serves at the pleasure of the president. If I read the 1789 law establishing the position of AG The executive can direct the justice department to drop the hammer on California. He hasn't done so. Why not?

Current Year America

Examining a piece in the Washington Post we see that current year America is a joke of a nation.

But legislators spent little time asking Sessions about the dramatic and controversial changes in policy he has made since taking over the top law enforcement job in the United States nine months ago.

Policy changes? Ok. That sounds interesting. Lets see what they are:

From his crackdown on illegal immigration to his reversal of Obama administration policies on criminal justice and policing, Sessions is methodically reshaping the Justice Department to reflect his nationalist ideology and hard-line views — moves drawing comparatively less public scrutiny than the ongoing investigations into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin. [My underlines]

So enforcing the law is now "hard line"? Really? Shall I accuse the police officer who tickets me for speeding as being "a nationalist with 'hard line views'" or is he actually just "doing his job"? By the way. Why is it a "policy change" to be "nationalistic"? Shouldn't the people in government, that, you know, is supposed to be by and for 'the people", supposed to be "nationalistic"?

Sessions has implemented a new charging and sentencing policy that calls for prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges possible, even if that might mean minority defendants face stiff, mandatory minimum penalties.

Wait? So "minorities" are supposed to have different punishments than other people in America? How does that square with the constitution? It's almost like the Post thinks that minorities (in which it means, non asian minorities") shouldn't be held to account for their behavior. Like...um...children.

He has defended the president’s travel ban and tried to strip funding from cities with policies he considers too friendly toward undocumented immigrants.

He defended a law passed by congress that gives the president discretionary powers on determining who may and may not enter the country. This is news?

It's almost like the Post thinks that illegal immigrants. Say it with me: Illegal. Immigrants have trespass rights in America. Like the law(s) don't apply to them.

Sessions has even adjusted the department’s legal stances in cases involving voting rights and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in a way that advocates warn might disenfranchise poor minorities and give certain religious people a license to discriminate.

It's almost like the Post is unable to look up the constitution on the internet, nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act that expressly:

1) Says the government cannot abridge the freedom of religion or exercise thereof.

2) Says that religious institutions and private clubs are exempt from laws in the 1964 CRA.

While critics lambaste what they consider misguided changes that take the department back in time, supporters say Sessions has restored a by-the-book interpretation of federal law and taken an aggressive stance toward enforcing it.

It's as if Sessions thinks that the department should do it's job: enforcing the law. Shocking policy change!

Prosecutors have brought several such cases since he became attorney general and recently sent an attorney to Iowa to help the state prosecute a man who was charged with killing a gender-fluid 16-year-old high school student last year. The man was convicted of first-degree murder.

But while civil rights leaders praised his action in that case, Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the national Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said that it “stands in stark contrast to his overall efforts” to roll back protections for transgender people.

I don't know what "rights" Kristen thinks "transgender" people have that are different from those of every other citizen, but I do know that murder is illegal, period. What's the problem?

Critics say, though, that his record shows otherwise. “We are seeing a federal government that is pulling back from protecting vulnerable communities in every respect,” Clarke said. “That appears to be the pattern that we are seeing with this administration — an unwillingness to use their enforcement powers in ways that can come to the defense of groups who are otherwise powerless and voiceless.”

No, what we have, finally, is a justice dept. and administration that is not making up "rights" via executive fiat (or court decision). This is a good thing. You don't get "rights" because you are a minority, poor or confused about your body.

Diverse = "Not White"

A common understanding in dissident right circles is that diversity is a code word for "not white" in it's less malicious usage. Of course, in left circles this claim is used as evidence of "white supremacy" and paranoia among whites who see any threat to their "central status" in America as evidence of "reverse discrimination". Of course, now that the mask has completely fallen off the left and outright bigotry against whites, at levels unseen since perhaps the Jim Crow era and quickly getting to lynch level absurdity we get reporting that to any sane person confirms the dissident right's position. Today's evidence comes from The Verge:

The 2018 Grammy Award nominations were released this morning, and certain categories looked markedly more diverse in their selections. “Despacito” became the first Spanish-language song to be nominated for Record of the Year and Song of the Year, every lead artist nominated for Record of the Year was a person of color, and the list for best Album of the Year did not contain a single white male artist for the first time in Grammy history. (Sorry, Ed Sheeran.) In short, the nominations are incredibly diverse.

Not a single white male is "incredibly diverse".

It was relatively easy for older executives and producers to vote in the previous system, but not so for someone like me. Now, the people actually contributing to cultural change the most — touring musicians, new producers and songwriters, etc. — have access to participate in ways that were never there before. This year’s list is a direct reflection of that. When you make a system easier for everyone to use, everyone wins. ■

"Everybody".

White men are non persons.

Look, you don't have to be enamored with white people (or men in particular) to see this for what it is. It is direct evidence that the claims of so called "nazis" about being replaced is not a conspiracy theory. It is a real phenomenon. I said it years ago and I'll say it again: this will not end well.

The end of discrimination will not come about by blatant discrimination.

Zimbabwe, The ANC And The Dead End of Revenge Politics

So Mugabe has resigned. Zimbabwe and Mugabe stand as lessons against Black power or Black Nationalist ideologies that rely on revenge as a long term policy.

I have no problem admitting that in my younger days (some of which includes days far far away from what we'd call "youth") I had little problem with the idea of offing the settler and returning the land. Seriously. Matter of fact, I would be highly suspect of any black person who took the issues of colonialism seriously to not have had an agreement with such policies because I think any people, deprived of their land and liberty should have a reflexive human reaction to want to exact revenge and retribution.

Where I and many of my contemporaries part ways is that I took, and take, nationalism seriously. Nationalism, Garveyite Pan-Africanism in particular to me were not a mere means of establishing self esteem at the cost of "white devils" and the like. I wanted, and want Africans to run their own ship and I want them to do it successfully. This meant that I took a great deal of time to think through issues. For example, What would be the national language of a Pan-African government? What do you do with groups who don't want to partake? What would be the qualifications for citizenship? Would it extend to black countries in the Caribbean? If so how do we integrate the economies? What of African-Americans who are culturally pretty far removed from continental Africans? What would the role of Islam be in such a country? Christianity? What economic system would be put in place? Since Africa is so huge would it be better to have regional governors? Would a "grand council" be better than single executive? Etc. etc. etc. I was concerned with governance, not with "where da white farmers at"?

Unfortunately too many people in power in Africa, particularly directly after colonialism hadn't really through through the long term issue of actual governance. Instead they acted on their (understandable) wish to get back at those who had excluded them (and worse). But that doesn't run a country. That is not economic policy.

To be fair to Mugabe and Zimbabwe, England had a part in the death spiral of Zimbabwe. It had agreed to land transfers where England would compensate the farmers. It reneged on that agreement and that was wrong. Period. Then came Zidera Which hurt the citizens of Mugabe rather than Mugabe himself who, along with his wife, continued to fly to Europe and spend massive amounts of money. Mugabe perhaps only rivaled by Mobutu.

In the end though, it was the failure to actually govern. To establish rule of law. To smartly deal with the inflamed passions of the people that brought down Zimbabwe. The same is happening in South Africa under the ANC. Here again we see the killing of white farmers which brings absolutely no benefits whatsoever to South Africa or even to those who do the killings other than the emotional release of having gotten revenge. The ANC is literally running on policies that cuts off the hand it wishes to use to eat.

In all of this, a new colonial master has moved in. Their attitude is currently "do whatever you want, just make sure we get our shit." Currently the focus on Europeans have blinded Africans to this new colonialism. The Chinese may have to worry about what happens when there are no more Europeans around for Zimbabweans to blame for their problems. But that's a whole other blog post.

So in the end we see that revenge politics is a dead end. Whether that be in Zimbabwe or in America. Revenge politics does nothing to address the internal issues that hold back black communities and once the target of the revenge politics are removed even the temporary esteem boost that revenge politics fueled will give way to feelings of inadequacy and more violence and problems as new "oppressors" and "oppressions" are made of classes within black communities are created to distract from the mis-leadership.

Mash It Up In A Zimbabwe

From AlJazeera:

Following my verbal communication with the Speaker of the National Assembly, Advocate Jacob Mudenda at 13:53 hours, 21st November, 2017 intimating my intention to resign as the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, I, Robert Gabriel Mugabe, in terms of Section 96, Sub-Section 1 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, hereby formally tender my resignation as the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe with immediate effect.

More On The "Little Crimes"

So having discussed LaVar Ball and the ghost of Stingley, lets look at one from the Washington Post on fare evasion:

At a recent public hearing on a proposal to decriminalize fare evasion on Metro, D.C. Council member Charles Allen made a shocking admission.

Allen, chairman of the panel’s judiciary committee, is a repeat offender.

This is a setup. Watch the hands....

I can’t tell you the number of times that I’ve tapped my card and it gave me the beep that said my balance had dropped below what the fare was,” said Allen (D-Ward 6), a daily bus rider. “And the driver just said, ‘Just fill it up when you get to the station.’ ”

“I’ve never once thought, ‘I’m going to actually get a citation or have a criminal record for riding the bus,’ ” he said.

This is not fare evasion. I repeat: This is not fare evasion. He didn't try to not pay his fare (assuming he didn't purposely leave his card with a low balance with the intent to beating the fare. He merely discovered that his balance was low and the driver allowed him on the bus anyway. This is an example of the driver using his discretion.

Fare beating is knowing you don't have enough money and deciding to jump the turnstile or bypass whatever mechanism on purpose. Now watch the trick:

The D.C. Council’s move mirrors a trend in cities across the country based on a growing awareness among lawmakers of how issues such as legacy policing practices, unconscious bias and systemic racism can unfairly target communities based on race or age — even in the seemingly mundane case of fare jumping. [My underlines]

So laws against theft of services (fare beating) is racist because black people (and supposedly the young) are inherently incapable of not stealing services. You cannot come to any other conclusion from this statement.

I mean shit, it's "ONLY" fare jumping. What's there to be upset about. All those people who dutifully save their money in order to pay their fares, day in and day out to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars are just law abiding suckers. You know, if you're going to decriminalize fare beating then please do offer a refund to all the people who did the right thing.

Fat chance at that happening.

Matter of fact, why not just make public transport free to board. No fares for ANYBODY.

Some legislators are questioning whether fare evasion should be a crime at all, arguing that targeted enforcement campaigns are bound to ensnare poor and low-income people who don’t have the money to pay their fares — let alone fines.

This reminds me of stories my mother told me about when the money ran out the day before pay day and she didn't have enough bus fare money to get home. Do you know what she did?

Wait for it.

She walked home.

There's a story about a man in Detroit who I believe walked many miles to and from work (or at least to a transport spot). Yeah, tell me again how the poor get ensnared again.

You know what I see almost daily? People riding little kids bicycles to and from work. Some on regular mountain bikes. You can get one second hand for next to nothing. It's honest transportation.

“Absolutely there’s been a raised consciousness on this that did not exist 20 or 30 years ago,” said Nassim Moshiree, policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia. “Activism like the Movement for Black Lives has had a positive impact on raising awareness that policing — and the explicit and implicit bias in policing — means that certain communities are impacted in unfair ways. Even when it comes to something like fare evasion.”

BLM thinks there are no "white man laws" that blacks need to respect. That's the new "raised consciousness" that has appeared in the last 20-30 years. So now it's "bias" to expect black people to do little things like pay their fare like everyone else is expected to.

Metro is in the midst of a crackdown on fare evasion, spurred partly by financial pressure and partly in response to heightened concerns about crime in the system. Nearly a quarter of assaults on bus operators, for example, result from disputes over fares.

Next we'll be told that it's racism that causes black people (and the young) to beat up bus drivers who ask that they not steal services from the public. I mean the nerve of these bus drivers to expect black folks to PAY for a bus ride. Don't they know we are owed reparations and shit?

Metro Transit Police Chief Ronald A. Pavlik Jr. estimated that the agency loses up to $25 million a year in unpaid fares — a hefty sum for an agency that just announced that it will seek a $29 million increase in the operating subsidies from the jurisdictions that fund it.

That's a lot of money.

he also thinks that people across demographic boundaries feel a sense of injustice that some people flout the rules and ride free, while others dig deep to pay their fares.

“It’s a fairness issue, across the entire community,” Wiedefeld said. “You have people in those same communities that they’re concerned about being targeted, who are paying their fares. And I think it’s right that everybody pay their fare.”

Joke's on us man. It's not about "fair".

Lawmakers nationwide have become increasingly aware of how citations or arrests for fare jumping can have disparate impacts on low-income riders and communities of color. For some groups, a simple citation or misdemeanor arrest can affect their job, parole or immigration status.

Simple solution. Ready: Don't try to fare beat and there will be no citation or arrest. I know this is hard, but try to follow. If you don't fare beat, they cannot give a citation or arrest you. Then you don't have to worry about your job or parole. Oh and if you are worried about your immigration status...wellll..

That proposal gained traction last month when a New York advocacy group, the Community Service Society, released a report concluding that fare-evasion arrests happen more frequently at stations that abut low-income neighborhoods. In addition, the report said that half of all fare-evasion arrests in Brooklyn involve black men between the ages of 16 and 36, but they represent only 13.1 percent of poor adults. [my underlines]

There are 3 other major racial groups in NY and one major ethnic group, why not tell us about the rest of the demographics?

In the end this is yet another example of liberal white folks aligning with grumpy black folks to lower the expectations that black people be expected to live up the same standards that everyone else is expected to follow. And all this does is lead to resentment by non-blacks, rightfully so, when they are held to account while blacks are allowed to publicly and openly flaunt the rules. You cannot have equality and exceptionalism in the same law (generally speaking). Either we are all expected to pay our fares or we are all allowed to ride for "free" (only tax payer based funding via taxes). That is the only real fair option.

If these kinds of policies continue then the quote at the head of this post cannot be considered a "myth" but a reality.

LaVar Ball's Commentary is Not Uncommon

LaVar Ball decidedly ungrateful response to Trump's intercession on his son's behalf underscores an unfortunately not uncommon attitude towards crime in too many black communities:

"As long as my boy's back here, I'm fine," LaVar Ball told ESPN. "I'm happy with how things were handled. A lot of people like to say a lot of things that they thought happened over there. Like I told him, 'They try to make a big deal out of nothing sometimes.' I'm from L.A. I've seen a lot worse things happen than a guy taking some glasses. My son has built up enough character that one bad decision doesn't define him. Now if you can go back and say when he was 12 years old he was shoplifting and stealing cars and going wild, then that's a different thing.[my underlines]

This "i've seen much worse" attitude is exactly why so many black communities have unacceptably high crime rates. While I'll agree that I think 10 years in prison is over the top for sunglasses, I don't think one should downplay the fact that someone thought it was OK to steal. Period.

This reminded me of the case of Cory Stingley (2). Corey's father reached out to me after finding my blog entries and was upset that Corey was responsible for his own demise. He said that it should be expected that young (presumably black) men to steal shit at some point in their life. When I read that, I completely understood why it was that Cory thought it was OK to steal. For the record I have never shoplifted, attempted to shoplift of even thought about shoplifting. Period. And I find it insulting that a person would think that taking any of my property, regardless of it's value is something I should overlook.

Many Black people claim to be Christians so let me put it to them like this. In the Bible there is a parable about talents. Three people were given talents. Two did stuff with them and one buried his. End of the parable was that the two who had invested their talents were rewarded with even more while the one who buried his was scolded as being lazy, etc. The lessons being that those who are faithful in small things get rewarded with bigger thing. That is, if I can trust you to NOT steal some $5 sunglasses, then I can trust you around things of far higher value.

When we fail to teach our children and hold our children to account for the small things, then we set them up to FAIL when bigger things are placed in their care. LaVar Ball's attitude about "seeing worse" is the same as the servant who buried his talent. LaVar failed his son and for those who understand what I speak of, he has shown himself to be an embarrassment. But the Trump hatred knows no bounds and no ends, that folks will even defend a thief and theft.

These People Are Not Brave

I just finished reading a headline in which persons in the Clinton and Sanders campaign are claiming to have been harassed. Enough. I'm done with folks calling these people, both male and female, brave. These are vultures circling and seeing what pickings they can get.

You know who's brave? That chick who Harvey grabbed who went directly to the po-lice filed a complaint and agreed to get miked up and get Harvey to incriminate himself. THAT is a brave woman. All these other mofos who allegedly allowed folks to grab them up, throw their tongues down their throats, wank their sausages to eruption and whatever the fuck else are not brave. I don't even wanna hear about it anymore. Folks who sat it out for 30-40 years and had nothing to say. folks who desired paydays and fame more than the welfare and safety of the men, women and children coming behind them ought to be ashamed of themselves and should have remained silent.

If the fame was enough to keep you quiet then you keep quiet. If the money was enough to keep you quiet, whether it was hush money or money from movies, etc. then you be quiet. You shoulda told when that shit happened. You shoulda kicked a mofo in the balls. You shoulda stabbed someone and made the biggest scene ever.

I just needed to get that out.

Reported? Confirmed?

LA Times doing it's SJW thing. Headline:

L.A. County hate crimes linked to white supremacists jumped 67% in 2016, study finds

Really? Well what else?

Hate crimes committed by white supremacists increased 67% in Los Angeles County last year, according to a study released Thursday.

There were 105 such crimes reported, compared with 63 in 2015.

Reported? Well that's nice. Given the amount of hoaxes out there how many of these "hate crimes" were confirmed to have been committed by actual, in the flesh "white supremacists"?

The study, which has been conducted annually since 1980 by the county's Commission on Human Relations, found that white supremacist ideology constituted 22% of all hate crimes in 2016.

Aside from the above mentioned "reported", 22% is a far lower number than 67%.

Most of the white supremacist hate crimes — at least 70% — were acts of vandalism, followed by disorderly conduct, which includes swastikas drawn on private property.

Again, how many of these incidents were actually confirmed?

"The fact that white supremacist crimes grew 67% is alarming, particularly in the aftermath of the 'Unite the Right' rally in Charlottesville, [Va.]. It seems that organized hate groups everywhere are feeling emboldened and increasingly visible," Commission President Isabelle Gunning said in a statement.

I'm alarmed that no one at this so called prestigious paper is bothered by "reported".

Where's the link to said report? Oh you thought the LA Times would provide you with primary sources? Shame on you. Here you go: http://www.lahumanrelations.org/hatecrime/reports/Final%20PDF%20of%202016%20Hate%20Crime%20Report.pdf Tidbit:

Racial hate crimes declined 2% and comprised 46% of all hate crimes reported in 2016. Anti-black crimes declined 19%, but still made up nearly half of all racially motivated hate crimes.

Hate crimes in which Latino/as targeted black persons plunged 41%, and only a third were committed by gang members compared to nearly half the previous year.

And a nice chart:

In which we find hate crimes against whites up 145%. Not worth reporting of course. If you recall my post on the blatant hate crimes committed by Mexicans in order to keep non-hispanics out of "their neighborhoods" you'll know that so called "hate crimes" against whites are vastly under-reported or reclassified to make sure that the numbers stay low so that certain groups can claim victim status.

Oh and while "hate crimes" against Muslims are down 17%, "hate crimes" against Christians are up 100%. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Another nice chart:

Seems whites are violently victimized more than blacks in LA. And lets not forget, as posted earlier, that "hate crimes" against blacks are not limited to whites as perpetrators. In fact I'd hazard to guess that MOST of those cases are NOT by whites.

That "Other" Category is pretty large, no? And I think "gangs" is a cop-out cover up for La-Raza and so called "Black Power" activities.

There was evidence of white supremacist beliefs in 56% of all religiously motivated crimes and 17% of racially motivated crimes.

It's almost like the people who wrote this thing do not think that anybody other than whites can have racial hate. It's like other humans are not quite as human as whites. Isn't that, umm... racist?

In 2016, 52% of anti-black crimes were committed by Latino/as (compared to 59% the previous year). Latino/a on black crimes plunged from 64 to 38, a 41% drop.

Fifty-nine percent of the anti-Latino/a crimes were committed by African Americans, up from 52% the previous year. The number of these crimes grew slightly from 24 to 27.

Oh wait. Here it is. So remember when they said that anti-black crime was nearly half of race based hate crimes? Right. So now we find that half of that number was due to Latinos.

Oh.

And it was 60% last year.

Oh.

In terms of gang involvement, of the 38 Latino/a-on-black hate crimes, 13 were committed by gang members (34%, down from 47% in 2015).

Wait. is this in addition to the 52% because if it IZZZZZZZ...then these "white supremacists" are really not the proximate threat they are being made out to be. And perhaps we should be directing our attention to La-Raza instead.

Methinks these youth are raising their fists for 'human relations" that are not what we are being led to believe.

Because everything is Trump's fault.

Hellooooo Session Justice Department

You can count me among those who are dismayed at the current state of affairs of the Justice [sic] Department. How we have states talking about being sanctuary states and cities talking about being sanctuary cities in blatant violation of federal law without action is beyond me. Why the mayors of NYC and LA haven't had a public perp walk with members of various city councils not indicted on RICO immigration law charges is also baffling to me. How the perpetrators of so called "hate crime" hoaxes haven't been charged with civil rights violations of the citizens they attempted to smear and intimidate is also of great concern to me. But that's not what this post is about. This is about the new Klan.

From Takimag:

In 2016, I wrote about the Boyle Heights neighborhood in East L.A. Boyle Heights is about 95% Latino, and its residents aim to keep it that way. Last year, the Obama administration handed down a federal civil rights indictment against Boyle Heights’ oldest and largest street gangs.

A gang that used violence and intimidation to keep blacks out. Sounds mighty familiar.

The gangs had strong support from the community, and even after the federal indictment, the area is still almost entirely devoid of blacks.

Indictment? There's been no guilty verdicts here?

Boyle Heights activists have been in the news once again, and this time, their targets are white. They’ve been waging a relentless campaign to force the closure of any stores that might attract white people to the neighborhood. First to go were the art galleries, which were targeted because art appreciation is apparently a whites-only endeavor (unless you’re Frida Kahlo or a graffiti tagger). “Fuck white art” was painted on gallery doors. Windows were broken, employees harassed. Most of the targeted gallery owners surrendered to the segregationists and fled. After defeating a bunch of pretentious art sissies, the activists decided that the coffee shops were next.

If such a graffiti was in fact sprayed on a gallery door then why wasn't this national news and where are the feds?

Customers trying to enter the store were harassed. Signs were posted around the city depicting a white hipster’s head in the crosshairs of a rifle. And through it all, at no point did the activists make any attempt to hide the racial nature of their cleansing campaign: “No white people. No white stores.”

Where are the feds? Hello Sessions!!!

The Boyle Heights activists joined up with Pilsen activists to protest the opening of a new restaurant in the neighborhood. The owners of the eatery, named S.K.Y., are accused of “gentrifying” the neighborhood with their presence. So of course the activists responded by defacing the building, threatening the staff, and blocking people from entering. Naturally, the local press celebrated the anti-gentrifiers, mindlessly repeating their talking points: “Once a fancy restaurant moves into Pilsen, wealthy whites will follow, and soon property values will rise, and minorities will be tossed into the gutter, and so on and so forth blah blah blah genocide.”

The longer the diversity animal gets to walk around and consume, the more it grows and morphs into the thing it supposedly was against. The entire point of the Civil Rights movement was so that all citizens can enjoy the entire country, including stores and housing provided you can afford it, without harassment or risk of life, limb or property. What black folks (and others) are discovering is that the same civil rights they fought for would apply equally and suddenly now THEY want to protect THEIR neighborhoods from "outsiders" just as how whites didn't want them in THEIR neighborhoods.

Anyway, the point here is that we have clear examples of racial intimidation that the justice department is not pursuing. What exactly is Sessions doing up there in Washington?

The Accused

So more foundational principles of American culture crumble as we watch the orgy of sexual assault accusations sprawl from Hollywood to Alabama. At least in the case of Weinstein we have an audio tape in which he admits to having groped a woman. So there is at least one case where police were involved, an investigation done but not followed up. However, what we are seeing in Alabama is an entirely different fiasco once again showing that so called "conservatives" are not about conserving anything but their own access to power and money.

The US justice system is NOT an inquisition. Persons accused of wrong doing, particularly that of a criminal nature do not have to prove their innocence. Rather the accuser, in criminal cases that would be the state, must prove that a crime was committed. Now a days many people say that that is reserved for the courts. Technically that is true. However as is pointed out by various cultural observers, the nature of a state is determined by the culture of it's people which grows out of the people themselves. The US would not have such a legal state if it did not come out of the culture of the people who founded it. Hence it would and should be common for persons to take such principles as 'innocent until proven guilty" into their own behavior and attitudes.

Today with the willingness of corporations to play cultural police and rush to believe anyone this side of white heterosexual male and punish accordingly, the very foundations of US culture is being removed. Black people should not welcome this turn of events but too many are glad to jump on this train because "white folks". How soon they forget the black people lynched, burned alive and if lucky run out of town on the mere say so of a random white woman or white man that a sexual assault was attempted or a theft of some sort had occurred. With such a history, you would think black folks would be front and center in a push against accusations being believed and acted upon at face value.

In the case of Moore we have the use of accusation for blatant political ends. Moore who has run for many offices, many times, should have had any such allegation or rumor appear long before this month. Since I have heard commentary to the effect that "it was known...", then why didn't such accusations appear during the Republican primary? Why didn't these accusations come up when Moore was going head to head with the state over his hanging of the Ten Commandments? These two questions alone ought to make the voters of Alabama very suspect of the Republican party which has already shown itself to be the right wing of the Democratic party, full of people like McCain who openly state that they are working in the interests of non-citizens and who openly turn about on basic campaign promises.

But more than just the rank political opportunism is the fact that Moore has no way to clear his name. There is a reason for statute of limitations. Eyewitness testimony is already a faulty proposition. People get key details wrong all the time, particularly when they are still in shock over an event. Physical evidence deteriorates or is destroyed. And with the exception of murder where finding a dead body shows that the crime did in fact occur (even if the last best suspect turns out to not be involved), crimes in which the only "evidence' is the testimony (and credibility) of the accused and accuser leaves no way to discern the truth.

No jury of fair minded people can dismiss the fact that people will lie about an event in order to get even with the person they have accused. This is not limited to women nor is it limited to the subject of sexual assault. Currently in the cases against individuals involved in the riot in Charlottesville a number of persons have had charges dropped because Antifa types were shown to have lied. Lies and hoaxes happen all the time.

I have little respect for the French people or government due to their attitude towards the slow moving destruction of their country by the leadership they continue to elect but I do respect the law that they have there in which the media cannot splash accusation against a person all over the public. Such a rule would of course be unconstitutional in the US but it would be a good policy to adopt. But back to Moore.

Hannity said on his program that he was giving Moore until sundown...no sorry...24 hours to "prove his innocence". How was Moore to do that? And why is an American saying this? Can more get video tape of him meeting said female(s) from 40 years ago? Nope. Can Moore get all the phone records from that time? No. How exactly is Moore to prove that something that allegedly happened 40 years ago didn't happen. We don't prove negatives anyway.

Also of importance is that many of the women involved met the Alabama age of consent. So they cannot claim statutory rape or even attempted. Hence why the stories are now about how Moore allegedly forced himself on the then teenagers. Whether we agree with it or not, like it or not, 39 year old Moore was perfectly within his legal rights to chat up a 16 year old (in Alabama) and have sex with her if she consented. He could even call her house.

In the end the "accusation culture" in which folks can drop bombs on people decades after alleged acts occur is going to claim a lot of people's lives (literally and figuratively). It is a rot on American culture and will poison relationships between men and women as men seek to protect themselves against future legal entanglements and financial ruin brought on by upset and vindictive ex girlfriends and ex-wives. As black American history shows, mob rule via accusation never leads to good outcomes.

Those "Disaffected Democrats"= Perpetual Victims

Lets look at the "Disaffected Democrats" of the survey

Who they are: Over half (56%) of Disaffected Democrats are non-white. Highly financially stressed, they are the least likely to own a home and – along with Devout and Diverse – would have a tougher time than other typology groups if they needed to live off of their savings.

They are financially insecure but they have passports galore!

But note that this group has the most non-whites.

Lets look at these items.

1) They are financially insecure so they blame businesses, saying that they are making too much profit. Apparently they don't think that if businesses are making so much profit, they should, you know, start one!

2) The economic system is for the powerful: But lets not try to become powerful.

3) The country needs to do more to "give" equal rights to blacks: What rights? Oh. Right.

4)Poor people have hard lives because the government doesn't give them enough benefits: Of course, it's ALWAYS the government's fault.

5) Immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents: Wait. Not because of government benefits? Not because of the economic system that favors the powerful? You mean they WORKED? If that's the case then why... 6) Hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people: But...but...but....

I'm going to stop here but this group is so overwhelmingly negative and externalizing fault it's sad. If you are in this group you really need to check yourself.

"Solid Liberal" Contradictions

So the appendix of the people survey describes the different groups in the survey. For "Solid Liberal" we have in part:

Who they are: The most highly educated of the typology groups, 57% are college graduates and nearly three-in-ten (29%) have a graduate degree. Non-Hispanic whites make up the vast majority of this group (73%), and the group is more female than male (59% to 41%). Solid Liberals are financially satisfied and among the most likely to live in urban areas.

What does this group of 73% white males believe?

Oh. This same group that said that hard work and determination doesn't lead to success for most people thinks that immigrants are a plus for America because....wait for it...their hard work and determination.

These people are the "highest educated" of the surveyed groups.

Really.

Invest in Future vs. Invest in Travel

Another interesting item in the people survey is what conservatives and liberals do with their money. Have you noticed that a lot of the advertisement from Google, Apple and other tech companies with left affiliations feature travel and/or "exotic" places? Well the graphic below will explain:

It's very clear that conservatives place a higher value on preparing for the future and being self sufficient whereas liberals want to fly around the world. Remember that the group with the passports wishes to tax the people who have invested in homes and future income to pay for people who don't think hard work and determination can lead to success.

Of course the passport holding group is likely to look down their noses at the non holders as people who are unsophisticated and not knowledgeable about the world.

Security Vs. Liberty

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin Whether one thinks this is about taxation or not the sentiment is generally clear. In the context of the people survey we'll make it about conservatism:

How is it that so many people calling themselves conservatives are willing to toss privacy and freedoms? Exactly what is it they are conserving?

Liberals: Blacks Are Perpetual Victims

Continuing with the survey we find the following:

The vast majority of liberals/Democrats believe that discrimination is the primary reason 'many blacks can't get ahead".

Question: "Get ahead of what?"
Question: Who are these "many"?
Question: These blacks who are not getting ahead, what do they do?

Remember, these same liberals believe that hard work and determination cannot lead to success for most people. So having taken "hard work and determination" off the table for black success, they leave the discrimination boogey man in the room as the explain all. And the vast majority of us blacks who have "gotten ahead" in whatever capacity? Oh never mind us. We don't count. Fluke theory, remember?

What Rights?

Continuing with the people survey we have this on "equal rights":

I would have liked to have seen a follow up question for those who say "more needs to be done to give blacks equal rights": What rights do [citizen] blacks not have that the rest of the citizens do?

This is the one question that I never see asked when a talking head appears to talk about "equality". We can start at constitutional rights and move on from there. I hold that the problems facing black people today are not one of "rights" at all. I hold that the arguments and conflicts in the US today are about government privileges, privilege status and privileged legislation.

Interesting Questions in Political Survey

So there is a report at people-press.org. It's lengthy so put aside some time if you plan on reading it all. One point jumped out at me as an interesting question:

How do so many liberals think that hard work and determination doesn't lead to success for most people?

I could understand if the statement lacked the "most people" part. Indeed if the "most people" part were missing, then 100% percent of people surveyed should have said that hard work and determination doesn't guarantee a damn thing. But for most people, you get the results of your work.

And being "busy" doesn't mean one is working hard. There are a lot of people who are busy doing bullshit. Secondly there are a lot of people doing "hard work" at things that aren't profitable. But neither of these things are implied in the statement. It's pretty scary that the people who hold a lot of power in the educational system (that would be Democrats) hold the idea that hard work and determination will not likely lead to some level of success.

It is therefore unsurprising that the next question shakes out how it does:

Clearly if Liberals think that people have no real agency in determining their success in life they would think that an outside agent, the government must do something, anything, regardless of cost. This should be of great concern to any and every middle class citizen who has gotten where they are because they worked hard. Not only do Democrats in general think that such middle class success was a fluke but that you should be taxed more to prop up those who Democrats teach should see themselves as lacking agency to get ahead.

Also in line with this thinking is Liberal/Democrat ideas on taxes:

Clearly if your "hard work and determination" was a fluke then you don't deserve to keep your earnings. Similarly, if your business is a success because of your "hard work and determination" which also was a fluke, your business should be taxed more to support those who don't believe hard work and determination will get them anywhere.

Are Non-Whites Leading Indicator of Social Decline?

So at the end of Coming Apart by Charles Murray, I was struck by some charts on the last chapter. I noticed a pattern that Murray never mentioned directly but reminded me of a common social comment. The neighborhood I grew up in, like many neighborhoods in NY, used to be white. As black people moved in, white people moved out. We had a neighbor who refused to leave. Stayed until he died. Today there are no white people in the neighborhood. Luckily the 6 blocks that make up my immediate neighborhood has an extremely low crime rate (but going up unfortunately). However the "greater" neighborhood is not so situated. If you research assault stats on NYPD's website you can actually make a map of the major neighborhood roads. I'm pretty certain it wasn't like that in the 1950s.

This post isn't to prove that blacks caused decline or whether like the old commentary, it's about America's cold means Black Americas pneumonia. I'm just going to show the charts. Below are 5 charts from Murrays "Fishtown" and "Belmont". These fictitious towns were made to represent data about neighborhoods of certain socioeconomic makeups that can be found all over the US. Of importance is what these places represent:

Belmont: "Members have at least a bachelor's degree and are managers, physicians, attorneys, engineers, architects, scientists, college faculty members, or in content-production jobs in the media...I assign married persons to Belmont if either they or their spouse has at least a college degree and is in one of those occupations." Median family income $124,200

Fishtown: Members are "blue collar, service, or low-level white collar occupation, and no academic degree more advanced that a high school diploma." median income $41,900.

There was a complex rule for how married people were assigned to Fishtown. If you're interested, read the book. So no, it's not actually "Fishtown", but it may well be my neighborhood.

This shows the decline of marriage. The dashed line is whites only. the solid line is the entire population. Clearly then the difference between the two is what the non-white population is doing. You'll note, particularly in "Fishtown" that the non-white population leads the decline.

Once again non-whites are leading indicators.

Once again, non-whites are the leading indicator of unemployed men.

Non-whites lead the decline in members working 40 hours a week.

Inmates in prison. I won't say it.

Non-whites lead the arrests. Note that when arrests declined for the general population the white arrest rate declined a bit later.

So in "poorer" neighborhoods it appears that the presence of non-whites and their behaviours will strongly indicate what the white population will be doing in the near future. In richer neighborhoods the leading indicators are there but nowhere near as strong. So clearly income has a moderating effect on the behavior. It is known that in even wealthy neighborhoods, non-whites, specifically blacks, have higher incidents of criminal behavior compared to their white neighbors.

California's Hepatitis Problem a Byproduct of Democratic Rule

The Washington Post has a piece on the growing homeless and hepatitis problem in San Diego CA. Not once does the article mention immigration. Not a once. How do you discuss homelessness in CA and not point out that there are over 1 million people there that do not belong there?

In Southern California, about 1.4 million undocumented immigrants live between the southern Ventura County border and the U.S.-Mexico border — the biggest concentration of undocumented people in the country.

Clearly these people live somewhere and if those persons, who are squatting in America, were removed per the law, these homeless could have somewhere to live.

The first of three large, city-sanctioned tents opened earlier this month to bring some of the more than 9,000 homeless people into sanitary conditions, at least temporarily. A vaccination program that already has protected more than 65,000 residents continues with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has called this outbreak the deadliest since it began tracking the disease in the United States two decades ago.

So here we have state government that would rather spend money to provide goods and services to over 1 million people who should not be here rather than house 9000 people who [we suppose] should. On top of that, we don't even know how many of these homeless are also persons who should not be here.

The state’s poverty rate has become the highest in the nation, a direct result of housing costs that statewide exceed twice the national average.

I think removing 1 million tenants would have an affect on rents.

Having discussed immigration, the other side of this is mental health. It is a fallacy to assume that all the homeless are simply people who got a huge medical bill. A lot of them have issues that made them unable to gain or maintain employment. Problems that alienated family, or simply have come up against the long term consequences of early life prioritization of pleasure seeking.

RIP Robert Guillaume

I really loved that show Benson. He was one of those dignified black men on TV.

He was one of three black men on TV that had a major influence on me:

Robert Guillaume, Bill Cosby and Avery Brooks.

RIP brother.

Crime in UK

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

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

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

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

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

Here we have the arrest rates:

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

1) The crimes involve multiple perps.

and/or

2) Blacks are victimizing non-black groups.

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

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

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

Lastly we have in prison violence:

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

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

More Data On The "Non-Existent" Races

Via Gizmodo originally from ScienceMag and the source paper:

Ever since researchers sequenced the first full genome of Neandertals in 2010, they have known that the ancestors of European Neandertals interbred with modern humans. By comparing the Neandertal genome with that of modern humans, they found a curious pattern: Present-day Europeans and Asians have inherited about 1% to 3% of their DNA from Neandertals, but Africans have not.

So Europeans are genetically a different type of human than the African.

All of this suggests that modern humans mixed with archaic humans at least three times after they migrated out of Africa. But that’s just a fraction of the intermingling that must have taken place. Neandertals also interbred with Denisovans. And the new study confirms that the Denisovans themselves did indeed interbred with a “superarchaic” hominin, possibly H. erectus, whom they encountered as early as 400,000 years ago. There are also hints that Denisovans interbred with modern humans in Asia more than once, based on different patterns in the distribution of Denisovan DNA in some Chinese and Melanesians. “One would think that mixing has occurred multiple times for a long time,” Castellano says.

Modern humans [in Europe] absorbed genes from archaic humans in Europe and Asia at least three times since moving out of Africa. So again, the African and the European (and Asian) are a different kind of human.

Europeans who still have genes from Neandertals that are shaping their health today. The inbred Altai Neandertal also got modern human DNA that may have been involved in speech, the immune system, and the production of sperm, Castellano says. And that fits with the theory that interbreeding was an important and rapid source of genetic diversity that could have been crucial for adapting to new terrain as modern humans spread into foreign lands.

Europeans got genes from archaic humans that did what? Impact speech? Isn't speech dependent upon brain development? Why yes, yes it is. So here we have a scholarly paper stating outright that the genes inherited by Europeans via their mixing with archaic humans changed their brain development. Not only that but these genes affected the immune system (which we would expect) meaning that there is a general difference between disease susceptibility between Africans and Europeans that is genetic in origins.

Many Neandertal variants associated with phenotypes and susceptibility to diseases have been identified in present-day non-Africans (6, 7, 10–12). The fact that the Vindija Neandertal genome is more closely related to the introgressing Neandertals allows ~15% more such variants to be identified (20). Among these are variants associated with plasma levels of LDL cholesterol (rs10490626) and vitamin D (rs6730714), eating disorders (rs74566133), visceral fat accumulation (rs2059397), rheumatoid arthritis (45475795), schizophrenia (rs16977195) and the response to antipsychotic drugs (rs1459148). This adds to mounting evidence that Neandertal ancestry influences disease risk in present-day humans, particularly with respect to neurological, psychiatric, immunological, and dermatological phenotypes (7).

But remember, there are no races. Race is [only] a social construct and all differences in humans are due to white supremacist oppression.

UK Falls Deeper Into Totalitarianism

[Edited 10-5-2017 8:30AM] From Breitbart quoting The Guardian

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” declared British Home Secretary Amber Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.”

Not only does the UK government think it has the right to tell you what you can and cannot read. It deems it can tell you how many times you may read whatever it is the government deems "far right".

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

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

People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday.

I would have said you were mad. This is part of the "magic dirt" bullshit that liberals operate with and are increasingly imposing on society. If we pass a law against 'x' then people will stop doing 'x". No. People inclined to do "x" will find ways to do "x". What the government should be doing is not importing and deporting those persons who are inclined to bring harm to it's citizens. It ought not be trying to criminalize it's citizens who object [thus being labelled far right] to their countries and their freedoms being taken from them.

Statements like this:

According to the Home Office the updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be guilty of the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of “reasonable excuse” would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.

Should have Brits rioting in the streets. The government wants you to come up with a "defense" for reading or viewing material online? How do these words fall out of someone's mouth and not be immediately objected to by everyone else in the room? I watch what I want, as often as I want. Period. Reading and watching cannot be a crime. And since when are "academics" and "Journalists" afforded special status and rights that other citizens don't have?