Yes, Black On Black Crime is "A Thing"

A couple of days I ago I ran across this piece on a Black Lives Matter (sic) movement gathering in which the following was said by a Patrisse Cullors in which she made the claim:

Cullors also asserted, “Black-on-black crime is a myth.” She called comments on the phenomenon a “distraction” and “an unnecessary debate,” then encouraged the audience that when a conversation goes in that direction to “shut it down.”

I am still in shock that someone who claims to value black lives would be so cavalier about black on black crime, which most certainly exists. but go so far as to say that the phenomenon is a "distraction". I would agree that it is an "unneccessary debate" in that no one who is informed on the subject would be debating the topic. It exists and the only debate needed is how best to address it. And I'm following in the tradition of Amos Wilson, our ancestor who literally wrote the book on the subject. I know these black lives matter people don't read but I suggest that anyone reading this do themselves a favor and read the book. Now lets move on to the definitive post on black on black crime.

The Source Of The Confusion

Why is it that there are so many people who believe that "black on black crime" doesn't exist? It's because the term "black on black crime" is admittedly a poor choice of words to describe the actual situation and lends itself to confusion. Here's why: As anyone who studies crime statistics can tell you, in general violent crime happens between people of the same race. Generally. And because of this fact, most people jump to the easy conclusion that there is no difference in rates of black and white crimes. That conclusion is false.

The Real Deal

Why is this false? Well we have to keep a number of things in mind. Black people only make up 13 % of the US population. All things being equal you would expect that black crime (particularly violent crime) would be in proportion to the population. It is not. Not by a long shot.

Back in 2005 I wrote a piece in response to Bill Bennett's comments on aborting black babies in order to reduce crime:

White males are represented by 717 male inmates per 100,000 white males. In 1988 the white/black population ratio was 6.44. If we assume this number to still be accurate then our hypothetical white male population would be 128,800,000 people. Doing the math we did for the black population, we would get another 923,496 inmates. If we put these numbers together we get close to the total prison population of the US as of June 2005 (2,131,180). What immediately jumps out is that following Bennett’s logic, if we aborted every white baby, we would see the same drop in crime, since eliminating all white babies or all black babies would produce, mathematically, the same drop in inmates, and the crimes they committed. [note: My apologies to Lashawn Barber. She was right on this subject and I was wrong (and being emotional) ]

The important part is that blacks make up nearly 50% of the prison population yet are only 13% of the total US population. Whenever you have half of your crimes done by less than 15% of your population, you have a population with serious issues.

Furthermore when we look at the leading causes of death we see a similarly disturbing reality:

For black males, Homicide is the second leading cause of death for 10-14 year olds.

10 to 14 years of age.

Homicide is the number one cause of death of African-American males between the age of 15 -34.

15 to 34.

...

White males between the ages of 15 and 19 have homicide as the number 3 cause of death (compared to number one for black males)

White males between the ages of 20 -24 have homicide as the number 3 cause of death (compared to number one for black males).

White males between the ages of 25 and 34 have homicide as the number 5 cause of death (compared to number one for black males).

This data shows that unlike white folks, black males have a far higher chance of being killed. Don't take my word for it. Take the NYPD's word for it:

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter

Ummm does ANYTHING at ALL stand out to you?

Blacks are 62% of those arrested for murder and whites are 3%. Not only are blacks committing more crimes in NYC, but they are over an order of magnitude (times 2) more than whites. But there IS NO BLACK ON BLACK CRIME PROBLEM!

And since so many black women are into feminism...

Rape

Clearly the white frat boys are not the problem they are being made out to be. And notice this:

Though whites are 17% of rape victims they are only 5% of those arrested for rape. So exactly who is doing the other 12% of rapes on white people (mostly thought not exclusively women)?

More..

Felonious Assault

Translation: If you are assaulted it is MOST likely you will be black. It will also be likely that the person assaulting you is black. In both cases if that person is not "black" it's someone named Gonzalez, Ramirez, or some other "ez" or "es". Remember though, this isn't REALLY happening.

Grand Larceny

If you get robbed in NY. You're likely white. The perp is probably black or hispanic (and may be both at the same time. It happens). And lastly:

Shooting Incidents

Do you notice those huge long bars for Black? Victim, Suspect and Arrestee?

Lets look at this chart carefully. In NYC, 75% of the shooting crimes are committed by black persons. Seventy. Five. Percent.

Whites are 1.7% of the shooting victims. Yet are arrested 1.1% of the time. That means almost one half of white shooting deaths were caused by non whites. Blacks are 23% of the population of NYC. Males are about half that. so about 12% of the city's population is likely responsible for half the white shooting deaths.

I don't need to go on because the dataspeaks for itself. Black on Black crime is a real thing. We, those who actually care about black folks, have known this for a long time. Those persons who are claiming that this epidemic in our communities not only doesn't exist but isn't worth "debate" are either ignorant of the facts or have an ulterior motive. Because of the actions of these people, there have been more dead black people in places like Baltimore than at any time since the 1990s. These people most metaphorically have blood on their hands.

It's time for these white media organizations like Huffington Post, Atlantic, Salon, etc. to be held accountable for allowing their mediums to be used to spread outright lies about black people. It's time they stopped giving platforms to black folks who only know sound bites and catch phrases. It's time for universities to stop giving jobs and opportunities to folks who's ideologies and works have lead to actual deaths in black communities. It is time for black media outlets like TheRoot, Ebony, Essence, etc to be called to account for using their platforms to allow for falsehoods.

What's Good For The Rockers Isn't For The Bakers

And so I see that another "Rock n' Rolla" is bothered by Trump's use of his music (though he says it's about copyright, so I assume it's about how much he wishes to be paid). Lets look at what they say:

Tyler has sent Trump a cease-and-desist letter, saying that the use of the song “gives a false impression that he is connected with or endorses Mr. Trump’s presidential bid,” AP reported.

It’s the second warning coming from Tyler: at the end of August, after a rally in Mobile, Alabama, he asked Trump not to use the song. However, the Republican presidential candidate and real estate tycoon ignored the warning.

You get that? By using Tyler's previously recorded music at his rally, Trump is "implying that Tyler endorses or is connected with the campaign". Never mind that Tyler was not asked to personally attend any of the campaign events. Nor was Tyler asked to personally perform at any campaign event. Nor was Tyler asked to write and record a song for the Trump Campaign. No. The Trump campaign simply downloaded the music from whatever third party and played it at their event (likely in violation of public broadcast rules). That Tyler's music was played at a Trump event is no more of an endorsement of Trump than Tyler's music being played during a crime means he endorses criminal behavior. If anything it is an endorsement of Tyler by Trump and/or his campaign.

The point being that the important thing is that Tyler claims that by the mere use of music he created at some long ago time, he is deemed to have endorsed the event and persons.

n mid-June Neil Young, a supporter of the left in US politics, demanded that the mogul’s presidential campaign stop using his song “Rockin’ in the Free World.”

Last month, R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe had some harsh words for Trump when his campaign used the band’s song “It’s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine).” Stipe called it “a moronic charade of a campaign” on his ex-bandmate’s Twitter account...

R.E.M. issued an official statement on Facebook, saying that they “do not authorize or condone the use of [their] music at this political event, and do ask that these candidates cease and desist from doing so.”

Here again we see the Stipe using the idea that since they do not endorse or condone of the behavior and or philosophy of the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign must cease and desist from using the music. In other words, Stipe feels that he can deny service to a customer based on that customer's behavior and ideology.

Now The Ghost agrees with Stipe and Tyler in that they should not have to associate and be associated with any organization or person(s) that they personally object to. Furthermore I agree that they should not have to furnish a product or service to an organization or person(s) to which they personally object to. Of course that also means that the bakers ALSO have the right to not associate themselves with persons, organizations or gatherings they object to. But since the Baker's have no such right, even under what should be a recognized constitutional right of free exercise of religion, then neither Tyler nor Stipe should have ANY SAY whatsoever as to what group decides to play their music at their functions so long as those customers pay the proper royalties for public broadcasts or entertainment as such rules apply. If it's good for the rockers then it's good for the bakers.

Bernie Sanders Stoops to Insulting Citizens for Latino votes

Bernie Sanders in Arizona:

“Today’s undocumented workers play an extraordinarily important role in our economy. Without these workers it is likely that our agricultural system would collapse. Undocumented workers are doing the hardest work in this country, they’re harvesting our crops, building our homes, cooking our meals and caring for our kids. They are part of the fabric of this country.”

Because crops cannot be grown and harvested with legal workers. Because Americans cannot and do not want to do construction work. Because Americans cannot and will not cook for a fair wage. Because Americans cannot and will not do child care for a fair wage.

Salon.com And Brittany Cooper Come Out Against Black Fathers and Families

One of my reasons for ending my support for this thing called Feminism, was the blatant anti-straight male ideology that regularly appeared in statements by people who otherwise were against people being anti-anything. It was particularly sad to see black women embracing these ideas, particularly since they should know better. You hear all the time that feminists are not against stay at home moms nor "traditional" families. yet you'll consistently see attacks on stay at home moms and against traditional families. Here's the latest example:

American families are changing, and we should celebrate the fact that the two-parent, nuclear family ideal has gone the way of the floppy disk.

For those who are too young to remember, much less use a floppy disk the 5.25 actual "floppy" type or the 3.5 hard plastic covered type. What she is saying is that the nuclear family of a man, woman and their biologically related child(ren) has been thrown into the dustbin of history. Not only is it obsolete, but it is altogether absent except in historical areas.

This is prima facie proof that feminists, including black feminists hate on the black nuclear family. It is proof that they are a danger to the greater black community and should be denounced and removed from serious black society.

There is research that shows that children, regardless of race do better when they live with both of their biological parents (follow the linked citations). And note that these studies do not focus on race. So either Brittany Cooper doesn't know this information or chooses to ignore it and hope's the people she seeks to mislead don't find it.

It is also the case that statistically speaking black women who at least live with a black man (assumed to be gainfully employed) have a 31x times more wealth than single women

Knowing this, why does Brittany Cooper and Salon.com write material that supports lifestyles that are damaging to black people? Let me propose an answer: Salon.com hates men, most specifically, straight white men who are masculine. Black feminists hate men as well and have a special bone to pick with black men. Why?

In the case of Salon.com, white feminists having been "blessed" with a very comfortable life based of the inventions, hard work and safe societies made by white men have done what most people who are the recipients of things they didn't make, they resent them. Not having to "get their hands dirty" dealing with building and maintaining civilizations, they get to talk about what society must give them. On top of this is the guilt from slavery and colonialism that paralyzes a large portion of white society when confronted with obvious bullshit that feminists dish out.

For black women feminists, I believe they have a deep subconscious loathing of black men in general. I cam to understand this when I read Soul On Ice. When Cleaver discusses being stopped by a police officer while in the presence of a black woman he was "seeing". The officer did whatever he did that disrespected Cleaver and he said that he saw the look in the woman's eye that she no longer saw him as "a man" and started being disrespectful of him.

I think that black women, in general, see the world they live in, particularly in The West, and see that black men in general, have shit to do with it. Black men are entertainers and that is all. We run created and run, CREATED AND RUN, none of the large businesses of any kind. We are the most unemployed this side of a reservation. We have the most criminal element ANYWHERE on the planet. Seriously. Whether it be Europe, China, Africa or America, wherever we are, we fuck up with the law at way higher rates than other people.

Increasingly smart black women come to understand that they can "make that money" and therefore live a certain lifestyle by NOT entangling themselves with a black man and more and more of them are doing so and becoming single parents voluntarily. A dude can be had for some penis when necessary. That's that new preferred means of doing things. Not that "floppy disk" means. And so, generally speaking, Black feminist women see black men as useful for entertainment and impregnation. The government provides the "security" in the form of WIC, Section 8, Mandatory sick leave, Earned income tax credits, free pre-K, School breakfast, lunch and sometimes dinner. In short, everything that a black husband would be expected to provide can be provided at a minimal level by the government, rendering the black male irrelevant except for breeding and entertainment (and perhaps protection depending on geography).

If the above is correct (I have no proof one way or the other) then it readily explains why a black women who is supposedly concerned about the livelihood of black people would be so happy to see the man, woman, child family structure go the way of the floppy, because Black men are irrelevant, at "home" and out of it..

Exactly What Do People Think The Enslaved Africans Were Doing?

I thought that it was a joke but it wasn't:

Where does geography meet history? A schoolbook book calling African slaves “workers” in pages titled Patterns of Immigration was discovered by a concerned mother in Texas. After she exposed the gaffe on Facebook, the publisher found itself in hot water

Gaffe? What gaffe? What do you think the purpose of transporting Africans to the New World was for? Vacationing? Touring? Here's the original text:

“The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations,” the book says.

And the problem?

“…we conducted a close review of the content and agree that our language in that caption did not adequately convey that Africans were both forced into migration and to labor against their will as slaves.” McGraw Hill Education said in the post.

What? What part of "The Atlantic Slave Trade" doesn't the reader understand? Clearly by saying "Atlantic Slave Trade" the Africans status was stated and why they were transported, To WORK the various cash crops, is also clear? What is there to be offended about?

Dean-Burren and many others on social media were especially angered by the implication that slaves were merely labor migrants who hadn’t been forced to come to the US to work on agricultural plantations.

Dean-Burren is an idiot who should have told as much. There is no implication that describing the why of enslavement, work, implies that slavery equals voluntary immigration. That is entirely in Dean-Burren's head.

Another passage points out that Europeans who came to the US as indentured servants worked for little or no pay. However, there were no similar comments on people coming from Africa.

“They say that about English and European people, but there is no mention of African immigrants working as slaves or being slaves. It just says that we were workers,” she said.

Get a clue. Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade" is THE ONLY comment needed to establish the status of enslaved Africans. No one of reasonable intelligence needs to have the word "slave" repeated in every reference to Africans in order to know the status of the the majority of Africans in the Americas at that time.

Can we please stop pandering to the perpetually offended and clueless people looking for attention?

Ben Carson: Neo Con

Most sane observers understand that it was a mistake for the US to arm so called "moderate rebels" in Syria. Most of these "moderate rebels" went on to pledge allegiance to ISIS while Christians in the country have been run out whenever they aren't killed. So here comes Carson:

Carson stated, “What we, I don’t think, should do, is back down from Putin, right now. We need to make him aware of the fact that we’re not going to alter our flight patterns. We’re not be restricted by anything that he says, same thing with ground, air we will — I would establish a no-fly zone along the Turkish border, because we don’t want the forces to be in juxtaposition, because that will increase the possibility of an international incident. And I would be talking to Putin, and he needs to understand that if he continues with this activity, we’re going to use all the facilities that we have available to us, including financial facilities, to inflict pain on him.”

This commentary makes as much sense as Carson's explanation of evolution.

“I do not want to allow Vladimir Putin to expand his influence. That’s been his goal for quite some time now. He was very disappointed with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and its tremendous influence worldwide. We cannot contribute to his ability to re-gain that.”

"Allow"? Now Putin has said himself that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was something that he found to be very bad but having influence in the world would be a bad thing? After what Bush and Obama have done to the Middle East? You know what keeps a bully in check, knowing there's another mofo just as bad as him also roaming the halls who likes to take sides of the people the bully likes to pick on.

He continued, “we need to have a global strategy, and it needs not only be in Syria, we need to be talking about the Baltic basin. We need to be talking about all of Eastern Europe. We need to be challenging him there. We need more than one armored brigade there — more than two armored brigades. e need to have a missile defense system re-established, which he was horrified when it was there before. Let’s get in his face a little bit.”

Yo! Why not re-establish the Star Wars program from Reagan!!? Really though. One of the reasons for Russia being as assertive as it is now is because we keep expanding east via NATO and putting offensive weapons on his borders on some "We need missiles right here on your border to protect Europe from missiles from Iran." And we think Putin is dumb enough, like some other leaders to go "Oh why didn't you just say so!!? Please do!"

I don't know who's giving Carson geo-political advice but it certainly isn't the likes of Pat Buchanan

French Euro MP Sidelined After France is a 'White Race' Remark

The quote:

Morano, a former minister with a reputation for gaffes and unguarded Twitter comments, said in a television interview on Saturday that: “We are a Jewish-Christian country... of white race, which takes in foreigners.”

I'm not at all sure about the "Jewish" part but my knowledge of geography and history says the "white race" part is absolutely correct. Is France banishing it's own history?

I don't understand how this is even controversial. Would anyone say that claiming that Japan is an Asian country that takes in [very very very few] foreigners is incorrect? What about China? Look, The Ghost is not a hypocrite. If it's not racist, and lets be clear, this is what the drama is about, to say that Japan is an Asian country then it cannot be racist to say France is a country of [a] White race. I have asked the question before: Aren't the native (or first) inhabitants of Europe allowed to have their own countries just like everyone else?

W. Carson Byrd and Matthew W. Hughey: Two Idiots In A Tree

It is an unfortunate fact that the vast majority of so called "Pro-Black" people have less knowledge about biology than Ben Carson has about evolution. With recent revelations of various "black" and "Pan-African" studies departments being "pass mills" for not to high IQ athletes, you'd think these professors would be wary to broadcast their ignorance in public. You would think. Unfortunately one Carson Byrd and Matthew W. Hugley don't. Before we get into it lets look at their bios:

W. Carson Byrd is assistant professor of Pan-African Studies at the University of Louisville. Matthew W. Hughey is associate professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut.

I have pointed out repeatedly that sociologists generally have no business expounding on genetics. If they wish to discuss the social phenomenon of race such as the One Drop Rule, they should have at it. But if they want to discuss heredity, they need to defer to experts in that field. Now on to the offending text:

This month, Jennifer Cramblett lost her “wrongful birth” lawsuit, which centered on a troubling ideology that has been creeping into mainstream discussions in ways not seen in decades. Cramblett claimed that the sperm used to inseminate her came from the wrong donor, leading to a biracial child, which she had not wanted. Her lawsuit claimed that this mix-up in the lab caused her and her family personal injuries of various kinds.

This lawsuit was shadowed by a troubling logic: the idea that race is a biological reality with particular traits and behaviors that can be avoided through proper breeding practices. In doing so, Cramblett’s claims echoed arguments made in a darker era of global history of “scientific” racism.

Someone please tell these idiots how sexual reproduction works. Race is in fact a biological reality. The social concept of race is an entirely separate concept often divorced from the science of heredity. The One Drop Rule is a social concept that has no basis in sound science: it holds that black = non white. Whereas in well known science there are pure breeds and there are hybrids. I won't go into it here because I have addressed this at length.

Of course since the authors are wholly unqualified to discuss the biology, they fall back on the entirely irrelevant subject of social issues. Even there they fall down. For example:

But alongside that genetic understanding, an old and pernicious assumption has crept back into the American conversation, in which aptitudes are supposedly inherited by race: certain peoples are thought to have rhythm, or intellect, or speed or charm.

I have certainly NOT read of any studies, STUDIES, that have claimed that charm is highest is any particular race. I'd like to see any STUDIES if they exist. However, as anyone who watches the olympics will tell you, black folks be hella fast. When was the last time a Caucasian won any of the short distance (100 meters, and 200 meters) races? And what group of people regularly win them? Hint: They are descendants of West Africans. And when we look at the distance runners (5K and up) when was the last time that a non-East African won? It is clear that something about East Africans allow them to dominate the long distance races and something about the descendants of West Africans allow them to dominate short distance races. If it were simply technique, Europeans should be cleaning up like they do in field events. Say, Why don't Asians dominate at all?

Why do the Atlantic descendants of the Maafa do so well and not Nigerians and Ghanians (though these two groups end up representing their former colonial masters: England)? Though I do not believe any research has been done on the matter, I believe that the slave trade acted as a bottleneck. Those who could not only survive the hellish journey across the Atlantic but also survive the conditions of plantations without the benefit of modern medicine and nutrition, weeded out a lot of genes. So you have a founder effect. One of these effects would be, again in my opinion, the ability to retain water via high salt toleration. This would be beneficial in a plantation environment but is very, very unsuited for urban sedentary living.

The authors try to dispel the "speed" and slavery argument with:

For instance, in the wake of the 2012 Olympics, nearly one-third of the news articles that evoked race, genetics and athletics posited that African American and West Indian sprinters are fastest because they descend from testosterone-heavy ancestors who survived the brutal conditions of transatlantic slave trade—a belief that found resonance and widespread acceptance in a BBC-produced documentary entitled, “Survival of the Fastest.” But there is no gene or allele for “speed,” and no direct link between testosterone and speed (while sprinters may have high testosterone, not all high-testosterone people can sprint).

Here's the thing though: No one, no one serious anyway, will claim that there is a single gene responsible for speed. And those who think so do not understand the science. A lot of things have to come together. One has to have very efficient fast twitch muscles. In addition one must have a heart able to pump enough blood to feed those muscles. That's a whole bunch of genes right there. One also must have an efficient means of exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide (respiration). One must have numerous and very efficient mitochondria (inherited from mother only). Since must have an ability to deal with lactate conditions. I haven't even finished and anyone with a clue would realize that these items will involve hundreds if not thousands of genes. Furthermore, like intelligence there is a bell curve of sprint ability. Most people generally cluster towards the middle (slow. Ha!) and very, very few people fall into the far right. Since the olympics pulls athletes from the top 1% (or less) it is a showcase of the best of the best of the best of the best. And without any doubt Africans, particularly those descended from west Africans in America are the fastest of the fast.

Seems to me that these fellows simply do not understand the research they are reading. Not surprised though. Lets take another example:

Consider a recent paper that argues that ethnic conflict throughout history is a result of genetic diversity among communities. The authors argue that genetic diversity is the dominant force behind conflict among groups. It pushes religious communities into battle, causes distrust among neighbors and dictates support for problematic social policies. Such an argument places the history and future of human conflict in genes, as if human interaction and environmental influences cannot match their power.

But the paper they reference makes no such claim:

This research establishes that the emergence, prevalence, recurrence, and severity of intrastate conflicts in the modern era reflect the long shadow of prehistory. Exploiting variations across national populations, it demonstrates that genetic diversity, as determined predominantly during the exodus of humans from Africa tens of thousands of years ago, has contributed significantly to the frequency, incidence, and onset of both overall and ethnic civil conflict over the last half-century, accounting for a large set of geographical and institutional correlates of conflict, as well as measures of economic development. Furthermore, the analysis establishes the significant contribution of genetic diversity to the intensity of social unrest and to the incidence of intragroup factional conflict. These findings arguably reflect the contribution of genetic diversity to the degree of fractionalization and polarization across ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups in the national population; the adverse influence of genetic diversity on interpersonal trust and cooperation; the contribution of genetic diversity to divergence in preferences for public goods and redistributive policies; and the potential impact of genetic diversity on economic inequality within a society.

See the important words "contributed significantly" and "significant contribution" and "contribution" and "potential impact". Also see "preferences", "ethnic", "linguistic" among other signifiers that the authors are not saying "it's only the genes" but that genes, as with everything else, have a place in the outcomes.

I could go on but it should be clear to the reader that the authors really do not understand the studies they are [supposedly] reading or like many of their ilk, never bothered to actually read the studies they referenced. I know one thing, they have not a clue about the genetics of reproduction. Here's my suggestion for "Pan-African" studies departments everywhere: Lets science the shit out of this department and get rid of these folks who don't know what they are speaking of and making these department look like basket cases.

The Case Against CAIR

Lets be very clear about the case against CAIR in regards to Carson. First directly from the IRS:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

An "action organization" as defined by the IRS:

Political activities and legislative activities (commonly referred to as lobbying) are two different things and are subject to two different sets of rules and have different consequences of exceeding the limitations. The rules applied in a given situation depend on several issues:

The type of tax-exempt organization (different rules apply to private foundations than to other section 501(c)(3) organizations),
The type of activity (political or lobbying) at issue, and
The scope or amount of the activity conducted.

CAIR says:

Government Affairs CAIR's government affairs department conducts and organizes lobbying efforts on issues related to Islam and Muslims. The department monitors legislation and government activities and responds on behalf of the American Muslim community. CAIR representatives have testified before Congress and have sponsored a number of activities designed to bring Muslim concerns to Capitol Hill.

However CAIR is NOT a registered 527 organization. From it's own website:

© CAIR Foundation is a 501(c)(3) under federal tax guidelines. TAX ID: 77-0646756

So since CAIR is not a 527 it falls under the "cannot participate in any endorsement or activity against any political candidate. What CAIR said in regards to Carson:

In an interview Monday morning on "CNN Newsroom," a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argued that Carson is willfully ignoring Article VI of the Constitution, which states there will be “no religious test” for a candidate seeking public office.

“If an individual clearly doesn’t abide by or care about the Constitution, I think that’s a disqualifier in terms of running for the nation’s highest office,” said Ibrahim Hooper. “So we’re calling for [Ben Carson] to withdraw from the race.”

The underlined is where CAIR crossed the line into " may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

I would add that it is a possibility that it's statement that it organizes lobbying efforts may also constitute a violation of 501c3 exemption requirements. Particularly:

it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities

Since CAIR states outright that lobbying is a part of their core vision, mission and principles One would have to ask how "substantial" these lobbying efforts are. Since they are willing to blatantly violate the "against political candidate" requirement, I say everything else is fair game for an investigation and their tax exempt status should be revoked for a period of time (I'd say until the end of the 2016 presidential election since that is the election they illegally tried to influence).

War With Russia?

The US has overplayed it's cold war victory and is possibly about to receive a big check in Syria. There are too many people in the US govt who are still in the old mode of thinking and are spoiling for a "final conflict" with Russia just like many Black Lives Matter supporters think it's still 1965. Neither parties realize the times and situations have changed.

Russia has decided it will defend it's allies just as the US has claimed the "right" to do. Russia has said that it too can play the international intervention game. It has bombed so called "Syrian rebels" allied with the US. In doing so it has made a direct poke at the US. If they are in fact "allies" of the US then the US is obligated to defend them. Failure to do so would be a clear abandonment. I know it. Putin knows it and Obama knows it.

The fault here lies entirely at Obama's feet, with is red lines and interference in [and possible instigation] a civil war in the sovereign state of Syria, which, I will remind the reader, had no Taliban, ISIS, ISIL, or Al-Qaeda presence.

Understand that Russia is acting fully within international law while the US is not and the UN is playing the usual low price ho to the US and western Europe. The other low price hoes hanging around, the media, are playing their part in trying their best to misinform the public in regards to the situation in Syria. Carly Fiorina was dumb enough to say that the US should make a "no fly zone" over the Syrian traitors (rebels) in order to protect them from government forces. We all know what this would mean. This would elevate the conflict in such a way that should Russia, with it's documented permission from Syria to defend that country from border to border were to go into the "no-fly zone" there would be a direct conflict between the US and Russia. Do you want that?

If the US backed rebels are given no support then the US loses entire face and Obama will be known as the president that lost to Russia (again). Even though this move would be ego defeating it is the BEST short and long term solution. The US should have never gotten involved in Syria. Had it gotten involved it should have been on the side of Assad because a strong and stable Assad regime means NO ISIS. No training camps, etc. Which is a high national security priority.

These are interesting times.

Oregon Shooter Makes Obvious Case Against Giving Him Attention

The Oregon shooter wrote:

"Seems like the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight".

Exactly why the media should not be giving this guy air time. The primary reason why people go on rampages like this is to [finally] get the attention they think they have been denied in life.

Carson Goes After CAIR

As evidenced by my previous writings, I don't care for Carson's positions on the big bang theory or evolution, but today's news has me behind Carson:

CAIR has “brazenly violated IRS rules” as a tax-exempt organization, which are prohibited from intervening “in a political campaign on behalf of—or in opposition to—a candidate,” Carson alleged.

“Under the Obama administration, the IRS has systematically targeted conservative nonprofit groups for politically motivated audits and harassment,” Dr. Carson, one of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination for President, said in a statement on his website. “The agency should now properly do its job and punish the real violators of America’s laws and regulations.”

In addition I think CAIR should be made to register as an agent of a foreign government(s).

Not A Popularity Contest!

Here is something that Thomas Sowell and I can agree upon:

An election is not a popularity contest, or an award for showmanship. If you want to fulfill your duty as a citizen, then you need to become an informed voter. And if you are not informed, then the most patriotic thing you can do on election day is stay home. Otherwise your vote, based on whims or emotions, is playing Russian roulette with the fate of this nation. [my underlines]

\ This has been my sentiment about elections for years now. I have noticed that since the dawn of television, US elections have gone from serious to "Dancing with the Candidates". No, I really do not give a damn if Bill Clinton can play the Sax or if Hillary can Nay-Nay. Both are irrelevant to the office they are seeking to hold. Yet of late the entire political arena seems to be about likability rather than ability, decision making ability. Delegation decision ability. Understanding of the Constitution and making sure its adhered to.

Black Lives Matter and Alcoholics Anonymous

I was pressing the usual black press in which black people are basically agency-less in the things that "happen to them" when I was struck by a parallel situation: Alcoholics Anonymous. Imagine this scenario if you will:

Imagine a drunkard who ends up in a AA session. the moderator (or whatever they are called) asks who is an alcoholic. Everybody raises their hands except the drunkard. Everybody in the room would know that the drunkard is in denial. Indeed one of the first steps is to admit you have a problem.

Then imagine that during this session the drunkard is asked who is responsible for their state and the drunkard were to reply that it was the fault of Coors, Amstel, Budweiser, etc. Because had they not ever produced the beverages in question he could not have gotten drunk in the first place.

Again everyone would agree that the drunkard is in denial. No on comes out of AA with the idea that the fault of their addiction lies with the product they abused. Imagine again if the drunkard continued on to say that it was also the fault of the stores that sold the alcohol as well as the bars that serve alcohol. Would that kind of attitude fly in AA?

Say if that drunkard went even further and said that the people who arrested him for disorderly conduct as a result of his drunkeness were really the problem. And furthermore the fault of the person he killed while driving drunk actually lied with all the producers of alcohol and the stores that sell it. No one would take this guy seriously. Why? Because in AA you are not allowed to externalize blame for your own behavior

Now lets go back to the Black Lives Matter movement. They blame guns (alcohol). They blame gun stores and sellers (the bars). When the police come to apprehend a black person who has committed a crime and somebody gets hurt or killed because they failed to cooperate it isn't their fault. It is the police's fault. And here's the thing, like alcoholism, most black people are NOT victims of these things. MOst people fall into these camps:

1) totally abstain. There could be alcohol in every store and a bar with free alcohol and abstainers would never get drunk.

2) Drink occasionally. These folks drink whenever they feel like it. Most of the time they don't feel like it so they don't drink most of the time.

3) Party drinkers: They may drink to the point of drunk at a party and need a ride home but other than that they don't have a problem.

Very few people fall into this last category: Drunk: Cannot go without a drink for x amount of hours and plan their lives around drinking. The mere fact that the vast majority of people have no problems with alcohol proves that it is not the presence of alcohol or bars that is the problem. Similarly the simple fact that millions and millions of black folks have encounters with police that do not go badly shows that police are not the problem. Does that mean that there are no police who are bad actors? Of course not, but when the majority of black deaths by assaults are committed by other blacks and this happens at a rate 7X the white population and God only knows the rate of the Asian population, you gotta wonder what exactly is the real deal behind the Black Lives Matter movement. 'Cause if the BLM was assigned to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting and did all that "it's the store's fault" type of talk, no one would take them seriously. There would be 100%B consensus that they were in denial. Yet nobody in the mainstream press will treat them like the grown ups that would be expected of a recovering alcoholic.

Who Is Making the UN Security Council Illegitimate?

Russian vetoes are putting UN security council's legitimacy at risk, says US Because of course If you go against the US you cannot possibly have a legitimate reason to do so.

The United States has warned that Russia’s continued blanket use of its UN veto will jeopardise the security council’s long-term legitimacy and could lead the US and like-minded countries to bypass it as a decision-making body.

Let me offer a better view of the UN and it's "Security" council. It is already an illegitimate body. Why? US Invades a sovereign country that poses no imminent risk of invasion, Iraq because Colin Powell says there's a good reason for it. Never mind the UN Charter and that pesky "no nation shall invade another" proclamation. UN does nothing.

US in cooperation with France and England arm people in Libya, operate a no fly zone and aid in deposing the internationally recognized government in Libya. All with the UN's resolution and blessing and in disregard to the "no nation shall invade another" proclamation.

US is currently attempting to topple another government, Assad in Syria, though it poses no immediate threat to the US. The only nation in the security council, as far as I know, that is calling bullshit on the blatantly illegitimate attempt to oust the internationally recognized government of Syria is Russia.

You have to believe that right is wrong, left is right and up is down and Bruce Jenner is a woman to believe that it is the actions of Russia that makes the UN and it's Security [sic] Council illegitimate.

Who We Won't Vote For

While Ben Carson is catching heat for stating his personal position that he would not support a Muslim for US President, as if he isn't constitutionally guaranteed his right to hold his position and to speak on it in public, little is being said about the fact that among both Republicans ANDDemocrats, if you simply do not believe in God at all, nearly half to more than half of them won't vote for you either:

But don't expect this to be a topic of discussion.

RE: Carson, Compassion and Evolution

In his piece for the Huffington Post Christopher Brauchli concludes:

Dr. Carson's description of evolution makes it fairly obvious that working on other people's brains has had little effect on his. His attitude towards the struggling immigrant makes it obvious he spent no time working on hearts. It is hard to imagine what a wonderful country this would be if from the outset we had only admitted immigrants who met his criteria.

Because if someone is struggling you must feel the "right" attitude and do the "right" thing. And of course if you have the "right" attitude about evolution then you'll have the "right" attitude about everything else. Of course it couldn't possibly be the case that one could say that since Carson is clearly in the top 10 or 5 percent of intelligence, that his attitude towards "struggling immigrants" may be the result of thinking deeply on the subject rather than emoting about it like so many do. But lest the reader gets the impression that this is a defense of Carson, it is not. While I object to the flip conclusion, the rest of the article is an example of the usual mis-statements on the Big Bang and evolution. Let's take this for example:

Mr. Boze asked Dr. Carson: "What things come to mind when people ask you, why do you question the theory of materialist evolution?" Dr. Carson responded: "Well, the first thing is, how does something come out of nothing. And the second thing is, how does life evolve from non-life? Which, if you want to talk about fairy tales, those are incredible fairy tales."

Here Carson co-mingles two different things. The Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. Though they are linked, it is quite possible to unhook one from the other. In my early days as a Christian (the author is no longer a Christian) I got to a point where I could reasonably explain that the Big Bang theory was how God created the known universe. That would be the entire "let there be light" first action in Genesis. This is also a reflection of the primary establishment of order (Ma'at) over the primordial stuff by Amen-Ra (the sun God) in the Egyptian universal origins story. Evolution was either the means for which diversity of already created life exploded (particularly after the flood) or at the most extreme the means of Genesis creation which could not be understood by the writers of the Pentateuch.

Personally I think anyone who is a Christian and has any in depth exposure to science ought to come to this conclusion as it best sits with the religion without looking like a total ass on the science. I'm not saying that the question as to how you get matter and energy from literal nothingness is not a valid question, particularly given the rules about non-creation or destruction of matter and energy. What I am saying is that no scientist is saying that beyond a doubt THIS is what happened. Carson knows this. This is the difference between religious explanations and scientific ones. Religion presupposes the answer is (God) while science presupposes the answer of "we don't know but this is the best data we have as of right now."

Per the issue of life from non-life the theory of evolution is on far more solid ground. Carson can be forgiven for neglecting to remember his early biology and organic chemistry classes, but we have many experimentations that show that the right conditions will cause Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen to form various organic compounds. The same compounds that are found in our bodies, Take water for example, Humans are mostly water. water is necessary for most of the functions of life. Once you have that, a lot of possibilities open up and we know water can be "spontaneously" formed. When you escape the idea that everything had to be done in 6 days so that God could get it's rest on and think in terms of millions of years you realize that you only need the one time that the conditions are right for water to first form and then the other necessary building blocks of life to form. It's not that hard. Remember that a human being at it's base biology is simply a collection of single cells all cooperating to stay alive by doing things for each other.

I would have thought Ben Carson figured this out by now.

But Carson says more:

"And to say that that [evolution] just came about sort of randomly by various mutations over the course of time, when as I just said mutations tend to lead to degeneration rather than improvement, just doesn't make any sense. So, the very things that they claim are evidence for evolution are the very things that damn the theory."

This statement underlines why there are fields of science called Evolutionary Biology, Neuroscience and surgery. Those in one field are not, nor are expected to be experts in the other fields. Thank goodness. Carson would probably be insulted if a Doctor of Evolutionary Biology walked into one of his surgeries and started telling Carson how he should proceed. It wouldn't be because the other person was not smart. It would be because their expertise is irrelevant to the issue at hand. So lets explain why Carson is full of it with his comment.

Firstly nothing in the theory of evolution says that ALL mutations are beneficial. What the theory states is that mutations happen. Out of all the mutations that happen a very small number gives those who posses them some advantage. Lets take running for example. Say that you are an early human and you have to chase down your food. Clearly the faster you can run, the more likely you can catch your prey. Thus a mutation that imparts greater speed by "creating" fast twitch muscle fibres gives an advantage to the owner. Those without the fast twitch fibres cannot catch food and end up dying off. The remaining population all gets the fast twitch fibres and that is passed onto future generations until or unless having that gene becomes problematic.

Meanwhile in some other population, rather than develop fast twitch muscle fibres, they develop a skin mutation that allows them to remain unseen by their prey. In this way they can sneak up on them and strike at close distance rather than run them down. Of that group, those that have this mutation tend to do better and eventually outbreed the ones who can be seen coming a mile away. So you have two populations trying to get at the same thing: food, with two very different means of doing so. this is mutation and evolution at work. Both fictional examples I gave can be found in nature. Now let me address a mutation that is both degenerate and beneficial: skin pigmentation.

Humans in Africa were black. Why? Because melanin protects the human from ultraviolet radiation from the sun. This is why skin cancer incidences in BLACK people (not the one drop rule ones) are orders of magnitude lower than it is for scandinavian white people. But the human needs to have some amount of ultraviolet radiation get into their skin in order to produce vitamin D which is crucial for bone development as well as immune system health. So melanin is not a total blocker. Albinism in Africa can be deadly. Albinos in Africa often get skin cancers and other growths and have a shorter life expectancy than those of normal pigmentation. So we have an example of "degenerative" mutation right?

Well not so fast. When the African moved out of Africa and into Europe, the situation was not so good. Northern Europe has infamously low levels of direct sunlight hours. Not only that, but this thing called winter where the temps drop! In this environment having heavily pigmented skin is not good. Due to the lesser amounts and intensity of ultraviolet radiation, those Africans had less vitamin D ion their bodies, leading to all manner of bone diseases and shortened life expectancies. Also since highly melanated skin is more dense than that with lesser melanin, it is more susceptible to frostbite.

In this environment the albino was better equipped to survive and thrive. Black people produce a rather large number of albinos, so no doubt in short order there were a number of them in the population. And lets not forget the Neandertals who had already been living in Europe with those same environmental pressures who no doubt also produced albinos No doubt nature made a point of making albinism a natural state for humans in that part of the world. This is why we see Europeans of varied hair colors and eye colors, to match the levels of recessiveness in their gene pool for pigmentation. Blonde hair and blue eyes being the MOST recessive and possibly BEST adaptation to the environment of northern Europe. Oh did I mention that it's probably easier to pick out a black skinned person in the snow than it is a very white one? Happy hunting!

*snicker*

So clearly Carson really doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about mutations as it concerns evolution. Now lets deal with his other comment:

He explained that: "General Motors, same basic chassis as Chevrolet, a Buick, a Pontiac, or a Cadillac. And yet, they're different. And one did not evolve from the other. And why would you have to go and completely change the motor, the chassis, and all the other infrastructure because you're creating a different model. That doesn't make any sense to me."

Yes, it is clear that there a few things that have actually escaped Carson's great intellect. The comparison of different makes of automobile is a silly argument. The way to view the automobile is to look at it as a mode of transportation. You had to make a wheel. There are many wheels. The common ancestor, if you will, of the modern automobile wheel is the cut out of stone wheel. Yet the two are VERY different with the automobile wheel being highly evolved. Similarly the automobile is also about the means of propulsion. From steam engines (and crude electric ones) to internal combustion engines. Again the latter with direct fuel injection, variable valve lift and timing, spark advance, etc. are highly evolved from the crude examples from yesteryear. Of course we also have the diesel engine which doesn't use a spark to ignite fuel that's a mutation no? And what about the Wankel rotory engine? Isn't that a mutation? What about the beam rear suspension vs a fully independent rear suspension? Wouldn't that be evolution via mutation?

Oh and to be perfectly technical, up until Pontiac went to the car crusher in the sky, all Buicks were Pontiacs were Cadillacs. yet if you put a 1988 Cadillac next to a 1988 BMW 535i, the differences would shock you in terms of technology even though they share the same basic design.

I'm not entirely surprised that the Seventh Day Adventist Carson would be saying what he was saying. These ideas are shared by many in that community as well as other Christian denominations. My favorite is the comment that they have never seen an ape in a zoo (or elsewhere I suppose) give birth to a human.

0.o

Just like Donald Trump who ignores the comments of the ignorant, I no longer even respond to that nonsense. Carson is entitled to his religious beliefs. I certainly defend his right to that 100%, but that doesn't mean he can't be taken to task when he mis-states the actual points of the theory of evolution.

Student Charged With Attempted Murder Following Cafeteria Beating

Frederick Douglass High School: Someone took the "concedes nothing without demand" a little too far.

Thank You Richard Sherman

Standing While Black...

I was going to write on the matter but saw a post on Counterpunch that sums up my issues rather well:

If tennis great James Blake had done the obvious thing and resisted being tackled by an apparent thug on a New York sidewalk who didn’t identify himself as a cop before attacking him, he would probably be dead today like Eric Garner, or at least seriously injured or tased.

This is also what I thought. There is no way I'm going to be standing and minding my own business and allow someone to run up on me with no resistance on my part. It is very clear that had Blake defended himself as he had a right to, he would be either dead or seriously harmed. No person has to tolerate any other citizen putting their hands on them. If police want to effect an arrest of a person who has been pointed out as a thief or whatever, then they must present themselves as police.

There was, in other words, absolutely no reason for the officers not to simply identify themselves and ask politely to see his identification. Even then, if at that point they still suspected him, they could have taken him peacefully to the station for questioning, as they would ordinarily do had he been a well-dressed white guy, instead of a well-dressed black guy.

Absolutely!

Mind you I don't cosign the obligatory "jail for minor or non-violent crimes" rant Lindorff goes on but in the case of Blake, Lindorff is certainly on point. Police, particularly those in plain clothes ought NEVER approach a citizen in a threatening manner because that citizen may rightfully and lawfully assume that his or her life in in danger from a stranger and use any means to protect themselves.

Thick Headed Fools

It's pretty sad, and probably why I'm taking this quasi break from writing to see politicians from all over say dumb things in regards to Syria and ISIS. John Corbyn says that Assad should be removed. McCain Says Assad should be removed. When you see so called "progressives" and "conservatives" saying the same thing, you really have to wonder whom they are working for.

Anyone who paid attention when Libya was being destroyed knew full well that Ghaddafi, like him or not, kept a lid on the rival groups that were in his country and was keeping people from trying to cross the Mediterranean rickety (and some not so rickety) boats. Never mind Ghadaffi's about face in regards to the West and all the sanction lifting. As soon as it became expedient, Europeans knifed him in the back and now Libya has some Jihadis and people smuggler's galore. But yay! Ghaddifi is dead.

Syria's Assad was like Gaddafi, you may not have liked his particular style of rule but folks were kept in line and in check. No ISIS. No Al-Qaeda. But the same idiots who sold Ukraine on messing up relations with Russia, convinced some idiots in Syria that life without Assad would be the best thing since Manna from heaven. Now we have millions of people displaced and trying their luck on what may as well be inflatable rafts to reach Germany. ISIS has taken control of half the country and has people from all over Europe trying to get themselves to the Caliphate.

Apparently these so called "bright" people haven't figured out that Assad is and was a better choice than ISIS. It's that whole "lesser of evils" thing. I'd rather have a person who is capable of keeping order, even if it means a couple of "dissidents" have to go missing from time to time, than have a government run by people who think mass executions, beheadings and killing as many infidels as possible is good foreign policy.

But what do I know? Nobody has elected me to office and I'm not asked to share my opinion on news programs.

By the way. How is it the US people's obligation or the people of Europe's obligation to take all these 'refugees" when there are Arab states far closer who are so rich, they pay their citizens stipends and have real estate sitting empty? That are building billion dollar stadiums and the like? It's interesting that the masses of people who were and are against their countries being involved in any of the civil wars going on the Middle East are being told they have to bear the brunt of the fallout, while their so called leaders live in the lap of security luxury. You know, I read a lot about how the Great White Race (tm) is known for it's ability to plan ahead. Seems that is not so true anymore. The Germans, those paragons of whiteness seem to not have been able to force what advertising a very liberal asylum policy would do. So NOW they want to close their borders. No way we could have seen that coming.

About Those Prison Stats

So finally finished reading Rise Of The Robots and wanted to comment on one of the statistics found therein. It is one that is seen often particularly with the rise of the BLM movement:

The United States has a staggering 2.4 million people locked up in it's jails and prisons- a per capita incarceration rate more than three times that of any other country and more than ten times that of advanced nations like Denmark, Finland, and Japan. As of 2008, about 60 percent of these people were nonviolent offenders, and the annual per capita cost of housing them was about $26,000

There's a lot to unpack in this quotation but lets start with the 60%. Is the author implying that those who commit 'non-violent offenses" should not be incarcerated for their crimes? For example, should Bernie Madoff be free? His was as non-violent a crime as you can get. Does the author think that the person who breaks into his home while he is away and takes everything not be incarcerated? That's a non-violent crime too. What about the guy who breaks into his car and drives it away? That's a non-violent crime. I'm almost certain that Martin Ford has things like "a little bit of weed" on his mind with his "non-violent crime" comment. But most "little bit of weed" charges are civil offenses that do not involve jail time. If you have enough to "warrant" jail time you probably did not have "a little bit of weed."

That said, lets engage in a little math. If we were to take Martin Ford at his word that people who have not committed violent crimes ought not be imprisoned and removed them from the population you would still have 960,000 people in jail or prison in the US.

Ford told us that Denmark has an order of magnitude less people in prison (presumably for violent offenses, since they are so enlightened as to not jail non-violent offenders right?) That would mean that Denmark, Finland and Japan would have 240,000 people in jail.

So even if we only considered violent offenders the US would still have four times as many people in jail. So the US is still far more violent than any of the other "advanced nations" that Ford mentions. Why didn't he bother to tell us this?

Lets take it further. Even though African-Americans (you saw that coming didn't you?) make up a mere 13% of the US population, they make up a staggering 50% of those in jail or prison. Now lets look at this report about Denmark (you'll probably need to translate):

As you can see a very specific group of non-Danes are topping the charts of prisons in that country.

From Wikipedia:

Moreover, according to the figures from Danmarks Statistik, crime rate among refugees and their descendants is 73% higher than for the male population average, even when taking into account their socioeconomic background. A report from Teori- og Metodecentret from 2006 found that seven out of ten young people placed on the secured youth institutions in Denmark are immigrants (with 40 percent of them being refugees)[5]

And what percent of Denmark are non-native? 10.4% 330,000 of which are "non-western" in origins. So just like the US a small population of non-western people commit a hugely disproportionate amount of crimes that feeds the prison systems.

The hard truth here, particularly for the BLM folks is that the issue really isn't the criminal justice system as much as it is about the criminal proclivities of too many of our population. And discussions about the amount of people in jail or prison in the US that does not take into account who is doing what crimes in the first place is not a serious discussion.

Y'all Don't Wanna Hear This

Folks Taking Shots At Booker T. Washington Again

There are few phenomena that irk me more than people who talk about Pan-Africanism and don't mention Marcus Garvey. Also high on the list are people who dismiss Booker T Washington because of that Atlanta Exposition speech. A post on Counterpunch did the latter yesterday. Ware and Buhle do what a lot of “intellectuals” do, they discuss the economic problems of Black America and then dismiss those who had provided the solution to the problem because it involves work on self rather than obsess about white people.

2: No More Respectability Economically, Black America is in a state of emergency. We have the highest rates of poverty per capita in the United States. A white household has 13 times more wealth than a black one, and as of July 2015, unemployment is at 10% for blacks compared to 5% for whites.

It’s not supposed to be this way.

Why wasn't it supposed to be this way?

A central tenet of the American Dream is that if you work hard you can succeed. Booker T. Washington embraced this idea. He gave his (in)famous “bootstrap speech” at the Atlanta Exposition in 1865. He tells black people:

Cast down your buckets where you are… In all things purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.

Washington essentially tells black people to accept segregation. Work hard and you will earn their respect. Accept subjugation…for now.

Of course Booker T. Washington said no such thing "essentially" or "literally". Booker T Washington understood a couple of things that escapes most of his critics. I wrote in my earlier defense of Booker T:

With this in mind I had to revisit why Booker T. Washington would say the things he said to white audiences. Imagine, 1881 in Deep South Tuskegee Al.. There are no black billionaires. What black there are in congress will soon be removed. White people control all economic activity in your area and you need to fund a school for blacks. What do you do? You could indeed go and talk about equal rights, equal opportunity and the like but it is highly unlikely you're going to get funding from those people. So you do what you have to to secure your funding. Does that make his speech any more palatable? No. But it puts it in perspective.

Secondly, I find it questionable that Booker T. Washington did not foresee that when blacks in the South or elsewhere obtained economic and institutional self sufficiency that they would not be able to or desire to go enter (or re-enter) politics. In contrast I look at WEB DuBois and see that for all his academic work, he did not build and [sic] institution. Even worse, from my perspective, he lent his great intellect to a white institution, Harvard. To be more critical, DuBois was lobbing his critique of Washington from the relative comfort of the North, where Marcus Garvey noted: they talk a good game, but when the train crosses the Mason-Dixon line and the conductor asks that they (northern black leadership) move to the segregated car, they all do so.

This institution building is what is actually necessary to address the economic issues facing Black Americans. But so called intellectuals who make their living off the largess of white educational institutions (Ware makes his living teaching philosophy and coordinating diversity at Oklahoma State University) feel free to speak ill of Booker T Washington who was trying to run and finance a school in the deep south. Booker T Washington like Garvey understood how power flows and how nations and communities develop: via the Sequential Equation:

+I;S;E;P;M

The positive intellectual transformation (+I) informs the positive social transformation of society (+S). This is the educational foundation that Booker T was trying lay at Tuskegee.

The positive social transformation(+S) of society informs the economic transformation of society (+E). You cannot have positive economic growth in a community without the +I and the +S. Why does Ferguson have so little employment? -i and -s. the -i manifests as a lack of regard for education, impulse control and future time orientation. This leads to the -s which manifests itself with high levels of crime and general anti-social behavior. Neither of these things lead to or sustain economic growth. This is where the current movements lose. They are interested in the E and P but fail to deal with the I and S, because that would force them to deal with root issues. Continuing:

W.E.B. Du Bois was having none of this. Foreshadowing rap feuds, Du Bois had beef and went to war on paper. He wrote in the Souls of Black Folk:

Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission…[he] practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro races.

James sided with Du Bois:

Du Bois marked a great stage in the history of Negro struggles when he said that Negroes could no longer accept the subordination which Booker T. Washington had preached.

James, like Du Bois, understood an undeniable existential truth: black people cannot attain collective economic self-sufficiency in a culture stained by white supremacy. To say “bloom where you are planted” is akin to planting a flower in poisoned soil and wondering why it withers and dies. Washington’s statements were a precursor to what we now call respectability politics.

OK lets dispense with the pleasantries and tell the "truf": The negro IS inferior! If the Negro were “superior” the Negro would never have been hauled off in slave ships across the Atlantic. The African would not have seen his homeland carved up by people from thousands of miles away. The inferiority of the negro is and was evident to anyone who's eyes are working. The European and the Asian have put people in space. The African has not. The European has put people on the moon. The African has not. The European and Asian can build their own cities including piping water to various parts of their countries. The African must contract out to the European and Asian to build his stuff (including the headquarters of the African Union! The European and Asian can provide medical care to its citizens, The African has to depend on Europeans to do volunteer medical work for their citizens. I could go on, but to those who notice, we know the deal. In fact most negroes today believe the negro is inferior and show it by not working at Negro colleges and universities (like Ware).

When Garvey said rise up and do what you will it implied a state of inferiority. If we see two teams playing and one team is consistently outplaying the other, we say that the team consistently losing is inferior to the one that is winning. We would not say that the teams are equal. If you want to be considered equal then you do equal stuff. This is what Garvey and Booker T was saying. This is a bitter pill to swallow for many who's ideas of self worth are tied into being seen as equal.

Of course what we are talking about here is a situational inferiority rather than innate inferiority (which is posited by other folks). If the authors are going to write about the economic problems of black people then they are saying that black people are inferior to those groups who are not experiencing economic issues whether they realize it or not.

Booker T Washington understood that as a group the new freedmen and women were incapable of competing in the economic marketplace having very little in the way of assets.

There is another problem with their analysis, what of the non-white, non-blacks? If White Supremacy is indeed the “poison soil” for those deemed “non-white” then the relative success of Asians (who are non-white) would need to be addressed. I suppose it could be argued that the “poison soil” is selectively poisonous. Without that argument it would be impossible argue against:

For years black youth from working class backgrounds have been told: “pull up your pants” and “graduate from college.” They are told to work within unjust societal arrangements. This advice is given as a way for them to circumnavigate an unfair system—not challenge it. The assumption is that if you behave in a respectable manner, your life and livelihood will be safeguarded against a white supremacist culture.< P /> This is untrue.

Untrue for who? These two are seriously arguing that those who “pull up your pants” as in “grow up” and “graduate from college” as in get more than a high school education do not do better than those who do not? Exactly what data do they have to support such an idea? None. It is people like Ware and Buhle, with a shameful assist from Counterpunch why so many black men waste their youths on some “I can't do anything because of racism” bullshit. Nobody said it would be easy but then again, nothing worth doing is easy.

Are there obstacles that even educated/skilled black workers face? Yes. Of course had we been doing what Booker T. and Garvey told us to do: build our own institutions we wouldn't have to worry about it so much. But it's easier to disrespect Booker T when managing diversity at Oklahoma State rather than educating black minds at Tuskegee. Having established the error in judgment about what Booker T was about and the actual issue of economic problems in various (but not all) black communities, lets go back to their first point:

Overt expressions of racism were replaced with hiring practices guided by nepotism. Human resource offices and college admissions departments may not have had “whites only” at the top of their applications, but the makeup of those in the workforce and on campuses expressed that sentiment. Redlining, started in the 1940s, concentrated minorities in impoverished districts thereby diluting the power of the black vote.

Apparently it has been lost on the authors that rigged districts actually created “safe” black seats, thus increasing the number of black representatives. Had these “concentrated minority” districts not existed many black representatives would not exist. If we were to follow their logic and sprinkle minorities into “majority” locations, they would be outvoted (majority rule) at every turn, and these two would be complaining about that.

Also you would think that those involved in colleges and managing diversity would mention the number of applicants that simply do meet entry requirements.

Then began the war on drugs.

Almost overnight communities of color became targets of police officers hungry for drug busts. Instead of policing centered on solving specific crimes, officers began focusing on geographic areas.

Of course the authors fail to mention that is was black folks, both middle class and working class who were the victims of the gun play and other violence that accompanied the drug dealing in their neighborhoods who BEGGED for police intervention in their neighborhoods. Such inconvenient facts go umentioned in the author's need to place blame on anyone but a black person.

Derrick Jensen Discovers the New Left Crow

Writing in Counterpunch:

For the past decade or so, deplatforming—the disinvitation of a speaker at the insistence of a special interest group—and blacklisting have been, to use the word of an organization that tracks the erosion of academic freedom through the increased use of deplatforming, “exploding.” Between 2002 and 2013, disinvitations from universities went up six times... Things are much worse than I’ve so far made them seem. Brown University recently held a debate about sexual assault on campus. In response to the very existence of this debate—and this time it’s not The Onion reporting, but rather The New York Times—the college set up a “safe space” where those who might be made uncomfortable, or to use the politically correct parlance, “triggered,” by the debate could remove to relax with “cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma.” A student gave her reason for using the safe room: “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs...” And I just read an essay by an instructor in which he mentions an adjunct whose contract was not “renewed after students complained that he exposed them to ‘offensive’ texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain. His response, that the texts were meant to be a little upsetting, only fueled the students’ ire and sealed his fate.”

The Ghost told you about the New Left Crow some time ago.

In addition to that the New Left Crow has an entitlement complex. Just as Jim Crow operated to keep the undesirables in line, the Left Crow increasingly leverages the law to enforce it's on privileges. No longer is it the case that you should leave those one dislikes or disagrees with alone. One must also endorse that which they do.If you do not you are to be sanctioned. Do you own a store that happens to make wedding cakes. If you don't make one for a gay wedding you get to have a day in court and possibly get run out of business. Is it because you told the gay couple to get out your store?

Derrick will soon figure out that it goes far beyond the university.

Chairman Of What?

And y'all wonder how Rachel got away with it for so long.

The Megyn Distraction: The Rule Of Vagina Politics

For those who watched the Donald Trump Show AKA Republican Debate you know that Trump was asked an irrelevant question AKA: Personal smear question by one Megyn Kelly. It was a classic example of Cuckservatism and the Feminist Party (AKA Democratic Party) total surrender to gyno-politics and an blatant attempt to distract the US voter from possibly the most important comment made that night.

Megyn Kelly asked trump about his comments about women he does not like:

“You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals,”

Let's stop here for a moment. I don't know anyone who speaks kindly of people they do not like. So asking someone about the unkind words they said about someone or people they don't like is like asking whether air has oxygen. The purpose of that question was to smear Trump and to attempt to use gender issues to break him and by extension any man who does not toe the feminist line.

“Only Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump interrupted with a sneer, earning cheers from the crowd.

Lets stop here as well. It is well known that Rosie O'Donnell and Trump do not like each other Why is this even RELEVANT to a presidential campaign? It is not. Again this is an attempted smear on Trump.

“For the record, it was way beyond Rosie O’Donnell,” Kelly said – before launching into a laundry list Trump’s most misogynistic moments:

Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on the Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president? And how do you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton – that you are part of the war on women?

I no longer watch The Apprentice due to Trump's actions in regards to Obama's birth certificate so I don't know of the comment. I do know that when I did watch the show he has said some pretty harsh things to "losers". Even if the charge is true how does that equal "war against women"? Particularly given that women have been given equal access to his Apprentice show including is daughter? Even though the Apprentice is a show with "show" expectations it's outcome is generally a matter of merit. You either made the goal as team leader and won or you missed your goal as team leader and got sent home. If anything The Apprentice is about performance, not gender. No wonder Clinton, who thinks she is owed the presidency because she possesses a vagina would have a problem with it.

“What I say is what I say, and honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be based on the way you’ve treated me, but I wouldn’t do that.”

Why did Donald say "I've been very nice to you, althought I could probably not be based on the way you've treated me"? Well it's not like that twit Donna Brazile said on This Week, that is was because Megyn wasn't sucking up to Trump like a little girl. No, it was because Trump saw it for the smear attack that it was and responded in kind. And the problem with that is, that these Cuckservatives and the Feminist Party aren't used to men standing up to them. That's why none of the male panelist told Brazile that she was full of shit for that comment. Worse than that, these people on This Week even proposed that women as a class cannot be insulted by any man. Seriously. Apparently for them "equal treatment" means "special treatment".

And here's the other sexist thing about Megyn's question. There was no commentary about insults to men. Trump has called men, politicians and others, all kinds of things. Yet that isn't even up for discussion. No, it's only a problem if a woman gets insulted. Then it's an attack on all women. Utter bullshit.

Of course the GCP (Grand Cuck Party) loves the fact that attention is being paid to Megyn and her bullshit question because while people are talking about that they are not talking about the comment Trump made about donors.

FOX News Brett Baier (talking to Trump): Now, 15 years ago, you called yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian-style system. Why were you for that then and why aren’t you for it now?

TRUMP: As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age you’re talking about here.

What I’d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees. And if I’m negotiating in New York or in New Jersey or in California, I have like one bidder. Nobody can bid.

You know why?

Because the insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians, of course, with the exception of the politicians on this stage. (uneasy laughter) But they have total control of the politicians. They’re making a fortune.

Get rid of the artificial lines and you will have…yourself great plans…

BAIER: Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single-payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies….You’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, and Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

TRUMP: You’d better believe it.

BAIER: — they do?

TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.

TRUMP: I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why?

She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. It was.

BAIER: Hold on…..We’re going to — we’re going to move on.” (Transcript: Read the Full Text of the Primetime Republican Debate, Time)

Never before has a debate of presidential candidates has it been said outright to the voter how the donor system works. Yes, those of us intensely interested in politics knows this but the average voter doesn't. And you'll note that none of the persons on stage denied what Trump said because they knew he was right and if they claimed otherwise he'd release the receipts.

This was the bombshell on the stage. This is the issue that actually unites the left and the dissident right. They both know what the donors do and they both object to it but are too locked into their ideologies to join forces to dismantle the growing corporate donor state partnership.

I guess Megyn Kelly can be proud of the service she has rendered for the nation. Vagina never fails to distract Americans from important things.

Recasting A Harriet Tubman Quote

Reading Black Agenda Report's latest I saw the following oft quoted statement attributed to Harriet Tubman:

“I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.”

Obviously a reference to literal slave times in which I actually find it hard to believe that people didn't actually know they were slaves. I would hazard to guess that the objects of Tubman's ire knew full well their social (and economic) status but for whatever reason were comfortable with the situation. Furthermore; for whatever reason those who declined Tubman's offer it is quite possible that what Tubman offered was, to them, not a better option.

You'd be tempted to say that with all the abuse and whatnot, why wouldn't freedom from that be a better option than a state of enslavement. I would point you right back to Tubman's quote. Did she say that they were afraid? No. I'm sure it's there somewhere but this quote only speaks to the state of bondage and convincing someone that they are IN that state, not that the person was afraid of the consequences of trying to remove themselves from that state.

All that to point out the obvious that today, 2015, unless you are incarcerated, there is no black American in a state of slavery. And those who find themselves in state sanctioned slavery AKA incarcerated, it was most likely due to their own behavior rather than at the hands of kidnappers and slavers. So I'd like to update Tubman's quote for the modern era. I could have freed a thousand more if only they opened their eyes and saw they were free.

Why Are Black, Crime and Poverty Always Hanging Around Each Other?

One of the things I highlighted in yesterday's review of the New Yorker's piece on "The Cop" was their admission that where there are relatively high numbers of black people there are also high levels of crime and poverty. One of the people interviewed in the piece discussed the decline of his neighborhood noting that the loss of and absence of jobs as the primary causes of the crime problem. Lets look at this issue.

As a Garveyite I note Garvey's note of the difference between the UNIA-ACL and the NAACP. The UNIA was primarily concerned with the economic development of "African Communities [League]". Much like the much maligned Booker T. Washington, it was Garvey's idea that once the African developed himself to stand as an equal among nations by running all aspects of their own nations (and communities) then political power would naturally acre and exploitation by others would cease. In contrast the NAACP had as it's goal the social acceptance of Africans first and foremost, with politics being the tools by which this could happen, particularly for the talented tenth. The clear evidence of this was the attacks on the Black Star Line Inc. by Dubois via the NAACP print organ (and personal discussions with Liberian "leadership"). This is not to say that there weren't serious issues with the BSL, but you'd think that the NAACP would have spent more time trying to help out rather than trash it. But this lack of an economic uplift program by the NAACP and others has lead to the issues discussed in Ferguson and elsewhere.

Let us go way back in time and observe. When white folks colonized America who "gave them jobs"? Serious question. The mantra of the various liberal "intellectual" is that no one will give black people jobs. Remember, as a Garveyite the question isn't "who will give us a job" but rather "Where and how can I make my own job?" The former question is one that is taken from the mind of the dependent. The latter question is one who takes responsibility for his own future. When white folks colonized America they were in full responsibility mode. We must work and build to survive and provide for our offspring. Things were much different for the enslaved African.

The enslaved African in early America was a tool, no different than cattle. Sorry, but it's true. The only purpose for Africans in America was to do work for other people. In general the African lived a life that consisted of "who will I work for...?" In the case of skilled Africans such as those in and around Charleston South Carolina, where the skills allowed the African to contract other business outside of his primary owner it was still with the permission of said owner who expected a cut of those earnings.

Even after the African was "emancipated" from physical bondage his situation was still largely one of dependency. No 40 acres and no mule. Money was in the hands of the former owner and the rest of the non-black population so that's where the employment was.

What does it take to build and maintain a modern community? You must have businesses that cater to the immediate needs of those in the community. Food stores, gas stations, electricians, plumbers, banks, schools, clothing stores. After the basics are taken care of you can have businesses that are not directly related to human "needs". These businesses generally build the wealth of a community. This is why there is usually a "downtown" or "main street" in any relatively well off town. There may even be a couple of them. The more there are, the more likely that the community is "wealthy". Of course I'm generalizing here so please don't send a note about what I missed.

With these requirements in mind, look at Ferguson or just about any black neighborhood. How many of these things exist? Where they exist WHO is it that built and/or run them? Often it is not the members of the communities themselves. And this is UNLIKE any other community you'll walk into. Go to a Chinatown and see who's running the establishments I mentioned. Go to any other ethnic or racial enclave and observe.

Now I went to university in Tuskegee AL, Lansing MI and Ithaca NY. Tuskegee was the ONLY "college town" I was in where there wasn't a vibrant community built up around the college. I'll be honest. I was shocked. One supermarket and no shopping whatsoever. If you wanted to do anything other than buy alcohol and pig intestines you had to go to Auburn or Montgomery. I'm only slightly exaggerating.

What is consistent is that in black communities whether they are rich or poor, is that the same "enslaved" mentality exists: "who will I work for...?" Remember that the black middle class is disproportionately made up of people who work for local, state or federal government entities. As Frantz Fanon pointed out, the black middle class, where it exists is a false middle class because unlike the middle classes of other groups it consists of those who's income is derived from wages rather than self-employment or some other enterprise.

The other problem is that often when black people DO start businesses, they do not employ anyone. They are sole proprietorships with emphasis on SOLE. So when you have a community full of people who are thinking "who can I work for?" with no one creating job creating businesses you have a community that is dependent upon other people.

For real though, how many white people go looking in black communities for jobs? Now how many black people go to white ones to find work? going deeper, how many go to Chinatown for work?

A couple of months back I discovered that Oprah's business Harpo doesn't even have black people running the top level of the business. Jay-Z's Tidal music streaming service is run by white people out of Norway (or one of those way north countries) with nary a negro in it's employ (on the technical front). If black people cannot even expect the multimillionaires of us who are actually creating jobs to employ us, then how can we seriously expect anyone else to do so?

And so we see why most cannot grasp why Black, Crime and Poverty keep hanging out with each other. Poverty cannot be alleviated when the thinking is "what can someone else do for me" or "they will not hire me". Poverty is alleviated when the thinking is "What can I do to advance myself?" and "How can I be independent of them". The latter kind of thinking leads to future time thinking. It leads to planning. It makes the thinker evaluate the consequences of choices like strong arm robbing a convenience store.

And these rich negroes need to step up to the plate. We know that it's hard to get financing for businesses if you have no or garbage credit. Oprah and these other entertainers (who are the large portion of black multi-millionaires) need to start seeding businesses in these communities and do less charity work. White communities were not made nor are maintained by charity. They are maintained by property taxes and sales taxes.

Lastly, we have to stop being sympathetic to the law breakers in our communities. We know who they are and we know the damage they do. It's time to put 'em out if they don't shape up. One suggestion, A kid gets arrested, word goes out to the community leaders. Leaders go to the home where that kid's parents are and make it clear if that kid doesn't cease and desist, the parent will be made to pay. Pay could be eviction from the premises. I know it's harsh, but folks have to be made to understand that the community will NOT tolerate the bullshit. Take some of these failing HBCUs are turn them into boarding schools for the hard headed. They get removed from their parents and put into these places to shape up by those better equipped. It's better than prison. Cheaper in the long run too.

So when we get serious about business building and dealing with the criminal class, Black, Crime and Poverty will have a parting of ways. Until then expect more of the same.