Example Kevin Powell

So last week I discussed the events in DC as a reflection of the twisting of Dr. King's vision. In it I mentioned that essentially the tables have been turned where black people have been given much leeway to do things that were considered " racist"done to them. I'm going to give an example of this. Before that though I want to bring the reader's attention to a comment made in an article in City-Journal:

The jurisprudential consequences of believing people merely because of the category into which they fall are obvious; but the radical feminists failed also to notice how auto-dehumanizing and demeaning to their own sex was the demand to believe a woman qua woman, inasmuch as the capacity to lie, dissemble, exaggerate, fantasize, and remember wrongly is inseparable from being fully human.

This also applies to black people. The misunderstood embrace of the idea that one cannot be "racist" without having [supreme] power is just as dehumanizing (and infantilizing) of black people as it is when referring to women. If black people cannot be "racist" then black people are not fully human. If we cannot form and act on the same prejudices that we accuse white people of harboring and acting on then we are not fully human. If we are not fully human then we either believe ourselves to be superior to white people, in which case we believe in black supremacy (evidence notwithstanding) or we believe in black inferiority.

Pick one. Can't have both.

So let's get to Kevin Powell. City Pages has a clear example of how out of control some black people, particularly of the left type, are.

Powell also has a history of violence. He assaulted women in college and once shoved a girlfriend into a bathroom door. Now he’s a sophist of male fragility, and an essential component of his activist repertoire is to engage in public reflection—usually with equal parts self-effacement and self-righteousness—upon this personal shame.

Keep this in mind. Powell makes his living performing and reflecting on his abusive past. He reacted the following:

“You are being a hypocrite. How can you present a message via dance on sexual violence, but knowingly choose to marry an admitted woman beater?!”

It continued: “Kevin Powell admits that he can relapse into violence. Don’t be deceived and trade your safety for someone who can assault you.”

Now how would a man who spends his time allegedly atoning for his past abusive behavior react to this message? Well aside from scouring Google to find the alleged sender and pouncing upon the wrong person, he wrote:

Two weeks later, Powell crafted a blistering 1,200-word open letter response, signed jointly by his wife. It read: “For you, as a so-called progressive White woman, to think it’s okay to send a note like that to a Black woman, about her relationship with her Black husband, speaks to a kind of racist privilege and racist condescension deeply steeped in the history of this country.”

The couple called Sellers sexist for thinking she knew another woman’s journey better than herself and accused her of committing “a form of violence.”

. “We are sharing this response widely, across various communities in Minnesota and nationally because we feel people like you are dangerous.”

Mind you the original letter never mentioned race but here's Powell talking about race? Why? Because he needed it to be about race. This is a disease that afflicts many black people. They cannot imagine life without racism and therefore look for it everywhere. Every negative incident must have a racial angle. Secondly, you'll note how Powell takes it upon himself to instruct the alleged "progressive" white writer on how she can and cannot speak to or about black people. This is a frequent occurrence in "progressive" circles. They deem to tell you what you can and cannot speak on based on genitalia, color, etc. rather than on whether one has actual data to back up what one has to say. It was this attitude that started my long walk away from left ideologies. "Sisters" tell me what I cannot speak upon because I wasn't female. Really?

But fare more telling about this e-mail from Powell was that he wasn't contrite about the actual subject of the letter. You'd think someone who is allegedly atoning for his abusive past would make a point to discuss how he wasn't a threat to his wife and how she (his wife) accepts the "danger" and they have agreed to work together on his issues and that he would hope he can earn the writer's respect.

See, such a comment would have shown a humble Powell who was working on his own demons. Instead, he showed that his need to have power over a person (or people) has simply been transferred from his wife to, apparently, white people at large. The leopard didn't change his spots, he merely changed his dietary choices.

If you read the article you find that Powell had accused the wrong person and caused great harm to his victim. What was his reaction when this was revealed?

“My life is modeled after Gandhi, Dr. King, people who gave their lives to our country. That’s what I do,” he’d say later in defense of his and his wife’s inattention to Sellers’ pleas.

“Regardless if we had proof or not, what we do have proof of is the historical reality of being a person of color in America and having people talk to you in any kind of foul way and thinking it’s okay, even in the state of Minnesota that’s supposed to be liberal and progressive.”

There would be no apology. No correction. And no telling who’d received the smear. [my underlines]

Again, this is a common defect of many lefty black people. We excuse our bullshit by talking about being "black in America". Like I said before: let's bring back segregation so that these negroes can know what "being black in America" used to be like. But more disturbing is the total flagrant disregard for the truth.

So Ghandi, well he didn't actually like Africans so..., and King were against facts and truth? Nice to know. In court:

Each laments how the situation has been blown out of proportion. They assert they did nothing wrong; they genuinely thought they had the right April Sellers. They denounce Rohan Preston as more or less an Uncle Tom—a reporter lying to protect his job at a white institution.

Oh, ruin someone's life because you thought they were racist towards you is not a big deal. And the usual "Uncle Tom" accusations.

Sellers’ attorney has only to summarize the basic elements of the case—that Powell and Parker told a lie, that they did it without basic fact-checking, and that the lie had serious consequences. His statement takes about 10 minutes. Powell plugs his ears with his fingers the entire time

How old is Kevin Powell?

Neither apologizes to Sellers.

This is the black left. They don't have to apologize for being wrong. Just move onto the next.

“I also need funds for a possible and absolutely necessary appeal,” he writes. “Here we are in a majority White city and state, Minneapolis, Minnesota, two Black folks from New York City, going up against a White woman with an all-White jury. You can only imagine our trauma around this situation.”

I think we should ask the question. If the Powells are so concerned about being "two black folks from New York City" in a "Majority white city and state", then why did they move to such a location? Seriously. Why not move their black behinds BACK to NYC? Or move to Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc.? Because the Powells, like many of their ilk like to live off the fat of well run and maintained white majority locations where they can guilt trip gullible and low self-esteem whites into pandering to them.

Rare Footage of Black Town in Oklahoma

"I Do Not Know..."

I'll keep this one brief. I don't say much about the Mueller witch hunt investigation because I'm old enough to remember the Ken Star witch hunt investigation. Ken Star was appointed to find out about the Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater affair. However; all he got was Clinton lying about getting head from Monica Lewinski. There was a whole circus around this. Essentially These "special prosecutors" end up indicting people for activities related to the actual "investigation" rather than the alleged wrongdoing they were appointed to find.

The Mueller witch hunt investigation is the same thing but on super duper steroids fake weights and an electric motor in the crankshaft. Because if this was actually an investigation of "collusion", then the Clinton camp would be indicted already because it is already known that they actually "colluded" with a foreign agent, created a fake document which was then used to get the FISA court to approve an investigation of a candidate running for president, Person 1. Presenting false information to a court is a crime. We also have Clinton destroying evidence vis-a-vis her destroyed server and deleted e-mails, which is a crime called "obstruction of justice". That these activities go unindicted and untried is all we need to know about the nature of this witch hunt investigation. And really you don't need to be a Trump fan to see this. If you or I presented a court with a fake document in order to further our own cases, we'd be tossed in jail (or at least fined heavily). Why should those involved with the "pee dossier" get away with that? If you or I destroyed evidence while we were being investigated for a crime, we would be arrested. Why should Clinton receive different treatment? But that's another discussion for another day. Roger Stone is in a cell, or at least a holding area (assuming no bail has been made as of this writing) in part because he apparently told a witness to say "I don't know" while being questioned by Congress.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if this is true, then Stone did in fact cross a line and should be prosecuted for it. What I don't get is why he instructed anyone to tell THAT particular lie. When you say "I don't know" you are making a declarative statement that you "have no knowledge". Anyone with a relatively high IQ knows that the statement you make when you do not wish to disclose your knowledge of a particular thing is:

I do not recall.

See, no one can say whether you recall or not. It is something that cannot be proven at the time you said it or at any time after. You can "not recall" something one minute and "recall" it the next. Until our courts are set up with real-time brain reading devices, such a statement cannot be proven false. However; once you say "I don't know" or in the case of the referenced character, "I don't know any godfather." then you're making statements that can be proven to be false or contradictory to previous statements

Advice for those in Trump's circle, less movies, more law.

Bring Back Segregation

So I've been doing the "pro-black" thing since 1990. I'd say 1989, but to be honest, it was 1990. That would be 29 years. I mention this because I was/am continuously annoyed at how once Obama became the Democratic nominee for president, a whole lotta people who back in the 1990s didn't want anything to do with that "black shit" or that "um-foo-foo shit" or that "kunta kinte shit" all of a sudden were "all black everything". On the other side were people who were equally "on that black shit" for years suddenly became OK with imperialism, global war against non-white people (ahem..Libya) and Obama could say and do no wrong, whereas previous presidents were the racist heads of the white supremacy system. In other words, the masses got fake "woke" and the previously "woke" went comatose. I bring this all up because recently Rep Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump was the Grand Wizard of the White House. This kind of hype speech has become all too common among the "fake woke" who, from their utterances haven't cracked a book on slavery or Jim Crow. This brought to mind a spoken word piece called "Bring Back Segregation"

See there was a time when US presidents actually supported actual Klan rallies in DC:

When you know this, regardless of what you think of Trump, it would not even cross your mind to think "Grand Wizard".

But this doesn't just apply to Jim Crow era references, it includes the common "Nazi" and Fascist" claims regularly made by the fake woke. They have no idea what Nazi Germany was like for its victims. They have no idea what it's like to have government agents running up in their homes to take them away for public pronouncements against "dear leader". If they did, these words would not fall out their mouths.

But today we live in a country where people live in extremes. If they are inconvenienced then it's a major disaster ("horrifying" or "terrifying" to use the terms of left type publications). So yeah, some people need to be time traveled back to when the situations were actually bad rather than complain about First World Butt Hurts.

Chinese Colonialism in Africa

Remember that the primary reason for Europe cutting up Africa was to get resources for the "mother countries". Add to this the brain drain to Europe and the Americas and Africa is double screwed.

Reflections On A King Day

I haven't written anything for King Day for a long time because generally speaking I have come to the conclusion that the people talking about King and his legacy, particularly the "I Have A Dream" speech, don't really believe in it. Today's meditation will be an example of this hypocrisy.

During last week's March for Life a group of mostly white, Catholic, MAGA hat wearing students took a trip to DC to participate. At the end of the trip, while they were waiting for their school bus they were verbally accosted by some "Black Hebrew Israelites" who among other things called them the result of incest and told one black student to "Get Out". That was a reference to the flick where white people bid on black people's bodies in order to live longer (and in some cases fulfill alleged sexual fantasies of white women). The student made famous by the widely circulated video said that in response they decided to do their school cheers. At that point a group of Native American people who had also been doing some sort of protest decided to move towards the boys while beating their drums. One of them got right into the face of one of the MAGA hat shod student and banged his drum directly in his face. During that time the Native American told the student to "go back to Europe".

When news of this broke, it was the Catholic school boys who were vilified and lied on as aggressors. Media personalities, left and right piled on about how those boys were the epitome of White Supremacy being inculcated in the next generation. How they had no respect for elders, etc. ad-nausea. As a result the families, having been doxxed received death threats. Even the school buckled and threw their students under the bus rather than at minimum saying that they were investigating and had nothing to say until all the evidence was in.

It is fitting that such an event happened so close to MLK day. Because it highlights the turnabout in racial actions that has happened in America since at least late 2015. Whereas in the past it was black people trying to go about their day without being harassed we are at a point where non-whites can harass whites (particularly males) with near impunity. And of course with these being children, that is the new low. And as indicated it's not just race. Gillette recently released an advertisement that insults men (who presumably are the target customers). The APA released a paper saying that masculinity is toxic. Etcetera. Etcetera. Et...cetera.

Going back to the kids though. Some are thinking that simply being a Trump supporter or wearing a MAGA hat is insulting and indicative of bad character in and of itself. Of course this is no different than saying a black kid in a hoodie must be a criminal but that's another topic, eh? In the video, those MAGA wearing students showed more character and restraint than the people who were against them. If that hatred of all things Trump makes one fail to notice that, then maybe the real "hater" or hate filled person is looking right at you in the mirror. Take today to think on that.

Why "Evangelicals" Support Trump Despite His Failings

Some time ago I was listening to the Steve Harvey show and they were discussing how they couldn't understand how Christian people were supportive of Trump. Their position being that Trump as so immoral and had broken so many Christian rules that it was impossible to square being a Christian and a Trump supporter. I'm going to address the question here with a recent example from CNN in reference to Karen Pence:

(CNN)Karen Pence, the wife of America's vice president, Mike Pence will be teaching art at a Christian school in Virginia that bans LGBTQ children and requires employees to declare their religious beliefs. Like a real-life setting for "The Handmaid's Tale," Immanuel Christian School insists applicants initial a pledge to "live a personal life of moral purity."

Given that homosexuality is an explicit sin in the Bible, why does it need stating? Furthermore given that the US Constitution not only explicitly enforces the natuaral right of citizens to freely exercise their religions it also explicitly states that there are to be no religious tests for office holding. So then if one is supportive of so called "American values" as stated above, there is no controversy or even anything newsworthy of what Karen Pence decides to do with her time and what values she holds and lives by.

This language is disgusting and insults millions of taxpaying American citizens, many who have served their country. That it is acceptable to the wife of the man who is a heartbeat away from the presidency should horrify and alarm all Americans.

"disgusting and insulting"? Well maybe to you. It's actually not "disgusting and insulting" to millions of people who hold the exact same opinions who are also "taxpaying American citizens". Furthermore, what is actually "horrifying" (why do liberals use this kind of language all the time anyway?) is that someone who purports to be concerned for the welfare of "taxpaying American citizens" is so willing to throw away the free exercise rights of a citizen and their right to participate in the political sphere simply because some other Americans don't like what religious views they hold and exercise. That's "horrifying".

For all their professed beliefs, Pence, and his wife, show unwavering support for a man who has been married three times, divorced twice, has had five children with three women and who has been accused of (though denies) paying a porn star and a Playboy model hundreds of thousands of dollars to conceal affairs he'd had with them.

Yes. The Donald certainly has many moral failings. So why would Pence among other evangelicals support him? First answer by CNN:

It comes down to this: If the Pences love their God so much, then they would not sit in a White House with a man who shows no moral compass and said he never asks for forgiveness. They would be on the White House lawn, with the King James Bible in hand, disavowing a President who is a horrible representation for our children.

And WRONG.

The very answer as to why millions of evangelical Christians support Trump is because Trump has supported their right to freely exercise their religion in private and in public. The end years of the Obama administration were direct attacks on "Christian" values: Support of transexuals. Support of homosexual marriages and the use of the state to enforce these preferences including threats. The same Trump that has supported Christians has also said he didn't care what bathroom Bruce Jenner used at Trump Tower. In other words Trump is not concerned with forcing his beliefs or non-beliefs on Christians. As he shoud NOT. Thus he protects the interests of evangelicals to be free from government interference. That is why Trump has their support. When CNN, Steve Harvey and the rest understand this and stop supporting politicians and companies that attack Christians then Trump will lose his support for the same reasons brought up by CNN.

And so long as companies like Netflix get away with programming that in the recent past would be a crime called endangerig the welfare of a child, the support for Trump type politicians will grow in many quarters not located in NY or California.

No White Man In Sight, Dead Black Girl Out Of Mind

I was particularly bothered when a high member of Black Lives Matter said that "black on black crime" wasn't "a thing". Particularly when more black people are killed by other black people every 3 to 5 years than were lynched in the entire "lynch era" of the United States. How callous and uncaring one has to be to not even acknowledge the dead black bodies simply because no white person was involved.

So here we have Jazmin Barnes. Dead. Shot due to mistaken identity by two black males. When questioned it was said that the shooter was a white male with blue eyes>. I was immediately put off by the commentary about blue eyes. Blue eyes are a recessive trait. A low number of white people have natural blue eyes. A large number of people with blue eyes have contacts in. As a matter of fact, blue eye contacts are one of the most popular colors.

Blue eyes are genetically recessive, and therefore much less common worldwide. Blue eyes are formed by the absence of pigments in the eye, where the blue color is formed by the scattering of light as it's reflected off the iris. While blue eyes are less common than brown eyes, they are frequently found from nationalities located near the Baltic sea in northern Europe. It's estimated that approximately 8% of the world's population has blue eyes.

8%. World wide.

So I thought that it was highly unlikely that whoever was responsible actually had blue eyes.

The media and the usual suspects went on and on about how this incident, unsolved and unproven, was "yet another sign" of racial tensions. And Trump was at fault for that. Certain celebrities pledged monies for funerals and the like.

Then the real killers were found after a tip was sent in. The killers were black. The guy in the red pickup was, at most a witness to the event.

And soon thereafter Jazmin Barnes was dropped from news coverage in favour of the white girl held in a house by a white man.

The sad thing about this, aside from yet another dead black person was that the sense of normalcy when the killers were found. Oh it was a black male drive by. Seen that, been there. Nothing unusual. The thing is that these kinds of tragedies happen all the time and celebs rarely put on a show of support to these victims of black violence. But as that leader of BLM said: "It's not really a thing."

I hope one day that black people wake up to how they are being used and manipulated by the media to see white people as the cause of all their problems and issues. No. We free. We choose. We are responsible.

Not Getting Paid Due To Govt. Shutdown? Blame Dems

I'll keep this brief:

Only a fool. A damn fool did not see the government shutdown coming. Last year when Trump signed the last long term budget that failed to fund "his" wall (millions or people voted for Trump due to his promise of The Wall so it's their wall as well), Trump said that he would never sign another budget like that again.

Democrats crowed about how they didn't give Trump shit and, if I recall correctly, they even poison pilled that budget such that no funds from that budget could be used for a border wall. They were tee hee-ing and guffawing at how The Donald was a shit negotiator and how they rolled him.

Now he's keeping his promise and not signing "anything like that again" and being pilloried for it. If someone tells you they will punch you in the mouth if you "say it again" and you "say it again" and get punched in the mouth do you act surprised? No? You knew the deal and ran your mouth anyway. Same thing applies here. Dems rolled Trump last time. They told their base that The Donald was a paper tiger, or that Mueller would have him out of office and they failed to take the threat seriously and now millions(?) of federal employees are facing economic hardship.

It's very tempting to blame Trump for this. Of course if you are partisan, then Trump is to blame. I'm not partisan. Trump could have done this last time. He compromised, "bigley" last time. Federal employees got paid last year because Trump backed down. By all "fairness" it is the Democrats turn and they are failing. Hence the shutdown.

In the end both parties are dug in. The Democrats have gone all in on obstructing and removing Trump while Trump is appearing to keep both his oath of office (that protect and defend) as well as campaign promises. Any compromise is going to make party bases somewhat unhappy. But that's negotiations. But this all could have been avoided had Democrats taken Trump's statement seriously.

Rwanda Bans Skin Bleaching Products

From AlJazeera:

I see these products in the stores and it breaks my heart. I remember when I first noticed African women who's faces were way lighter than their necks or other body parts. I was unaware of the use of bleaching products and I thought it was makeup. In the past I had seen many very dark women who put on white base makeup which made their faces look entirely different from their necks. Often these were very attractive women who, in my opinion, had ruined their faces with that makeup.

While banning a product may "help" in that they will not be available, the real issue is the reason why these products are being used: The belief that their skin color is bad.

Just consider how bad this stuff is. Those florescent bulbs you buy in Home Depot? They don't want you to break them or dispose of them in your regular trash because it contains mercury. Yet these women will put this on their bodies regularly.

Lead With A Lie, Bury The Facts

I used to be a fan of the NYT. I grew up in an age when serious students were required, for example, to read and summarize an article in the science section of the NYT. Now, I would only use the NYT to clean my cat box litter. Yes, they have fallen that far off. The NYT I grew up with wouldn't touch a person who would state, publicly, that a race of people ought to be eliminated. Yet today's times has not a few of these individuals drawing a paycheck. It is not much unlike Counterpunch since the passing of Cockburn. Shrill voices calling any and everyone to their right nazis and fascists for simply pointing out easily observable facts rule these kinds of publications. But this is not a gripe session about periodicals I used to like. No, this is evidence of The Narrative. So here's the deal.

Headline:Can We Finally Stop Talking About ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ Brains?

Sure it's an "opinion" so it's not supposed to be technically "news". But still, "prestige" publications ought be careful about what they allow in their pages. Anyway? Why, when we know there are statistical differences in the way men and women utilize their noggins, should such an opinion even be worth printing. Surely there are better things to write about. Long ass quote 'cause I really don't care about traffic to NYT.com

At its core is the persistent belief that men’s and women’s natures can be usefully and meaningfully carved into two categories or “natural kinds,” that are distinct, timeless, and deeply biologically grounded. Today’s version of this idea continues a centuries-long quest to find the source of this hypothesized divergence in abilities, preferences, and behavior in the brain: You can find this notion at work, for instance, in popular books like John Gray’s “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus” in the 1990s, Louann Brizendine’s “The Female Brain” and “The Male Brain” the following decade, and last year’s “Results at the Top: Using Gender Intelligence to Create Breakthrough Growth” by Barbara Annis and Richard Nesbitt.

But a version of the same assumption is also sometimes subtly present in scientific research. Consider, for example, Cambridge University psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen’s influential Empathizing-Systemizing theory of brains and the accompanying “extreme male brain” theory of autism. This presupposes there is a particular “systemizing” brain type that we could meaningfully describe as “the male brain,” that drives ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving that distinguish the typical boy and man from the typical “empathizing” girl and woman.

Or consider studies that report sex differences in brain structure in terms of two different classes of brains. Thus, a globally publicized study by Madhura Ingalhalikar and colleagues on the human connectome — that is, the enormous set of connections between the different regions of the brain — which concluded that “male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.”

The problem with these approaches is the implicit assumption that sex differences, whether in brain structure, function, or behavior, ‘add up’ consistently in individuals to create “male brains" and “female brains,” and “male natures” and “female natures.”

Three paragraphs in order to get to what the "problem" is. Lefty types always have a "problem". One of their "problems" is "implicit" this and 'implicit" that. Shit cannot be just "this" or "that". If you say you are a nationalist you MUST be implying you are a "white nationalist" and want to enslave and exploit poor people of color around the world.

But no, see, the point here is that there are sex differences and if there are sex differences then some man or group of men somewhere will exploit these differences for their own benefit because only men exploit their differences to get ahead.

But that last quoted paragraph shows the clear lie of the piece. That there are statistical differences between men, as a group and women, as a group, it does NOT mean that any individual in either group MUST be a certain way or another. No one has ever made such a claim. Just as it is entirely true that though black people in America commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime when compared to whites, such a fact tells you very little about any particular black person you meet.

And so the author of this "opinion" piece undos their own point with:

In other words, humans generally don’t have brains with mostly or exclusively “female-typical” features or “male-typical” features. Instead, what’s most common in both females and males are brains with “mosaics” of features, some of them more common in males and some more common in females.

That is what we've known all along. So basically this entire piece is a waste of space.

: Not a single person had only feminine or only masculine scores on these variables. Rather, what was typical of both men and women (70 percent of them, to be exact) was a mosaic of feminine and masculine characteristics

No shit sherlock. Nobody said that these characteristics were mutually exclusive. The bell curve distribution of IQ for example shows that most men and women are "the same". The outliers at each end are where the differences are pronounced.

The key point here is that although there are sex differences in brain and behavior, when you move away from group-level differences in single features and focus at the level of the individual brain or person, you find that the differences, regardless of their origins, usually “mix up” rather than “add up.”

Again, no shit. We who have been following this have known this all along. And we know it is the same for other observable human phenomenon like IQ. There are group differences and there are individual differences. The mistake is to think that because you know a few individuals that you have a grasp of how millions of them generally operate. That's "the problem".

Don't Work, Don't Get Paid

Only in America, or maybe in other parts of the world where that which is obvious is not to be stated, can there be a report published in which what was already known is seen as "new" and "news".

So this morning on CBS there was a report in which it was "found" that the Pay Gap(tm) between men and women was larger than we "thought". Apparently, women are making somewhere around 38 cents for every man's dollar. Shocking. If such slave wages were possible to have a successful business I would expect the male unemployment rate to skyrocket. I mean what sane manager would pay a man $10/hour when he can have a chick do the same shit for $3.80?

So how did they get to this startlingly bizarre conclusion? Well see, they looked at 15 year data. In that time they found that women had children or cared for presumably elderly parents and thus we not working for a significant amount of time. Apparently, the researchers were SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you to discover that if you don't work, you don't get paid!

This is totally unsurprising when grievance studies takes over "research". People need to find reasons to be upset. Hence, we should now get mad because women don't get paid when not at work. That men also do not get paid when they don't work is not a problem you see. Fuck men.

Also, in a sane society, we wouldn't see a problem with, you know, taking care of your children. Only in fucked up countries that pander endlessly to those in possession of a vagina, is child rearing less important than going to work for a large corporation where you make the CEO extremely wealthy, while abandoning your children to daycare centers who may or may not indoctrinate your children in shit you don't agree with.

Look, I don't have a problem if the state wants to encourage family formation by providing financial support to families. I DO have a problem when people think that a private enterprise ought to be Daddy Warbucks and be held financially responsible for the financial support of women who decide to have children. It's your body, not the company's or the state's. Keep them out your body and you keep out of their bank account. But this is what happens when in order to "not be dependent on no man" becomes the reality of "dependent on some business/government".

Notes On The Mid-Terms

1) It is quite normal for Congress to change hands in mid-term elections. Generally speaking, the electorate prefers that Congress be oppositional to the executive. A party that has the Executive, Senate and House will soon not have all three. So to me some of the results were not unexpected. I'm old enough to remember when Republicans, under Newt Gingrich thought they had the "infinity stones" to rule in perpetuity.

2) I also expected, in the increasing partisanship of the electorate that the House would see more changes than the Senate. House districts are gerrymandered by law in order to create "super majorities" on either political grounds or on racial grounds. So we have in some cases persons who lost their races because their districts were redrawn in a manner that stripped them of their "usual" supporters. That said, the rapidly changing demographics of the country is going to be seen on the district level first and then flow upwards. This is inevitable. Getting back to partisanship as the de-platforming wars continue where people's livelihoods will be dependent upon whether an employer can stomach negative press and tweetstorms, persons with views, lifestyles that are not supported will move to other places more conducive to their views.

3) The increase in R Senators is not too surprising. After the Kavanaugh hearing, the public got a good look at the Senate and I think that moved some/many undecided voters. Like Trump or not, seeing a person's reputation dragged through the mud in the vicious way it was done and realizing it could be you or your loved one, could not have sat well with people who are not consumed with "orange man bad". This also puts the spotlight on Ginsberg. Now that Republicans do not need any Democrats to approve the next Supreme Court judge, should Ginsberg pass before 2020 at the least, The Supreme Court goes very conservative for a very long time. No doubt this is why Trump has called the results a big win.

Also, Senators benefit from being statewide decisions. Unless you have a huge metropolis like NYC, the voters in urban districts can be balanced out by those in suburban and rural districts. In places like NY State, not so much. Basically, for statewide office all you need to do is win NYC and the rest of the state doesn't matter.

4) Abrams and Gillum are bigger winners than Republicans may realize. The Democrats have a long term vision that the Republicans either do not understand or are unwilling to counter. They are not called the stupid party for no reason. The Democrats plan is and has been Power Through Population Replacement. The first meaningful and deadly shot was the 1965 immigration act. The second deadly venom was the immigration amnesty that Reagan signed in the 1980s. Aside from the whole "cheap labour for big business" thing, the game was this:

New immigrants, aside from Cubans, lean Democratic by large margins. Their children, not wanting to betray their parents and heritage will likely continue that leaning. So you have a time "bomb" of 18 years.

The next deadly venom was non-enforcement of immigration law. This in combination with a misapplication of the 14th Amendment meant that you had an "unpredicted" number of new citizens being born to people seeking to protect themselves from being deported by becoming a parent of said citizen. More 18 year fuses.

The next deadly venom was control of the education system. This indoctrinated white students into thinking that they are racists and the receivers of unearned benefits of being white. Slowly but surely this attitude went from Universities on down. The effect of this was to split the ever shrinking white population into two groups: Good (guilt-ridden) and Bad (not-guilt ridden). When combined; dwindling white population, growing non-white population, split white population, The Democratic time bombs have been going off. They need not win *this* election or *that* election. What each election allows them to do is gauge the rate of change in the target areas. Neither Gillum nor Abrams could have even made it past primaries in the America of even 40 years ago. And that is not based on race. That is based on stated policies.

What changed was that the demographics of GA and FL have changed (This is Hilea!) to the extent that such persons *and* policy positions are acceptable. Recall that an article about Abrams flatly said that white voters were essentially not something she was even concerned with. It was the "Black Girl Magic" of the growing non-white population that would carry her into office. And lets be clear from the results: It nearly happened. The only reason she is not governor-elect at this very moment (she has not conceded as of this writing) is because the time bomb has not gone off yet. It will.

Gillum was and is similarly situated. If anything his views were to the left of Abrams. No way his positions would have flown in Florida of even 2000. But again, the only reason why he is not governor-elect is that the time bomb has not gone off. It will.

And really, we don't even have to take Race into consideration with these analyses. Look at Texas. How did Beto do so well? Again, his positions would not have flown in even year 2000 Texas. Again the demographic time bomb hasn't quite gone off but it will.

Republicans as a national and eventually statewide party is a dead man walking. They are on the "Green Mile" and they don't even know it. The future of the Republican party is on display in California. Why is this a bad thing? One party rule is not good for democracy. Not at all. There needs to be principled opposition in every government. You cannot have "checks and balances" when all those involved agree on the same things. A dictatorship of The Party is no less a threat than the dictatorship of one person.

Narrative Smashed

If a narrative falls down in a forest and nobody is there to witness it, does it matter?

NY Times:

If anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York, it is to some extent because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy. During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group, Mark Molinari, commanding officer of the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, told me.

Say what?

If anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York, it is to some extent because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy. During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group, Mark Molinari, commanding officer of the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, told me.

Well, every talking head left of Fox News told me that Trump, the Alt-Right, The Proud Boys and White Nationalists, were the biggest threat to, well, everybody since Hitler trimmed his mustache. Say, Did you see this rather, important, news on the telly?

Of course, not everyone is caught. And, obviously, white supremacists are driving anti-Semitic rhetoric online. It is just that sort of hate speech that the Anti-Defamation League views as largely responsible for the near doubling in bias incidents toward Jewish children in schools across the country last year.

Wait...wait.... if white supremacists are not among the caught or at least identified, then why are they the focus of "anti-Semitic rhetoric online"? One would think that you'd want to worry about whoever else? No?

In fact, it is the varied backgrounds of people who commit hate crimes in the city that make combating and talking about anti-Semitism in New York much harder.

Because then you'd have to admit that perhaps the biggest threat to Jews in NYC are not white supremacists. Narrative Go Boom!

But did it make a sound?

Who Does This Help

Found at Unz.com in the comments section of an excellent article by CJ Hopkins

Birthr-itis

Itis: forming names of inflammatory diseases.

Yesterday Trump threw the birthright gauntlet down, no doubt in response to the pending invasion, that's what it is, headed to the US's southern border. One does not need a military to "invade" a space. In fact the common refrain about someone 'invading one's personal space" is probably the easiest way to understand this. In order to understand the importance of this issue we need to understand where it came from.

Understand that the US is one of two countries that has "birthright citizenship". Every other country requires that either at least one parent (sometimes only the male) to be a citizen or requires both parents to be citizens. In some countries entire racial groups are explicitly denied citizenship. So generally speaking having the citizenship of the country you happened to drop out the womb in is extremely unusual.

So why does the US have birthright citizenship? The answer lies in the Civil War (The War Between States). One of the major issues of the Civil War was slavery. Slaves were considered the property of whomever owned them. Since property has no citizenship, slaves were not citizens of any state or of the Federal body. Upon emancipation, you had a literal stateless population. By 1865 a large proportion of Africans was no longer attached to any particular African state that they could be removed to. It also assumed that any African who WAS attached to a particular state wanted to return. This was a part of the debate at that time about "repatriating" Africans to Africa and the set up of Liberia. This is outside the scope of this entry though.

So what to do with these stateless persons who could not be removed? Grant citizenship to them. Hence the 14th Amendment which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The "born" portion covered all previously enslaved Africans since they had been born in the US (note that a good proportion of Africans at that time were NOT born in America). Emancipated Africans were subject to the jurisdiction of the US just as they were when they were legal property.

There was no, zip, zero intention of this law applying to Native Americans who were considered members of their respective Nations. There was zip, zero intentions of this law applying to persons not in the country legally. Previous legal cases testing this have been those who had been granted some sort of permission to enter.

Today it is fashionable to say that opposition to birthright citizenship is a "White supremacist" talking point. The fact show that generally speaking, even at the height of the Jim Crow era, it wasn't much discussed. Why? Because prior to VERY recently, the US government kept a lid on immigration, both legal and illegal. It was common for both Democrats and Republicans to speak in favor or deportation. Of limiting the growth of immigrant populations. People who arrived at Ellis Island were regularly denied entry. It was understood, across the spectrum that no foreigner had any rights to enter the country without permission from the proper representative authorities.

Now that Democrats, as demonstrated in the previously posted video, want to use immigration as an electoral weapon against their political enemies, they support the idea of foreign nationals being able to use birthright citizenship to change the electoral map. Democrats in some locations want to dispense with the privileges of citizenship altogether.

So the question comes down to whether foreign nationals who were not granted permission to enter the US qualify as "born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? I've seen legal arguments that they do not because foreign nationals who are in the US illegally are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That a foreign national who enters without permission is no different, legally speaking as someone who is at the border. That is, they are not legally present in the US, therefore, the "birth" is not "legally" in the US.

I propose a better way to evaluate this situation. In a nod to the gun control people, I'll call it the "common sense" approach.

If a person enters your home without your permission are they automatically regarded as the same as the lease or mortgage holder? I don't know any jurisdiction that would say "yes" to that.

If that person then had a baby in your house that they entered without your permission would that baby now be considered "one of the family" with both baby and parents holding legal rights to inhabit your house? I don't know any jurisdiction that would answer "yes" to that.

This is the exact same argument. the US is the house of the citizens. Foreign nationals enter with our, the citizen's permission. Failing to get that permission does not entitle you to the rights extended to those who were given permission.

And this doesn't include recognition of the birth tourism that is clearly fraudulent means of getting citizenship. Most recently in Queens NY a Chinese birth tourism ring was busted. There is no doubt that the 14th Amendment was ever intended for that.

So Trump's proposed "end" to birthright citizenship may or may not be on shaky constitutional grounds. Certainly no executive order can undo a constitutional amendment. Certainly the lawyers advising Trump (They ARE doing that right?) know this. However; if there is a legal foundation that the 14th never meant to cover foreign nationals who have illegally entered the country. Then the executive order becomes like Obama's DACA. it's not LAW and it doesn't contradict the letter of the law but it is surely right up there on the line and subject to reversal by any other executive order.

How Much Democrats Changed On Immigration

From Praeger U

The October Surprise

This is the followup to the About Those "Bombs" posting.

As expected, the not only have none of the devices failed to detonate. The person who mailed them (who should never have been given the media attention he is now getting) declared that he didn't mean to harm anyone. Indeed, a cursory glance at the evidence shows this to be the case. In particular the device sent to DeNiro was delivered two days before the retired NYPD officer called in the bomb squad. If that was the case, when was the timer set to go off? It has been many days and we still have not been told when the "bombs" were supposed to detonate. If it had a timer or alarm, this would be known. Secondly we have not been informed of what the explosive material was. Hence it is irresponsible to refer to these devices as bombs. Yes we had a "bomb scare" but we had no bombs.

Since these devices were not intended to actually harm their targets then they could only be thought of as intended to invoke fear in the targets. Isn't it odd that a person who claims that he supports Trump, to the extent that he plastered his van with multiple images of Trump and Pence, would then go and do something so spectacularly stupid? As stated earlier, this event did and does nothing to help Trump or any other Republican. It DOES provide evidence for the continued narrative of crazed, violent Trump supporters.

But then we had the shooting in Pittsburgh, PA. Here had a person who like many of the supposed white nationalists out there, did not support Trump and who had a dislike of Jews. Feeling that his people were under attack, he decided less than two weeks ahead of the mid-term elections to make his way to a Synagogue and shoot it up.

Two separate incidences of political and "racially" motivated crimes that happen prior to a mid-term election. Talk about an October surprise! Personally I'm suspicious. Nothing these two individuals did could not have waited until after the elections. But then again, that supposes that these individuals were really *thinking*.

But shortly after there was a twist I did not see coming. Gab.ai.

The PA shooter had an account on Gab. There he, like many others said his things about Jews. Now, as of this writing, numerous internet companies have no-platformed the company. Strange isn't it? A white male who thinks that Jews have "control over the media and the like" shoots up a synagogue and an array of companies come out and act together to destroy a company simply because the shooter expressed himself there. Way to go providing evidence of "Jewish Power". When BLM member/sympathizer shot up police, nobody went after Facebook which has and had plenty of people calling for police murder. No one called for a shut down of Twitter over the multiple accounts calling for the killing of police and white people in general. If hosting content calling for murders of a race of people, is a no-platforming offense why is Facebook and Twitter even in existence? Do some peoples lives matter more than others? Do some people get a pass on their murderous tirades while others don't? Who and why?

There was recently an election in Brazil. The alleged "far right" candidate won. One of the commentaries I was hearing prior to the election was that many Brazilians were getting their info (and I'm sure, mis-info) from Gab sources. This was because Twitter and Facebook (and no doubt others) were busy de-platforming, censoring and otherwise meddling in the election in Brazil. Hence Gab has been seen as a "credible" threat to the information control exercised by Twitter and Facebook and thee media giants that use it to determine The Narrative(s)

I'm not saying that the "powers that be" knew about the shooting in advance and wanted to use this as a means of shutting down Gab, but I would be surprised if it was NOT the case that shortly after the event, it was seen as the perfect pretense to use the "Constitutional Censor".

But back to the actual events. I'll say this again: The government needs to deal with the political violence. When the Charlottesville police refused to do their duty and allow the Unite The Right Rally to proceed without interference and refused to arrest and prosecute those who assaulted people, they not only contributed to the death of Heather, but they let it be known that political violence was OK so long as it was the "right kind of violence".

When media outlets like the NYT seriously debate whether it's OK to punch a Nazi, you have a serious problem. "Nazi" grew to be Trump supporter. That grew to be Republican. That grew into any white person. Recently in Oregon we had Anti-fa take over a street and assault a man with North Carolina plates because he was trying to go somewhere. The police and authorities did NOTHING. In NYC Anti-fa vandalized a building and sent a note threatening bodily harm to persons who would attend a private meeting. That is *THE* definition of terrorism. Yet the governor of NY blamed the targets of terrorist threats simply because he disagreed with their supposed speech. None of us have heard the speech so we have no idea what exactly was objectionable about it.

And that's the thing now. People can be shut down, threatened and indeed physically assaulted simply for having alleged opinions that are allegedly disagreeable. Brent Kavanaugh was called a rapist for nearly two weeks by all the national media, even though there was zero evidence of any such behavior. Why? He was a conservative [white] male. How is any of this acceptable?

Right now there is a low level civil war going on. It stays low level so long as people think there is a non-violent means to a resolution (and that there is a resolution that allows for staying a single polity). If [more] people think that violence is how they get their way, synagogue shootings and bomb scares will be the least of our worries.

About Those "Bombs"

I don't pretend to know more about the actual facts on the ground in regards to the devices sent to various left persons. What transpires here is mostly educated speculation on the matter.

First it seems highly likely that these devices are in fact fakes. They were never meant to explode or harm the alleged target. It does seem to be a literal terrorist incident much like Anti-fa's vandalism and threatening letter to the Republican club in NY. We will know whether the items were in fact explosives soon enough. Either the relevant agencies will have a press conference in which they tell us what kind of explosive was in the device along with either a demo of the destructive force it would have when exploded; OR there will be radio silence. You should take radio silence as an admission that these were fakes. There is also a chance that the relevant agencies will tell us that they are fake (if they are). I have seen commentary online by alleged experts in bombs who say that these devices are clearly fake because:

1) Pipe bombs don't have wires at both ends.

2) The "Alarm clock" was an LCD bedside clock available from Amazon and has no alarm function.

I cannot verify either one of these statements so take them with grains of salt.

What is important here is to think of who benefits. Lets first go with it's a Trump/Republican supporter who has been riled up by Trump's commentary on the media and Democrats and therefore decided to "do his part" (assuming it's a he). Let's do a pro and con analysis:

Pro: What does he gain? Media attention. Ego gratification. Perhaps some kudos from random internet people. That's all. Cons: He certainly has not eliminated any "enemies" from the field. He hasn't changed any minds. He has given the MSM a talking point to blame Trump for "the environment". Politically it doesn't do much to help Trump or Republicans. This will be particularly true if he is found out prior to the elections.

Now let's assume that this is a false flag perpetrated by a leftist, though not necessarily a Democrat:

Pros: By framing the event as an attack by "far right" and "Trump supporters" (often synonymous in MSM), He manages to push forward the prevailing MSM narrative of violent fascists vs. innocent put-upon liberals. Indeed the head of CNN already went there. Schumer et-al already rejected Trump's condemnation of the devices. Every left-wing media outlet has discussed how Trump's "attacks on media" are the cause of the "environment" and "climate". This will work to motivate left-leaning persons to [further] support Democratic candidates.

Cons: The only real con to this is like the other prospect. Being found out prior to the election would be a devastating blow to Democrats. Not because Democrats are behind the apparent hoax. But because it would be clear to the public that isn't necessarily supportive of Trump that the far left is increasingly out of control and supported by Democrats. It would be the Kavanagh Bump on steroids.

Also it is likely that if the person is discovered after the elections, Trump would be handed a hammer with which to [continue] to hammer the MSM and various politicians.

That said, I believe that if the person does NOT turn out to be a Trump supporter or Republican, that the event will quickly be memory holed with an adjusted narrative which removes the event but keeps up the chatter about "climate". As what happened with Congressman Scalise and Rand Paul

Again, this is speculation based on the current limited information. [update 4:13PM] The NYT is reporting as follows:

The packages have shared the same traits: a manila envelope containing a 1-inch-by-6-inch length of PVC pipe filled with powder believed to be a pyrotechnic substance and packed with shrapnel. The pipes were also equipped with a small battery, a digital clock as a timer and an initiator, which causes the bomb to explode, a law enforcement official said.

"Powder believed to be a pyrotechnic substance".

I think by this time we would know whether it was a pyrotechnic substance. The device found this morning was transported to a secure location. It doesn't take long to determine if the powder was explosive or not.

But Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York said on Thursday that the devices were functional explosives.

“They are bombs capable of detonation. That has been established,” Mr. Cuomo told CNN. “Was that purposeful or incidental? Was it a poorly constructed bomb?”

Sorry but Governor Cuomo has shown himself to be a liar. His commentary regarding Anti-fa's recent behavior shows he is given to political machinations. The governor is not an explosives expert and neither am I. I will take the word of actual experts over Cuomo any day of the week.

More Inconvenient Charts

So the other day investigations into Elizabeth Warren's DNA produced a chart in which there was apparently a way to see the allegedly non-existent different races. Today's chart is the average ACT scores from 1996 on.

That black bar at the bottom...the one that has been at the bottom for the last 20 odd years? Black average results. Asians, once again, reign supreme. Clearly, the results have been manipulated to make black people look bad.