Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Thursday, August 15, 2019

The Jokes Write Themselves

Chicken boxes featuring warnings about the dangers of carrying a knife have been sent to takeaways in England and Wales as part of a government campaign. More than 321,000 boxes will replace standard packaging at outlets including Chicken Cottage, Dixy Chicken and Morley's, the Home Office said.

I laughed so hard when I saw this. I mean. They couldn't just come out and say that the knifing crime in England is actually black crime, so they use the chicken as a proxy. I mean this is the level of "How many lights do you see?" rabbit hole that the left has sunk England into.

Dal Babu, a former chief superintendent with the Metropolitan Police, said: "This initiative seeks to target chicken shops because the assumption is that's where young black people go. "There's a racial element to it - it stereotypes people, it's patronising and I can understand why people see it as racist."
"I can understand why people see it as racist." Yes I'm sure, but more importantly....Is it TRUE?

Courtney Barrett, who runs his own knife amnesty in east London told BBC News the scheme was a "step in the right direction" but stressed that it should not just involve chicken shops.
Say....patty shoppes. Barber shoppes.

Recent figures showed most perpetrators of knife crime were over the age of 18.
And they eat lots of chicken.

But seriously, in the original "recent figures" linked to this page: Where apparently nobody...I mean NO BODY thought of making a chart of race of perps,victims and population percent. No. NO. Don't want to do that.

Philly Shooting As An Example Of Why Gun Laws Don't Work

So yesterday a felon with a gun shot 6 philly cops.

Not soon after, we had politicians calling for more or "better" gun laws.


Let's get this out the way: Felons are prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms. Therefore there was no way that this person came into possession of a firearm by legal means.

So apparently it is news to some people that people will get things via not legal means.

Gun laws do one thing and one thing only: prevent the [currently} law-abiding to obtain and carry firearms.

The second important thing of note here is that 6 police officers were shot. They were armed. Being armed is no guarantee that you will not be harmed in an altercation. Hence, it is irresponsible and wrong to make statements that simply by having a gun, the "good guy" will prevail. No. It doesn't work like that.

But also of importance is that at least the police officers had the option of being armed to protect themselves. Politicians do not want us civilians to have the same opportunity. That is unacceptable to me. Why should I as a civilian be less able to defend myself from imminent danger, while a state agent is given that ability? Why do I have to "wait and hope"?

Saturday, August 10, 2019

The Departed

If you believe that Mr. Epstein simply "committed suicide" then there is a bridge to Brooklyn that I'll take offers on. He tried it once. My speculation was that he was "given the opportunity" to do himself the first time but he couldn't do it hence being "found in the fetal position with marks".

Those "interested parties" then took more "firm" actions. The camera was allegedly "down for service". The guards were called off.

There is a scene in The Departed where one of the crooks is met by Matt Damon in the interrogation room. He's told to "call mother". The viewer is supposed to be like "damn, he did that right under the nose of the camera and other people watching."

You right.

Anyone can get got. The names that were going to get dropped into the public domain were not going to go quietly and honestly I don't think it's just Clinton.

To quote another movie:

"The first thing you should know about us is that we have people everywhere..."

Joe's "Gaffe"

So Joe Biden said that poor people are just as good as white people. The MSM has been saying that the statement was [another] Biden gaffe. It wasn't. It reflects what is essentially the party line of Democrats: If you are not a "Straight White Male" then you are a victim of said Strait White Male. In addition, it is another confirmation of a recent study that showed that liberals were more likely than conservatives to talk down to black people.

People dumb down their speech to people they consider less informed or less intelligent than they are. So Joe was simply stating what it is the Democrats believe. Elizabeth Warren stated an outright lie when she said that Mike Brown was murdered in Ferguson. Never mind that no such finding was arrived at by investigators. Never mind that Witness 101, who reluctantly testified because he was afraid for his and his mother's safety, provided testimony that backed Wilson.

For Democrats, everything bad that happens to black people is the fault of some white man somewhere.That black people are agency less, children who are being blown around by the vicious winds of "white supremacy". Black people locked up? Must be because of some white man rather than the dead body. Black kids not performing in school? It's because of some white man somewhere (other than in the seat next to them providing good grades by osmosis).

I said it before and I'll say it again. When Democrats see black people, they think "slave". Add "poor" and "stupid" to that list.

Wednesday, August 07, 2019

Due Process of Law

What is "due process"? Forgive me if I've arrived late to the party but it recently dawned on me that "due process" doesn't mean anything. Due process means whatever the authorities says it means. Today "due process" can mean a court proceeding. Tomorrow "due process" can mean police knocking on your door and taking you or your stuff.

In the wake of the shootings, there is a lot more talk about "red flag" laws where just about anyone can call "the authorities" and say that you are behaving (or speaking) in a manner that "concerns" them. Then the police can come to your place of residence and demand you surrender your firearm or else be killed by the same authorities. You may be thinking that the last part is not in the law. No, but any law is ultimately enforceable by the use of deadly force. Ask Eric Garner.

Another example. Statutory rape. There is no defense to statutory rape. If a person has sex with a minor regardless of circumstances, they are guilty of statutory rape. What circumstances could there be that works in the favor of the defendant? Not knowing the age of the person. A few years ago an ex-football player was caught in just such a situation. He paid for a prostitute. Whether you agree with prostitution or not is not the subject here. The person who came to his hotel room was underage. He did not know that. He assumed (wrongly) that the woman who presented herself to him was of age. She did not tell him she was underage. After the event, the ex-football player was arrested and charged with statutory rape. Apparently, the girl's pimp misrepresented the girl to the ex-footballer.

Would the ex-footballer have knowingly engaged in sex with a minor? It's possible. It certainly does happen. And certainly, a person who does so would have an incentive to lie and say they didn't know. But I still find it objectionable that a person can be found guilty of a crime in the absence of criminal intent. And for those who say that he should have known because she "looked" young, I say, come out from under the rock you live under. Many young, legal women do not look their age. There are 18-year-olds who do not look it. Not my personal taste, but they are out there and it's not my job, or the state's to dictate what those women should do, or with whom.

So back to the "due process" discussion. Since Trump has been elected to office, various left-leaning "judges" have made decisions that are unsupported by the letter of the law that they are supposed to be upholding whether they like it or not. Many of these judges have gone so far as to overextend the scope of their decisions far beyond their jurisdictions. In short, these judges have created new "due processes" out of thin air. If the government and/or its agents can decide what "due process" is based on how they felt on that particular day, then there is nothing safe from the state. Either the state is restrained by law or it isn't.

Another way "due process" becomes an "illusions" is by creeping criminalization. The entire concept of "hate speech" runs against the 1st amendment. Yet we have the department of homeland security calling the owner of a private business in for questioning because the El Paso shooter allegedly posted his manifesto to a site hosted by or that does business with Cloudflare.

How did this even get past the agency lawyers? Whether the shooter's manifesto was posted to the site or not, it is still protected speech. The government has absolutely no business in calling in citizens to question them about their or other's speech.

So perhaps I'm late to the party but it seems that the idea of "due process" isn't really what we think it is. After all, if courts can rule that "shall not be infringed" or "shall not be abridged" means they can infringe and abridge, then there really is no "due process" worth believing in.

Tuesday, August 06, 2019

The Growing Threat of "White Supremacy"

White Supremacy is indeed growing and a threat to America. This is beyond doubt. If anything has shown us that this is the case, it is the recent shootings. Indeed we must do what we can to deal with this growing problem of "White Supremacy". What exactly is the threat of "White Supremacy"? Well, it is its use by certain groups to dismiss and censor legitimate political, religious and other differences among people. The term "white supremacy" used to mean specifically people who think that white people are [to be] supreme over any and everyone else. What we find today is that it is used to describe all manner of things that are not white supremacy whatsoever. Let us examine:

1) Restricting immigration. Apparently wishing to restrict immigration is white supremacy. Not only in America, arguably a country that was founded by an immigrant (as in came from elsewhere) population, but also to the native lands of Europeans. Sticking with America, there was a time when almost all immigration was stopped. The reasoning being that there was such a high population of [European] immigrants in America, that the country risked being fractionalized as these growing populations held onto the habits and thinking of their mother countries. Hence to "Americanize" these populations, they were cut off from new supplies and forced to become Americans. Current America is in a similar situation. Large areas of the country are very much not America. English is a subordinate language and indeed in some places, completely unnecessary to conduct business, be it private or government.

But even if one disagreed with restricting legal immigration. The idea that one is a "white supremacist" if one opposes trespassing, which is what illegal entry is a total misuse of the term. Nobody likes or agrees with trespassing. This is why we lock our doors. This is why we reserve the right to say who can enter (and stay) in our places of living. Illegal entry is illegal entry. Prettying it up with "undocumented this" and "asylum" the other is just that. Prettying up an act that simply would not be tolerated if it happened on your private property. So again, if opposing illegal entry into the US is "white supremacy" then Barbara Jordan is a white supremacist.

Another reason to restrict immigration is the impact on jobs. Any person with an above room temperature IQ should know that if you increase the pool of labour, you depress the prevailing wages for that labour. Illegal immigration AND legal immigration depresses wages for the entire market.

Lastly, immigration, particularly from "developing nations" strips them of intellectual capital that could be used to build that nation. The US literally strips doctors from countries that now depend on organizations such as "doctors without borders" to do basic medical treatment. How do people who are so concerned with "White supremacy" square their immigration stands with the strip mining of "POC" intellectuals? 2) Opposition to handing out public benefits to illegal aliens. This is what we call "theft of services". To claim that it is "white supremacist". Nonsense. Citizens and legal alien residents pay taxes (property etc.) to not only fund current services as well as future services. Future services are based on extrapolations of what the populations will be. If millions more people are in the area that were not budgeted for, then services are strained. Citizens should not be subject to such things. This is not "white supremacy" this is respect for the taxpayer. 3) Opposition to illegal alien crime. This is another thing that is called "white supremacist". Certain parties will claim that crime among illegal aliens is lower than that of citizens. First of all that is not entirely true. The rate of crime in America is racially stratified with African-Americans committing far more than their demographics would predict if all things were equal. If AA crime were eliminated in total, American crime rates would be at or below European levels.

But even if it was not. No citizen or legal resident alien should be threatened by any person who should not be here. Every person killed or otherwise harmed by an illegal alien is a preventable event. Whether it be 1 or 1 million. None of it should occur. It is the job of government to keep its citizens safe (within reason), particularly from foreign nationals. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. 4) Opposition to the Tranny BS. This is considered "white supremacy" because it re-enforces "The patriarchy" and "binary definitions" which are supposed hallmarks of "white supremacy". We are told that we should allow children to "transition" to whatever they think they are because....because. We are supposed to be OK with children being put on display at gay bars and so-called "pride" events. We have moved from "the government should leave consenting adults to do whatever it is they want to do in the privacy of their own homes" to "the government should punish whoever objects to what I do in private AND in public and does not recognize that I think I'm a [choose] today."

John Derbyshire mentioned the Chinese proverb of the emperor who presented his court with a deer and said it was a horse. It is an apt story which I'm probably butchering but go along with me. In the story, this emperor wanted to know which of his courtiers would go along with him. So when he presented the deer as a horse, his various courtiers either said the horse was in fact a deer (in other words were committed to telling the truth). Others remained silent. Some said that the deer was a horse (whatever the emperor said is good enough for me!). The emperor had all the people who correctly identified the deer killed.

This is where we are. Those who dare speak the absolute truth or at least give reasonable arguments are being set upon by people drunk with ever-accumulating power. The "white supremacy" smear is just one of the tools. 5) Upholding freedom of speech. This too is now "white supremacy". The very concept that got African-Americans out of slavery, out from under Jim Crow, etc. is now scorned by the very people that benefited from it. Since "speech" can be used to "harm" those whom it may be directed or about, it should be policed and punished. Never mind that there is no "harm". What actually exists are people who think they are 'entitled" to be liked and accepted by everyone. There is no such right. If I don't care for Joe or Joe's behavior then I don't care for Joe or Joe's behavior. Joe cannot force me to like Joe or Joe's behavior and the state has no right to punish me for not liking Joe or Joe's behavior or for stating that I don't like Joe, Joe's behavior or anyone who engages in the same behavior as Joe. And Joe has to deal with it.

By attacking freedom of speech as "white supremacist", those engaging in the smear are essentially asserting their power over the population. Because the attack on speech is not an attack on speech. It is the legitimizing and delegitimizing ideas. Not only can YOU not speak but you also cannot "LISTEN" to counter arguments because those arguments have been deemed "beyond the pale". This is the essence of the ubiquitous "white supremacy" squeals from various persons. They are telling you what to think...or else.

So yes we have a "white supremacy" problem. How about we address it.

Monday, August 05, 2019

New Shooters, Old Issues

I'm going to do my little bit to dispell media dis-information in regards to the two recent shootings in the US.

1) The El-Paso shooting was instigated by Trump's...well Trump.


If you read the manifesto you'll see that he specifically mentioned Trump. He said that his particular view of the "invasion" of Texas (and America) predated Trump. In fact he had pointed words for both parties on that subject. So if the shooter is to be believed then all commentary that Trump's words were the reason for this guy's criminal act is dis-information.

2) The Dayton Shooter was Antifa.


These two issues are an indication of how much blood the media has on its hands. One the one hand it has "delegitimized" and suppressed discussion of absolutely valid issues and concerns of broad swaths of the citizenry by labeling them "white nationalists". It has legitimized absolutely ridiculous claims such as concentration camps. It has, depending on the political winds claimed there was no border crisis or that there is a border crisis. It has openly endorsed a group of people who wear masks in public who assault people it claims are "Nazis". Due to these two phenomenons: The delegitimization of valid issues of one group and the amplification of fake assertions of another has, in my opinion, fed the recent shootings.

After all, if we're going to say Trump's rhetoric caused El-Paso, then since the Dayton shooter followed Warren, should she be held accountable?

What about the guy who shot Rep. Scalise? He was a Bernie supporter. Should Sanders be held responsible for him?

Why haven't the so-called journalists asked this question of each candidate who has made the claim that Trump is responsible? Because we are living in a time of dis-information. Let's see how many times we hear about the Antifa connection of the Dayton shooter.

3) Guns are the problem.


As I've said many many times. Guns are inanimate objects. If you sit one down and nobody touches it, nobody gets shot. People shoot people. Not guns. There is no such thing as "gun violence" or "gun crime". There are people who shoot and/or kill people with guns. It is also the case that guns have been a part of American life for its entire existence, yet mass shootings of the type we are seeing is a very recent phenomenon. I've already shown that young people used to learn how to handle gun at school.

What we have is a cultural problem. It is highly likely that the cultural problem is being fed by the increased media dis-information that may be pushing mentally unstable people over lines they would not have crossed. This is pure speculation on my part. A lot of people talk about how Europe has less "gun crime". Europe also, until very recently, also has a very different culture, informed largely by a homogeneous demographic.

4) White Men are the biggest danger:

Patently false.

The FBI defines a mass shooting as one where 3 or more people have been shot in a single event. The "news" media puts white shooters front and center often for political purposes. However; when it comes to shootings period, non-whites, specifically black males, far outrank anyone else in America for shootings. This includes public places. See Ask yourself a question: If there have been so many mass shootings in America this year alone, how come you've only heard of 5?

The answer is, that most of them don't make it past the local news. Most of them do not fit the national dis-information narrative. This is not to minimize the events of this weekend. This is to not deal in dis-information.

5) No conceal carry present in Texas? Lastly, one of the things I was surprised by was that no one in the area was a concealed or open carry. Texas is a "shall issue" state. That means that anyone who is of age and is not a felon can purchase a firearm and receive a permit/license. Furthermore; it is legal in Texas to openly carry a firearm so long as it is holstered. I'm not entirely clear as to the policy Walmart has in regards to carrying in their stores.

The reason I bring this up is that the first interview I heard was of a woman who saw the shooter in the parking lot. I don't know how many people were in the parking lot but she indicated at least one other person was there. Had she or the other person been carrying it is likely that the incident would have been ended there. Criminals tend to pick places and people where they are unlikely to meet resistance. It is often said in self-defense circles that no one can help you except you. No disrespect for the police, but many people were killed in both incidences because there was no one in the immediate environment who could resist the shooter with deadly force. Armed citizens do not in any way, shape or form guarantee that no one will be shot and killed. However, the presence of armed (and trained) citizens can absolutely drop the potential body count because shooters often end their crimes once resistance is met. If you think I'm lying here's video evidence:

And because I'm honest, the other side:

Perhaps a CC was present but decided it was best to not intervene.

So closing this out I just want to say that these are dangerous times, relatively speaking. What is making this dangerous is the censoring of legitimate issues by state and corporate actors. The reason we have free speech is in part because those who feel they can communicate will often NOT resort to violence. The most dangerous people are those who believe they have nothing to lose (and now media fame to gain). The second reason we have free speech is that we cannot be absolutely sure of the rightness or correctness of our beliefs. Therefore; the ability of those to challenge our beliefs via their speech, is how we become better thinkers ourselves. Name-calling and ad-hominem attacks are not arguments. Resorting to them doesn't prove your case. Living in echo chambers does nothing for critical thinking because echo chambers by definition have no critiques to offer.

Beware the dis-information.

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

The Mueller Testimony

If you believe in equal protection under the law and such things as "innocent until proven guilty" you should be mad as hell at what Mueller said today:

This was a what?

"A unique situation"

No. The president, like every other fucking citizen is protected under the law. That includes the presumption of innocence.

A few years ago I wrote about the stop and frisk policy in NYC. Even though it undoubtedly saved lives, I was and AM against it because it blatantly violated the 4th amendment rights of the persons stopped. Courts agreed and ordered NY to stop the practice. It was the right thing to do. No citizen should be subject to "unique situation" prosecutions that abridge their rights. Such behavior is a threat to each and every one of us.

Shame on Mueller for even moving his mouth to speak such a thing. Shame on any and every media outlet that lets such a thing pass. Shame on any and every elected official that thinks such a thing is OK. Shame on YOU if you're a US citizen reading this and are not bothered.

"justice" due to "unique situation".

Monday, July 22, 2019

The Mis-Education

An article from dropped in my feed the other day. Entitled Overdue Assignment: Making NYC Schools Culturally Responsive, it encapsulates a lot of what is wrong with the American educational system and why there are attacks on what used to be considered core tenets of American society such as "innocent until proven guilty". Let's look at the piece:

“The curriculum taught me that white people captured me and took away my freedom. Why would I want to learn this?”

That goes through the minds of many black students as they sit in social studies class, says Jamaal Bowman, principal of Cornerstone Academy for Social Action in Co-op City.

Well you shouldn't want to learn that because it is not what happened. This myth of the "white man stole us" is, unfortunately embedded in the minds of many black people. History shows that what actually happened was that Africans were sold to Europeans (when they weren't being sold to Arabs) by other Africans. Many of these enslaved Africans were victims of warfare (sometimes motivated by the selling of Africans). Others were simply kidnapped, by other Africans.

These enslaved Africans were then brought to the coast where they were housed in places like El Mina

Where they awaited boarding for the middle passage. They were bought for things like bathtubs, cloths and Cowry shells.

Yes these things

So no, you were not stolen by white people who deprived you of your freedom. You were enslaved by black people, who deprived you of your freedom and sold to white people as property.

Onto the next.

Cornerstone takes a different approach. While many schools begin their study of black history with American slavery, Cornerstone reaches back to Ancient Egypt’s African roots. His students, Bowman told a town hall on education in the Bronx last month, learn that they “are descendants of kings and queens, not descendants of slaves. That’s a big difference.”
Ahh history class as self-esteem boosting session. Think about this. In England there is one king and one queen and a few princes and princesses, etc. Out of a population of 53 million people. How do you think that YOU are descended from "kings and queens"? Seriously. While there are noted cases where a king or queen were captured and transported, the sheer number of people means that YOU are *unlikely* to be descended from *any* of them. If you need to be told that you are descended from "kings and queens" in order to feel better about yourself, you have serious issues. Schools should not be lying to students. That there are/were African royalty doesn't mean that all Africans are "descended from kings and queens" anymore than being English makes you English royalty.
Nelson Luna of the Bronx, now a first-year student at Columbia University, agrees that’s not currently the case. “When you don’t see yourself, you don’t feel connected and you don’t feel passionate. You feel out of place,” says Luna, a co-founder of Teens Take Charge, which organizes students to speak out about integration and other issues.
It is not the purpose of American history classes to "make you see yourself". It is the purpose of American history classes to teach American history, which for the large part doesn't include a lot of non-whites. Why? Because they are not the founding population. This is like going to Japan and complaining that you don't "see yourself". Why should you?
More than a half century after schools abandoned the “Dick and Jane” readers in the wake of concerns about their whiteness and sexism, many lessons and materials in New York City schools seem out of touch with a student body that is about 85 percent of black, Latino and Asian.
Colonizers erase the history and language of the "host" country. This is colonization. the "Dick and Jane" readers that I grew up on didn't bother me one bit. I spent hours reading books because I liked to read. No one was telling me how oppressive it was to read The Count of Monte Cristo, Moby Dick, etc. Here's the thing, you can be "inclusive" without tossing "Dick and Jane". These black, Latino and Asian" students need to recognize that "Dick and Jane" founded the country and have a right to be in the curriculum.
A few highly publicized incidents have drawn attention to the issue. There was the 5th grade practice test that praised Robert E. Lee’s wife for showing “genuine concern” for her slaves by teaching them to read, write and sew.
I'm old enough to remember when my elders in the "struggle" told me that there were many "good white people" who did things that could get them killed. Teaching an enslaved African how to read or write was often a severely punishable offense. Many of us cannot fathom the idea that such a simple thing that we take for granted could result in hanging from a tree somewhere. We never used to "shit" on such persons. Now I suppose such things are not "woke" enough. I thought the new woke was supposed to support white people being "race traitors". Clearly Lee's wife would qualify.

By the way, both Nat Turner and Fredrick Douglass were taught to read by white people.

In history, many issues are ignored or distorted. “Often, we don’t tell complex histories nor do we tell truthful histories,” says coalition coordinator Natasha Capers. “Students are still learning that Columbus discovered American and he was a brave explorer tried and true. That is just not true. And it erases the true history of what Columbus did across the Americas to other folks.”
See opening paragraphs in regards to "distorted" and "untrue" history. You don't replace one "untrue" story with another. Secondly whether one like Columbus or not, sailing around the globe at that time was a brave act. Particularly going to "wrong" direction at a time that people generally thought the world was flat. It's really easy for city kids with zero experience sailing to talk shit about Columbus.
Aneth Naranjo, director of youth leadership at IntegrateNYC and a recent graduate of Leon Goldstein High School for the Sciences in Brooklyn, thinks her history courses there had a white male perspective. “The American Revolution gets so much time but they skip over hundreds of years of slavery,” she said, adding, “As a Latina, I know my people’s history has a place in our history but I never got that.”
Firstly, I'm getting quite annoyed about all these "youth leaders". Secondly, as stated before, the United States was founded by whites (including males). That's why they get so much time. Again, it's like going to Japan and complaining about how Asians are 99% of the history. Duh. Slavery in America proper lasted a bit over 100 years. Slavery as an institution is about as old as humans have been organized and is not peculiar to America (the country). Lastly the entire "as a Latina" means squat outside of Puerto Rico, the American southwest and California. The latter being previously property of Mexico, a Spanish colony, who lost a war with America.
Luna graduated from Democracy Prep Charter school in Upper Manhattan, which follows the state curriculum for global history. “You spend one day on South America, and two days on Africa, and most of the lessons are concentrated on European and American history,” he says. “The French Revolution–you go very in depth on that, almost two months.”
Please send her back.

To school, because clearly "Democracy Prep" failed to educate this person. There is a reason why the French Revolution looms large in American history. There is a reason why European history looms large in American history classes. Does this chick understand the implications of America basically being an extension of England? You cannot fully understand why we have the governing system we have if you do not understand European (specifically English) history.

Maurice Blackmon, a leadership and advocacy coach at IntegrateNYC, teaches a class called Worlds Collide at Essex Street Academy in lower Manhattan. It looks at three major American civilizations–the Maya, Taino and the Aztec–and considers “what made these civilizations unique and advanced for their time. We don’t spend the majority of the time talking about the genocide or the colonizing of civilizations. I think that is a unique approach,” Blackmon says.
The Taino were not "advanced". Period. The Maya and Aztecs were advanced to a degree. I'm pretty certain that Mr. Blackmon doesn't want to get into the massive amounts of human sacrifices that were practices in Mezo-America. Nor do I believe that Blackmon would call any of that "civilized" nor want to be subject to it. I'm certain it pains Mr. Blackmon to admit that the Spanish were responsible for ending that practice and that many of the smaller tribes were extremely happy to no longer be subject to that barbarism.

This strikes a chord with the many Latino students at Essex. But Blackmon says studying those civilizations and reading multiple accounts of them helps the entire class: “It enables us to talk about how history is taught and whose history is taught and which context. [Students] really feel that they are doing the work of historians by engaging in these conversations instead of just sitting there and being fed history from a particular perspective”
So these students graduate with no understanding of the cultures and people that actually founded the country they live in and hence why the institutions that were created by those people are the way they are. Again, History classes in these "schools" are actually indoctrination and self-esteem boosting enterprises. Explains a lot.

I'm not against teaching about other histories and cultures in schools. I'm not even against critiquing the "standard" education curriculum. I am against inflating the egos of non-white students and turning them into victims by trying to equalize cultures and their achievements (and lack thereof). I'm against creating fake histories to compensate for fake histories. Sometimes the stone hard truth is:

You and your people had shit to do with making America what it is, but please do take the opportunity to contribute without shitting on those who made the opportunity possible.

Thursday, July 18, 2019


So I take some time and visit Niagara Falls, leave the laptop, generally stay unplugged and I come home to see the media in a tizzy. I thought perhaps that they had finally discovered the fact that an Asian man was beaten by a band of white people wearing masks. After all the whole Jussie incident taught me that white people beating "POC" is a universally bad thing.

I was wrong.

Then I thought that perhaps the media discovered that a member of the same mask wearing group had stormed a government building armed with incendiary devices and a gun. Because I'm old enough to remember when a man blew up a government building and that such activities were a very bad thing.

No, I was wrong.

Apparently the actual outrage was that Trump said some snarky stuff to a set of women who spend a lot of their public press time talking snarky stuff about Trump. Politicians trading insults. I'm not going to comment on the comments. What I want to know is why actual political violence perpetrated by masked and armed "Antifa" is barely news in the MSM and barely worthy of commentary by those running for office.

This latest Trump commentary took less than 6 hours to be news everywhere including morning show "analysis" while the aforementioned criminal and terrorist activities of a masked group of people warrant not much more than a peep.

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

If They Were So Inclined...

So Apple is launching free workshops to "young Londoners" [BAME] at risk of being "caught up" in gangs.


Bi-weekly sessions, which will also include workshops on photography and health and fitness tech, will be led by the company’s London team members, with Instagram influencers and industry experts brought in to speak and provide demonstrations.
I assure you that the "young Londoners" who are "at risk" already have access to Instagram and whatever and whoever artist they are going to do the dog and pony show with. Why is there a need for a special program?

They include north London-based Art Against Knives, which runs art projects with 10 to 25-year-olds, and Croydon’s City Listeners, which supports young people aged 12 to 18 identified as being ‘at risk’ with mentors, 1:1 sessions and group workshops to build key life skills. [my underlines]
"Workshops to build key life skills" is called "school" and "parenting". Why does the city of London need to do what the parents are supposed to be doing? And if the "young Londoners" were so inclined to learn "key life skills" in a group setting wouldn't they be in, you know, school?
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “I am determined to do everything I can to provide positive opportunities for young people this summer and that’s why I am pleased to be working with Apple on a series of programmes to help young people develop the skills they need to get the jobs of tomorrow, while also ensuring they have something constructive and safe to do during the summer holidays.” [my underlines]
Once again, "Programmes to help young people develop skills they need to get the jobs of tomorrow" is If they were so educationally inclined already, wouldn't they not be "at risk"?

The "jobs of tomorrow" that require coding skills, require that a person be inclined to sit in front of a screen for hours at a time while solving problems in a logical way. If these "young Londoners" were so inclined, wouldn't they not be "at risk"? And if they are NOT already so inclined, exactly what is the point?

The only good I see this doing is getting "young Londoners" who are at risk of being victims of gangs wilding out with various bladed objects, off the street. That's a good thing. But to pretend that those who are wilding out with blades are doing so because they have nothing better to do with their time (as they perceive it) is foolish. They will play with Logic and Garageband on Apple's dime during the day and poke holes in a vic that evening. Trust.

RE: The Obituary for Western Civilization Can Now be Written

Paul Craig Roberts writes:
Here is a video of one of the migrant gangs that have been welcomed into Europe sticking a pistol’s barrel into the mouth of a male Swedish teenager and ordering him to dance. Having been taught that it is racist, and perhaps a crime, to oppose invaders from the Third World, instead of fighting back the Swedish teenager complies and accepts, like a good European male, the humiliation.
Video: Just want to point out that if someone has a gun in your mouth or pointed in your direction you do whatever they tell you to do. As Active Self Protection says:

You wait your turn.

Other than that, I concur. Much of Europe is done for and have only themselves to blame.

The Fatal Flaw Of Brown V Board Exposed in NYC

Brown V Board is the [American] historic decision that desegregated schools. Since desegregation is a word tossed around without any apparent understanding of what it is, I'll take the time to remind the reader that segregation was a legal framework that separated races in various areas of people activities including education. There was nothing "voluntary" about it. One couldn't move into a better neighborhood to get your kid into a white school. Your money didn't matter.

What passes today as "segregation" are either a result of living patterns that people voluntarily enter into or are the result of scores on standardized tests. There is no "segregation" in America today. People choose to aggregate in groups based on income, social status, etc. Getting back to Brown, the decision was based on some extremely faulty thinking:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. [Footnote 10]" [My underlines]
So here we have the court saying that black children, in the absence of white children would be unable to develop properly and that they needed the contact with white children to receive benefits. Furthermore; it was the existence of segregation laws that brought about this mental "underdevelopment". In conclusion, Black people, prior to Brown V. Board were mentally deficient due to their inability to sit with white children.

Let that sink in.

So what does this have to do with NYC 2019? Glad you asked. City-Journal has a piece on Richard [The blacks are too stupid to pass the test] Carranza "work" as NYC Schools Chancellor. In the transcript of the podcast we find the following:

Ray Domanico: I don't think the chancellor has been very explicit in explaining to us why this is an issue. The research itself is very complicated. There have been some studies which indicate that a mix of students in schools might lead to some benefit. But we're up against some pretty stark numbers in New York City. Over 40% of the New York City public school population is Hispanic and close to 30% is black. And there are more Asian students than whites in New York City; both of those groups come in around 15 to 16%. So if it were true that integration were a necessity to have good schools, we're going to run out of the white kids to move around. The other group of schools, though, that suggests that success can be attained without this approach would be the charter schools in New York City, which are doing better than the district-run public schools. There are close to 120,000 students in charter schools right now in New York City and the vast majority of them are black and Hispanic. These are schools of choice for families of color in the city who are seeking better alternatives. At the same time, there are private schools, particularly Catholic schools and other religious schools, that serve the black and Latino community. There are quite a few students enrolled there and those schools seem to be doing well.
So non-white student make up 86% of the school population (including Asians). So by the logic of the 1954 court. Since segregation laws no longer exist black students should be doing just fine. But they apparently aren't. So if the laws weren't the reason (by looking at the evidence), then it must be the proximity to white students. Since there aren't many to sit next to then the failure of black students to perform [as well as white and Asian ones] must necessarily mean that blacks are incapable of performing in the absence of said students.

If it is not the law, nor the lack of available white students to sit next to then we are left with one other conclusion: Blacks as a group are inherently incapable of keeping up with white or Asian students.

So what of these charter schools? Steve Sailor recently wrote of the KIPP schools in NY. He linked to an article from the NYT:

Mr. Buery, who is black and grew up in East New York, Brooklyn, noticed that black and Hispanic students in KIPP schools were sometimes being disciplined too harshly by their white teachers. The network’s high schools had impressive academic results and graduation rates, but their students then struggled in college. And KIPP executives’ relationships with elected officials were fraying. [My underlines]
How exactly do you have "impressive academic results and graduation rates" and students who "struggled in college"? Either the students aren't actually up to par or they are enrolling in schools where they are in way over their heads.
The college graduation rate for KIPP alumni is about 35 percent, above the national average for low-income students but not nearly as high as its founders had envisioned. After years of attempts to help KIPP alumni graduate, the network is proposing new solutions, which it hopes other schools will emulate.
So the schools do a better job than the student's zoned school but they are still behind whatever benchmark the KIPP schools are using.

There's a lot of effort going into externalizing the issue of academic performance of black students. It's wasting a lot of time. We all know the bright students when we interact with them. We all know the bright but lacking in impulse control students when we interact with them. We know the "not all that bright" when we interact with them. At some point "we" are going to have to come to reckon that the "not all that bright" are not going to suddenly become A students because some teacher was put through "bias training" or some other nonsense.

Equal Pay

So since the US Women's soccer team has won (again) they are, well Rapinoe is, talking about equal pay for equal work. Unlike say women's tennis where the women literally play less than the men, this argument has at least the veneer of truth under it. The men play 90 minute regulation and so do the women. However; the men get paid more. Why is that?

Here's Forbes on the matter:

As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men's World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players.

The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.

So $6 billion in revenue vs. $131 million in revenue. If the women were paid at the same percentage of revenue as men then the women's pay would decrease. I'm pretty sure they don't want that.

Why does this matter? Well, soccer is a business. A business pays it's workers what it can afford to (or in some cases, get away with). All computer programmers don't make the same money. The ones who work for financial firms who make billions are paid far more than a company that make far less.

Similarly, in the past I have had black academics say how they refused to work at HBCUs because the pay was too low and "slavery is over". Somehow they think that the average HBCU which have very very small endowments and budgets have the same ability to pay as a public state or even Ivy league institution. But back to sports.

I have a solution to this entire issue. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it but here it is: For one season only, mix the men and women. So for track, men and women compete at the same races. For tennis, the men are paired off with whomever, male or female. In soccer you either mix genders on each team OR have the women's teams compete as "duos" for each country. That is, you may get to play the men's team or the women's team. So on and so forth with the winners advancing to the finals.

What you will see is that with the possible exception of the soccer "mixed team" that all the women will be knocked out in the earlier rounds. This would end the entire "equal pay" discussion because it would be clear to the public that men and women are not equal in physical competition. And that's OK.

Tuesday, July 09, 2019

When They Hate Us

A play on the title of the previous post in regards to a not funny situation. One of the things about trying to be fair and neutral about incidents that are claimed to be "racist" is that sometimes you have to find for the alleged racist. Whether I like a security guard approaching a black guy who ducks in "his" hotel to make a call or not, the security guard is there for a reason and is doing his job.

Whether I like having my large bills scanned six ways to Sunday by a store clerk or not, she's doing her job and if I had been passed a fake bill and passed that fake bill onto her and she failed to check it, she's fired. She's doing her job.

But then there are events that there are no "neutral" explanations. Running up on someone who is minding his business and killing him is one of them.

Police say a man accused of fatally stabbing a 17-year-old in the throat at an Arizona convenience store told them he felt threatened because the teen had been listening to rap music.
It wasn't the rap music. The largest consumers of rap music are white people. This was about race. Period.
Witnesses told police that the man, who's been identified as Michael Paul Adams, 27, walked up behind the teen, grabbed him and stabbed him in the neck, according to a probable cause statement obtained by CNN affiliate KPHO/KTVK.
So unlike the guy who shot at the kid who knocked on his door asking for directions or the one who shot other black people playing loud music at a gas station, he can't even claim some sort of self-defense. Because walking up behind your victim and stabbing him in the neck is in no way "self-defense".
He said Al-Amin didn't do anything threatening but that the youth had been listening to rap music in his car in the parking lot, according to the statement.

"Adams stated rap music makes him feel unsafe, because in the past he has been attacked by people (Blacks, Hispanics, and Native American) who listen to rap music. Adams further stated, people who listen to rap music are a threat to him and the community," the report said.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that this person is not all that stable. Still, it stands as a warning to always be aware of your surroundings.

Now as a link to the previous "When They See Us" post; isn't it a shame when people who are minding their own business, running, biking, walking, going to to store, get assaulted and/or killed by random people? Isn't it a SHAME? It is. That's why you can't be all "Central Park Five!" on the one hand and "this racist piece of sh*t" on the other. Random violence against people is wrong. Period.

Sunday, July 07, 2019

When They See Us

I haven't watched the documentary so I'm not going to comment on it as a work of art. I mention it because last week my mother brought up the movie and how sad it was that the boys went through so much in prison. I wasn't sympathetic and reminded her that her son, that would be me, was almost a victim of "wilding" that very same year. She only has me to take her to the supermarket due to a few factors I'll discuss at the end of this post. In regards to The Five one thing gets lost in the discussion: Even if they didn't beat AND rape the woman, they were up to no good in the park. They were not "innocent". Lets look at the facts:
“They picked me up by my neck and then by my feet,” he told jurors during the trial for Salaam, Santana and McCray. He said the attackers threw him to the ground and “kept kicking at me and hitting me with their fists.” In their statements, Wise, Richardson, Salaam, McCray and Lopez admitted to attacking Diaz and dragging his body off to the side.
So they admitted to more than the assault on the jogger, who I'll agree got press because she was white.
Lopez and McCray told investigators that someone grabbed Diaz’s beer and poured it on him. McCray also said a kid named Tony stole Diaz’s food. Four others, according to a motion filed by the district attorney’s office, accused Montolvo, one of the teens arrested and charged, of eating Diaz’s food. Montolvo similarly told police that the group tried to jump a solo biker and then encountered the “bum.” “Everybody,” he said, began kicking him. Montolvo said he ate Diaz’s food while the others continued to beat Diaz.
Again, They clearly weren't all that innocent.
Within 30 minutes of the assaults, several boys were stopped in the park and taken into custody, including Richardson and Santana. Between April 20 and 21, the team of detectives that questioned the Central Park Five also took video statements from Steven Lopez, Clarence Thomas, Lamont McCall, Jomo Smith and Michael Briscoe. Although these individuals said they were in the park with the Central Park Five and detailed other attacks, none of them confessed to sexually assaulting Meili.

In addition to the Central Park Five, Lopez, Briscoe, Thomas, McCall, Antonio Montalvo, Orlando Escobar and Jermaine Robinson were arrested.

Didn't know there were more than 5 people involved eh?

You can read the rest of the piece if you have access to WSJ online. I won't further copy the text. But here's the personal reason why I'm not sympathetic:

In the summer of 1989 I was playing handball in a queens park. At one point the people I was playing with all decided to leave. I was the only person left. Even the basketball courts were empty. I thought it was odd but continued to play. A guy I didn't know or recognize approached me and asked a question. I don't recall the exact question but whatever it was, it struck me as odd. He left and went towards a corner store where there were a few other people hanging around. I started to play again, but something told me to look around. I looked back in the direction that the guy went in and noticed that the small crowd at the corner store had grown in number. I paused and thought that perhaps I should leave like everyone else had because something was likely to go down. As I exited the handball court cage, I looked back and the crowd was running towards me at full tilt.

I was about to get jumped.

I am a runner. At the time a sprinter who untrained could run an 11 sec 100 meters (for reference that's a second off the women's world record prior to 2011) . I did just that and made it out the park. However; the mob had split up and were going to try to flank me as I was blocked by a major highway. I had only one way to get away from that crowd and that was to cross the highway against traffic. Fortunately there was a red light some 400 meters away that had just turned green so I was able to cross that road before cars reached me. However the mob didn't make it and I was able to get away.

At my high school I witnessed a gang descend upon the school at the end of the day to beat up ONE person. ONE. So I have absolutely no sympathy for any person who participates in such behavior who later has "a hard time in life".

Funny though. Nobody seems to be upset that some chick got beat up in Central Park. Nobody seems to be mad about the men who got beat up and robbed in the park. Like their victimization doesn't even count. Not to mention the untold numbers of people who had been beaten and robbed that never got media or police attention.

Friday, July 05, 2019

Make A Better Argument

One may be shocked at how open socialists are able to run and get elected in the US. You may be shocked that such persons are in all areas of US society. You shouldn't be. Firstly because it's been a long time coming. Secondly; we have a generation of people who do not understand true poverty and despotism and have only seen the failures of the system under which they live. To people who have seen and lived through the 2008 meltdown and have massive student debt and fear retirement the following sounds very appealing:

Now lets take this piece by piece:

To someone who cannot find a job, or has low job security, how does this sound like a bad thing? To someone who thinks they are being discriminated against in terms of wages?

Again, if you are "poor" and cannot afford to take a vacation because you either don't get vacation days or use your vacation to work a second job, how does this sound bad? You live in the "richest country in the world". Why should the rich be the only people who can afford to go off on vacation and play in clubs and not have to worry about their income?

Once again, who wants to worry about being sick? If you cannot afford to save/invest for retirement why should you worry about old age?

We already have state paid for (via taxes)compulsory primary education. So what's so bad about "free" higher education?

Now that linked video apparently doesn't contain his entire rant so I cannot say whether he addressed those items but if you are honest you cannot say that the examples above are not extremely appealing. You aren't going to convince someone otherwise by simply saying that this is "the Russian dream" or that Stalin said it. That's not an argument. You have to make an argument that is more compelling.

China is a communist country (with an interesting brand of capitalism). China has risen rapidly in the world. Yet it is not a "freedom loving" country. So it shows that a country doesn't have to be "democratic" in order to do well. It also shows that people will accept restrictions on their freedom if they can "see" a certain level of benefits.

The main argument made against socialism/communism is that the money eventually runs out for all the state-run programs. Unfortunately, much of the US population is woefully deficient in knowledge of financial matters. Tax the rich sounds good to them because someone having a billion dollar net worth is unfathomable. Many people think 100,000 is a lot of money until they realize that rent alone in any major city would eat that entire amount up in less than 10 years.

Simply put, there aren't enough rich people, and they don't have enough money to pay for all the programs that people think they want. The "rich" already pay most of the taxes. The top 1% paid $538,257 million in taxes. The top 10% paid $1,240,010 million. The bottom 50% paid $43,863 million. So the whole "the rich don't pay [enough] taxes" really doesn't hold up. Oh and that's income taxes. If "the rich" decide to up and relocate, well there goes most of the taxes. How exactly will these plans be paid for then?

Of course if you tax the rich to the point where they don't make any income, they won't be rich for long (bills don't go away because income has) and you're back to "how do you pay for it". Essentially the state cannot pay for all these programs without the taxes it collects. If it just prints money you get Venezuela where the money is useless. If the money is useless then none of the programs discussed above can be maintained.

I mentioned the 2008 crash. A lot of people were left with a sour taste in their mouths when the banks got bailed out. Personally, I'm in the camp of "let 'em go down and let the chips fall where they may". But another look at this is that a large percent of the population has it's retirement savings in those same banks. Could you look your parents in the eye and say that their 401k should be obliterated in order to stand on principle? Would you crash your own 401K "on principle"? Real question. Indeed there are some very bad things going on in the FIRE segments which should be addressed. But they need addressing. No amount of "Russian dream" and "Stalin said this" is going to convince someone who's been cut by the jagged edges of the American economy that "The Socialists are bad". I'm not going to spend time writing what the "better argument" is because it would take too long. But the argument will need to be made. Freedom doesn't sound all that appealing when one is in deep debt, feels they've been taken advantage of and discriminated against.

Tuesday, July 02, 2019

Of Jussie and Andy

This is Jussie.

Jussie said that on one night in Feburary during the polar vortex when it was 19 below zero. Two MAGA hat wearing white men accosted him. Beat him up and tied a noose around his neck. They shouted "This is MAGA country" and then let him go with the sandwich he had just purchased at a nearby Subway.

Within hours this story was top news across the US as celebrities and politicians lined up to condemn the "attack" as a sign of "what Trump has wrought". The only evidence of any suspect at the time was:

For weeks this story was front and center. Jussie even got Good Morning America to interview him where he boo-hoo'd about the "traumatic event".

Come to find out that the only evidence was that the event was staged and that two Nigerian friends of Jussie were paid to do the deed.

Litigation is still ongoing.

This is Andy

Andy was, in fact, beat up by multiple white people. None of them wearning MAGA hats. None of them shouted "This is MAGA country". In fact we have actual video evidence of the crime:

Allow me to point out a few frames: Here's Andy being punched:

Here's Andy getting sprayed after being kicked:

Here's Andy having an object thrown at him by a white man who I assume described himself as "anti-racist":

Here's another one:

Here's a white woman who no doubt considers herself not only "anti-racist" but also a feminist:

Andy has brain bleed and as far as I know has been released from the ER.

Now there have been disputed reports that the "milkshakes" used in to attack Andy contained "quick cement". The source of this claim is allegedly an e-mail received by Portland police. I don't know if it's true or not but that is beside the point. The point is that Andy was at an event in a public space. Andy reports on Antifa activities. Whether he is a "real journalist" is beside the point. The US Constitution protects all citizens right to speak and write on any subject matter they deem fit and the state is obligated to protect such freedom not only from state actors such as the police but also from [mobs of] private citizens who would seek to abridge that right. So claims that Andy wasn't a "real reporter" falls flat. That Andy is purportedly "right wing" is irrelevant because your right to not be assaulted in a public space doesn't disappear because your politics are unpopular.

There is simply no excuse for what happened in Portland. None.

Secondly, the fact that it hasn't been reported on just as widely as Jussie's faked assault says everything you need to know about the mainstream media. Here are some headlines prompted by the video and images I showed you above:

Huffington Post:


Self-defense eh? That's not what the video shows.

Other outlets have spent their time discussing how the claim about the concrete was fake and being used by conservatives as if the BEATING didn't happen or that the beating was justified.

Yes, Medium, please do tell us about how Andy wasn't a victim.

Antifa is a domestic (actually international) terrorist organization. It claims self-defense against those it labels Neo-Nazis. However; it regards anyone to their right (including moderates) as Neo-Nazis, hence anyone who disagrees with them is in danger of receiving the same treatment. ANY. One. Like this guy:

Who you won't hear about because he's not famous.

So remember: Fake hate crimes are more important than actual crimes [in which the victim deserves it because his skirt was too short and he was walking in a bad part of town].

Monday, July 01, 2019

Kamala's Adventures In One Drop Rule Land

I learned long ago that identity is a touchy subject for a lot of people so I tend to avoid the issue unless it is brought up in a scientific manner. The recent "outrage" about Kamala Harris not being an 'American Black" is of interest to me only because it highlights the current trends in identity politics.

The original commentary (made by a black person) was that since Kamala's parents were an at least 1/2 black Jamaican and a "full" [apparenty Dravidian as opposed to Aryan] Indian, she was not an "American Black". "American Black" being those descended directly from the mostly (but not exclusively) West-Africans brought to America via the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. The original poster is absolutely correct in that observation. Whether it should matter is an entirely different conversation. I don't think it does, at least as it relates to qualifications for office.

Some are saying this is like the 'birther" conspiracy lodged at Obama. I don't agree with that analysis. Obama had a Kenyan father and a without a doubt American mother. The "questions" regarding his citizenship was based on his being born in Hawaii and it's alleged 'interesting" practices in determining the citizenship of those born there who may not be citizens. It also was about his ties to Indonesia and Islam. So the issue there was whether Obama was a citizen due to place of birth rather than his not having "American" parents. I can see someone saying that's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Sure. Again, not my particular interest.

What is interesting, particularly in Kamala's case is that there was a time when a person of African descent in America would welcome the opportunity to be able to "exit blackness". The phrase "passing for white" is common in America. In the past if one could "breed up" and produce lighter and lighter children, they could eventually pass for white and avoid the negatives of being black in America. Almost every time you hear about a white person who "discovers" the proverbial "Negro in the family tree" that they didn't know about, you have a likely incident of some recent ancestor who saw themselves "out of the race".

W.E.B. DuBois mentioned that there may become a time when African-Americans would be full of people who were not black at all. How would they identify. Indeed there are many people who are classified as African-American who are not black. I'm not talking about Rachel either. But Rachel D also illustrates a point. How did a white person with absolutely no black ancestors manage to "pass as black" for the length of time she did?

Remember that the one drop rule only applies in America and more broadly in the Anglosphere. Outside of the Anglosphere, people who are not black by what I call the "across the street test"* are NOT considered black. There are all kinds of terms used for them. So if Rachel or Kamala OR Obama left America and was seen on the streets of Venezuela or Uganda, it is highly unlikely that they would be considered "black". Kamala would likely be identified as an Indian, Obama likely an Arab and Rachel, the white woman that she is. And it is likely that each one of them would gladly accept the non-black identities and the benefits that accrue to that.

But turning back to Kamala, and Obama to an extent, they had political (and perhaps social) success because they chose to identify as black (using the USA One Drop Rule). So I think it interesting that was have this historical swing where blackness (or non-whiteness) is now a benefit rather than a hindrance; at least in politics. Indeed socially, being anything other than straight, male and white can accrue quite a few benefits and immunities. I know that's hard for some people to swallow but it's true.

Personally, I'm hoping for the day that we can evaluate candidates on their records and positions rather than what they look like. I think there was someone else who had that idea. I'm sure there's a statue of him in DC. * The Across The Street test is the idea that if you can't tell a person is black from across the street then they aren't. This isn't a matter of mannerisms, clothes or hairstyles. All black people can be readily identified from a distance. In daylight, they contrast sharply with the light and at night they tend to "blend in" (this is where the whole can only see the eyes at night "joke" comes from). A corollary to that is the paper bag test that was used to exclude black persons from so-called "blue vein" societies.

This test doesn't mean that the person is "white". That is an assumption made by many who adhere to the One Drop Rule where one is either black or white. "Failure" to pass the test simply means that one is at least a hybrid (mixed in common parlance). There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with being mixed. This is not a value judgment. Also, One can be "mixed" and still "pass" the Across The Street Test.

Saturday, June 29, 2019

Democrat Debate Disaster?

No, I didn't watch the debates. Since I have paid attention to what the various candidates have had to say since 2016 there was nothing they would be saying that I didn't know: 1) Open borders while denying they are for it.
2) Orange Man Bad
3) Medicare for all (a concept I'm not altogether opposed to.
4) Orange Man Bad.
5) Tax "the rich" (to pay for healthcare for illegal aliens to boot).
6) Men dressed as women, or who think they are women ARE REAL WOMEN.
7) Orange Man Bad.

So knowing this, I didn't see the point. However; I don't share the analysis of various outlets that Democrats are doomed because they have gone so far left. Maybe...MAYYYBE, on this election. But the long term trends suggest that the past couple of contests have been tests of the demographic changes in America. If they are correct, the Democrats will not need to "go to the middle" to win national elections. So lets look at why I believe this.

Here's the electoral map of the 2016 election

So you see that Trump won the electoral college vote by winning most of the south and mid-west. Now lets look at the county results:

Yes, there is a lot of red there. But most important is where the blue is. Notice that the places where there are major cities or college towns are blue. Why is that important? Here's the population density map from 2016.

Do you see it? Yes. Democrats win where there are large populations. Republicans win in places with low population density AKA: farmland. Now when you have a party that has been practicing importation of a new electorate by both legal and illegal immigration, you understand that Democrats only need to flip a few of the red counties in various states to win. Every year, the white population, which makes up most of the Republican base, shrinks. The replacement population, where it exists tends to be non-white and to prefer Democrats to Republicans by upwards of 75%.

Add to this the looming "compact" of states who are willing to disenfranchise their citizens and deliver their electoral college votes to whichever candidate has more popular votes and the Republican party along with us moderates are screwed (yes I test moderate thank you very much).

The way I see it, the fact that open socialists are winning elections in America tells you all you need to know about the pendulum. Stuff that was political suicide a mere 10-15 years ago has gone mainstream. There will also be intimidation tactics. Recall that we have large financial institutions refusing to do business with people and businesses based on whether their political views align with the left. Expect more collusion among arms of the Left to intimidate the [relatively] easy to intimidate by social and economic means.

So even if Trump manages to win in 2020 (not a foregone conclusion imo), You have 8 years of new voters graduating from HS indoctrination camps. 22 year olds graduating from institutions of higher indoctrination, Children of illegal immigrants coming of age along with their amnestied peers. Along with that you'll have 8 years of old heads dying off.

All that to say that the Dem debate wasn't for moderates or general election Republicans. Trump won in 2016 by a slim margin on 3 mid-western states. Very slim margins. If he loses any one of the larger states he's done for. If not 2024 Florida and Texas is going to be very different than 2016 Florida and Texas. So maybe the Dem debates were not the disaster some people think it is.

Monday, June 24, 2019

Google Narrative Manipulation

I don't have the time currently to discuss this but I think it is important to get this out.

Using BitChute because, well, when you watch the video you'll understand.

It doesn't matter if you like/support Trump or anyone else. It should bother you that a company with the reach it has is engaging in this kind of manipulation.

Never Seen A Man Cry

Rapper Scarface has a track from back in the 90s called Never Seen A Man Cry:

Essentially, it talks about how these tough guys, when facing their final moments on earth, cry like everybody else. This track came to mind when I saw this video:

Oh. You're crying now. You want your momma now? But 10 minutes ago you were the big man stealing people's stuff. [edit] Completely assumed that people knew what this was. Mr Crybaby is the student that was caught stealing from Gibsons. This is what started Oberlin's Adventures in Libel-land(tm) that has cost them millions of dollars in damages.

Sunday, June 23, 2019

40 Acres and a Mule

So once again there is discussion of reparations going on in the US government. I don't have a dog in the fight because my parents came to the US after 1965. No slavery. No Jim Crow. No violation of voting rights. None of that. I have not been injured therefore I "deserve" nothing. Everything I can do now is because of those African-Americans who put their lives on the line and I respect and appreciate that. That said, I'll throw in a few cents on the subject.

One of the thorny issues with the current calls for reparations is that it makes claims against people who had no hand in "the crime". Generally under US law, you cannot hold the descendant of a criminal liable for what his ancestor did. Even if it is his father. If that were not the case a lot of people would be in legal jeopardy for things they know nothing about. Breaking this rule shouldn't be taken lightly at all.

Secondly, it is improper to compare to Jewish or Japanese internment reparations because in both those cases, the damaged parties were still alive and in cases where they are not, researched claims showing direct connections were established. In the case of reparation for African-Americans, the claim is that blacks as a class have been "injured" and that whites as a class are the responsible party, regardless of actual evidence of either injury or participation in an specific event.

This line of thinking also involves an implicit (and sometimes explicit) claim that blacks as a group would be in a different social and economic situation had x,y or z not happened and whites as a group would be in a different social and economic situation. That's a pretty hard thing to prove. Of course legislation doesn't require proof. But what about actual damaged parties? Let's take a look.

It should be noted that the idea of reparations was not foreign to the US government. The Freedman's Bureau was created as a means of helping formerly enslaved Africans. Then we have the infamous 40 acres and a mule rumor.

According to a letter Sherman wrote a year later, Secretary Stanton concluded that if given land, the freed slaves could "take care of themselves." And as land belonging to those who rose up in rebellion against the federal government had already been declared "abandoned" by an act of Congress, there was land to distribute...

Following the meeting, Sherman drafted an order, which was officially designated as Special Field Orders, No. 15. In the document, dated January 16, 1865, Sherman ordered that the abandoned rice plantations from the sea to 30 miles inland would be "reserved and set apart for the settlement" of the freed slaves in the region.

According to Sherman's order, "each family shall have a plot of not more than 40 acres of tillable ground." At the time, it was generally accepted that 40 acres of land was the optimal size for a family farm.

General Rufus Saxton was put in charge of administering the land along the Georgia coast. While Sherman's order stated "each family shall have a plot of not more than 40 acres of tillable ground," there was no specific mention of farm animals.

General Saxton, however, did apparently provide surplus U.S. Army mules to some of the families granted land under Sherman's order.

It's important to note that this field order was for Georgia. I'm going to skip a few lines to get to this part:
It has been estimated that approximately 40,000 former slaves received grants of land under Sherman's order. But the land was taken away from them.
So 40,000 formerly enslaved Africans received at least 40 acres of Ga land which was later take away from them by the government. Why did the government take this land "back"?
Andrew Johnson became president following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in April 1865. And Johnson, on May 28, 1865, issued a proclamation of pardon and amnesty to citizens in the South who would take an oath of allegiance.

As part of the pardon process, lands confiscated during the war would be returned to white landowners. So while the Radical Republicans had fully intended for there to be a massive redistribution of land from former slave owners to former slaves under Reconstruction, Johnson's policy effectively thwarted that.

I've often mentioned to people that the Civil War wasn't about slavery but about preserving the Union. Had the confederate states not decided to break away (as they apparently had the right to, but that's another discussion) and kept hammering away in congress over the issues that they had with the northern states (all of whom benefited from southern slavery produced materials, along with their own slave populations that were NOT freed in the Emancipation Proclamation), then there would have been no Civil War. Johnson, like Lincoln wanted the Union and slavery was a means to threaten the rebellious states. Hence it should not be surprising that in order to preserve the Union, Johnson would throw a few Africans under the bus...cart...plow.

So returning to this 40,000 people with 40 Acres of Georgia land we should ask what would that land value be today had:

1) They had not been tossed off of it.
2) The laws of the land were not corrupted to disenfranchise them?
According to MSN Money the current average value of land in Georgia is:

So $14,242/acre x 40 =$569,680 per person. Multiplied out by 40,000 it equals:

Yes, that's 22 billion dollars.

Now that's average. Clearly the specific plot of land could be of a higher or lower value. But that can be found out and dealt with.

So I think that any honest discussion of reparations should start with finding the names of the 40,000 people granted land by Sherman. Finding their descendants and paying them out $570k each.

Some could argue that not all those families would have kept the land or whatever. That isn't relevant. All over the country there are wrongful death lawsuits in which the families are able to claim "lost wages" and the like, even though there is no way to know whether such wages would have ever appeared. It is based on what they had at the time of the event. Here the event was reneging on a land grant.

I think this also shows an example of how reparations can be dealt with legally without the whole holding a class of people who had no direct or even indirect part in slavery (and I'm not even getting into Jim Crow). Find cases where the rights, privileges and immunities (as laid out in the 14th Amendment) of black person(s) were infringed upon by the Feds and repair each and every case. Where the Fed is not the culprit, then the state or municipality should be held to account so long as the evidence is there.

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Comrads Bernie and Cortez Would Have Blown Up Chernobyl

I saw this on YouTube and HAD to post because it is damn scary to think these two are popular.



You know what this reminded me of? Watching Chernobyl.

That movie revealed that one of the primary reasons Chernobyl happened was that total incompetents were placed in positions of power due to their loyalty to the party and their willingness to follow the party line regardless of consequences. The people who actually knew what they were doing lived in fear of these apparatchiks.

For real though. You should watch that movie. it's also a great demonstration of "male privilege" like being exposed to lethal doses of radiation so that your people can live, eat and drink. But I digress.

Secondly, I have an issue with Bernie and Cortez treating people like children. You sign up for credit and don't look at the terms? You know what? Sucks to be you. You didn't look and see that 5% had a star next to it? Never crossed your mind to see what that star stood for? No? Sucks to be you.

Look. I'm not with banks being vultures. I've had banks try to shaft me. I paid the card off and cancelled the account. Next level game is getting banks to pay you to use their services. That's what Comrad Cortez and Bernie ought to be teaching their constituents. How to make Bank Of America chip on on your gasoline. How to get Chase to help feed your family. How Citibank can chip in on your next vacation. Yes. It can be done. And it doesn't matter what the interest rate is. But first you gotta get off the victim mentality.