Evidence For Welsing's Isis Papers?

Another perhaps special, instance of the use of projection is the historic and continuing desire of whites for sexual alliances with non-whites- a desire indulged by white males throughout the world. This deep desire has been projected onto Black males and females, and is manifest in the notion that people of color have sexual desires for white males and females. The Color-Confrontation theory postulates that whites desired and still do desire sexual alliances with non-whites, both male and female, because it is only through this route that whites can achieve the illusion of being able to produce color. The extreme rage vented against even the idea of a sexual alliance between the Black male and the white female, which has long been a dominant theme in the white supremacy culture, is viewed by the Color Confrontation theory as a result of the white male's intense fear of the Black male's capacity to fulfill the greatest longing of the white female- that of conceiving and birthing a product of color. [My underlines]

At another level, white male homosexuality may be viewed as the symbolic attempt to incorporate into the white male body more male substance by either sucking the penis of another male and orally ingesting the semen, or by having male ejaculate deposited in the other end of the alimentary canal. Though anal intercourse, the self debasing white male may fantasize that he can produce a product of color, albeit that the product of color is fecal matter. This fantasy is significant for white males because males who are able to produce skin color are viewed as the real men. [My underlines]

The Isis Papers Before I enter into why I provided the above quotes I want to address the second quote. If we take the above quote seriously then it should be suggested that this applies not only to homosexual white men but to heterosexual ones as well. In the example I'm going to provide we will see that anal sex is not (or no longer) necessary for the "fantasy". Now for the example:

Wife gets black baby jackpot. Him is cucked.

Start with the headline:

My wife and I are white evangelicals. Here’s why we chose to give birth to black triplets.

What rational reason would there be for a white couple to give birth to black triplets. And lets leave aside that until very recently such an act would have been impossible. What deep underlying psychosis would cause this couple to spend the money it takes to secure and implant the offspring of some other couple?

This past Sunday, my gorgeous wife – a white evangelical, like me — gave birth to our beautiful African-American triplet daughters whom we adopted as embryos.

Adopted? Children are adopted. Embryos are bought and sold.

These sweet girls will hopefully soon be coming home to meet their 3-year-old African-American brother and 2-year-old biracial sister, both of whom we adopted as infants.

So this is a habit then...

I grew up as a child of evangelical missionaries in Honduras, very aware of racial diversity because I was the blue-eyed, cotton-topped white kid who stuck out like a sore thumb, but all the while felt deeply connected to the people there, even though we looked very different.

If you got this far and still thought the opening quotes were at a minimum "offensive", you might want to go back and read it again.

My wife, on the other hand, grew up in the delta of Mississippi and it wasn’t until she took a few trips to Haiti that the veil of racial prejudice was lifted from her eyes. One of the central themes of Christianity is, after all, that God, through His Son, is calling people from every tongue, tribe and nation.

I missed the part of the Bible that called for seed carrying.

When we were still dating, a common bond that drew us together was the fact that Rachel and I both wanted to adopt. While we were fertile, we were both deeply convicted that one of the ways to be pro-life is to involve ourselves in adoption.

Lets assume the above is truthful in terms of the outward conversation. Given what we've read so far, I believe the entire "pro life" and Christian angle is a cover for a deep desire on the wife's part to have black babies, as is done by high profile celebrities. On his part his desire to be seen as fathers of black babies is so strong that he is willing to cuck himself (apparently without the sexual intercourse) to raise the seed of other people.

Knowing that it is often more challenging to find adoptive homes in the United States for non-Caucasian children we informed the agency that we were willing to accept any child except a fully Caucasian child.

Uh huh...

We did this with the deeply held conviction that if the Lord wanted us to have a fully Caucasian child my wife would conceive naturally.

Uh huh....You'll note this is the only time "natural conception" is discussed. No one even bothered to ask them if they tried to have their own children.

There is something beautiful and enriching being the only white face sitting and chatting with some of my African-American friends as my son gets his hair cut on a Saturday morning. There is also something wonderful in the relationship that is built as my wife asks a black friend on Facebook how to care for our little biracial daughter’s hair.

Per the opening quotes: Mission accomplished!

I felt sheer delight during this pregnancy watching my son and daughter, with his dark brown skin and her with the ringlet hair and slightly tan skin, kiss my white wife’s growing belly. Each evening they said good night to those three growing little girls in her belly, and now they get to finally say sweet dreams to their baby sisters — face-to-adorable-face.

Did I step into a fetish magazine? Seriously though, how can this not be a textbook example of what I quoted above? HOw is this not using, to take a popular phrase, black bodies in order to salve deep seated genetic self-hatred? The delight at knowing black bodies were growing in his wife's belly (which I assume he had his penis near at some point closely timed to implantation).

I can remember a friend going through the adoption process telling me he had always wanted his family to look like a little United Nations.

This is telling us that this is not just one person. I will remind the reader that most interracial marriages/breeding that involve black people are in the form of black male and white female. And that incidence has grown to about 30% (whereas in the 1970's or so, it was maybe 5%). At the very least we can respect those that don't cover up their desires with "Pro life" and "Christian" values. But these people are examples that makes the Isis Papers not something you can just dismiss out of hand (though it does contain some items that are factually wrong among other things).

Compelling Behaviour

In my lifetime I have watched society move from “get government out of my vagina” to “put government in my vagina”. For those who don't understand this means going from legalizing abortion under the argument that the body is a person's property and they have privacy rights as to what they do with it (out of my vagina) to make a law that makes other people pay for my birth control so I don't have to pay for it (government in my vagina- and your wallet).

I have watched society move from “leave us alone and stop criminalizing our private behavior” to “compel other people to participate in our private behavior (weddings) and advocate for us (like us or else...)”.

I have watched society move from “don't push your beliefs on me” to “I will have the government force my beliefs on you.” The latest being the so called “religious freedom” laws that have been passed, modified and sometimes repealed by various states. The very fact that there needs to be “religious freedom laws” in a country where the sovereign law of the land explicitly protects religious freedom to exercise (live your faith) from any action by government with very slim exceptions is a sign of just how bad US society has gotten. What is worse is that one has to even retreat into a “religious argument” for things that should be “common sense” or what for generations was understood by all. However when you no longer have a common national culture, you cannot have "common sense". So lets get into the latest nonsense.

Declining to serve a person is not the same as declining to perform a specific service. One would think that the above statement is self explanatory but it isn't for a lot of people. I'll give two examples of the former that is and should be illegal (with a few exceptions) I'm going to use race here since a lot of people try to do the "what happened to black people is the same" argument:

1) Black persons enter an eatery. Owner or employees of the eatery announce that they do not serve their kind at all and to get out. This is and should be illegal. You are declining to perform any service whatsoever to the persons simply based on who they are. There is no “black” way to cook eggs and make coffee. There is no endorsement of behavior by serving eggs and coffee to a person who is black. 2) Homosexual person comes into an eatery. Owner or employee announces that they do not serve their kind at all and to get out. This should be illegal. Except in very rare cases, usually in reaction to a new outrage, this is not happening. Again, there is no different "homo coffee" or "homo eggs".

What Is Happening

A homosexual couple enters a store asking them to provide a service for their wedding. They tell the owner of the business that it is a same sex couple (something that couldn't even happen prior to 2000AD). Owner declines to perform that service. Couple gets upset because the owner is not approving of their behavior. You'll note that the owner did not decline to serve the homosexual couple. They declined to perform a specifics service. Why isn't this discrimination against a person? Easy. Lets change nothing except for WHO asks for the service.

A heterosexual person enters the store and asks for service for a wedding for a same sex couple who has contracted or otherwise agreed to have the heterosexual person plan for them. The owner declines to perform that service. Who has been discriminated against? It cannot be the heterosexual person who inquired about the service. He (or she) received the same response. The homosexual couple who the heterosexual person was inquiring for hasn't been discriminated against, they aren't the contracting party. They aren't even present.

Now lets twist this some more. Say a homosexual person goes to a store for service for a heterosexual couple's wedding. The store owner agrees to service the wedding. There is no discrimination. Again we note that this is about the service being requested and not the person requesting the service.

It should be clear then that what these activists are demanding is that the government force businesses to conduct business it doesn't want to engage in. As far as I know that is unprecedented in US history. Yes, the government has forced businesses to do business with persons which they did not want to do business with. But never before has there been an attempt to force businesses to engage in business they do not provide. Not only does this violate religious freedom it violates the rights of people to associate with or not associate.

The Hole Goes Deeper

On top of the nonsense described above, we have a new push to normalize gender disphoria. What is most pernicious about this is that not only do the proponents want to force people to associate with behaviors they do not agree with, they are telling people to actually believe in a non-truth. And they are willing to use the state monopoly on legalized violence to do so.

NY City passed a law that punishes any business where the owners or employees refer to an actual male or actual female as something other than what this actual male or female believes itself to be. Per Snopes:

According to the new guidelines, the commission can impose civil penalties of up to $125,000 for violations of the law and (in extreme circumstances) of up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of "willful, wanton, or malicious" conduct.

And what is “willful, wanton, or malicious conduct”?

Examples of Violations a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual's preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman "him" or "Mr." after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.

So though Snopes is out to discredit reports that NYC will fine you for correctly identifying a male as a male, it establishes that NYC will in fact do so. Basically it's saying “We're going to give you till the count of ten to say there are 5 lights and then we'll drop this hammer on you.”

Speaking the truth and telling facts is now “willful, wanton or malicious conduct”. The rabbit hole has gotten a mile deeper.

Lest you think that I'm overstating things in regards to state violence, I will remind the reader that Eric Garner was killed due to laws against selling loose cigarettes. Whether you agree that it was a choke hold that killed him or not, the fact is that ultimately the state may use violence to enforce any law it wishes. If they will kill Eric Garner for selling loose cigarettes* then what will stop the NYPD from killing a citizen who declines to lie about someone's gender OR pay the fine or appear in court over it?

Look, I could care less what a man or woman thinks they are. I don't care what they do in their home. I don't care, mostly, what they do in the street. I don't care what they do with their friends. I do care when the state tries to coerce me into playing the game. Again, at no time prior to now did the state ever even consider that it could tell citizens to actively participate in a lie under penalty of law. ---- *It can be argued that Garner was killed for resisting arrest. This is a valid argument insofar as you remove the reason for the initial contact. However it must be understood that Garner would be alive today or at least had died under different circumstances if the law against selling "untaxed loosies" did not exist.

BLM Representative Once Again Misrepresents Black on Black Crime

As is de rigueur for those in the BLM movement, yet another representative tried to deflect attention from the largest single threat to black lives: Other black people. First we have the black people hold no responsibility argument:

Black Lives Matter DC Core Organizer Aaron Goggans stated that “It’s not just a few white cops killing a few unarmed black men. It’s actually the state systematically creating up systems that are killing black people” and “it’s important to talk about the myth of black-on-black crime as just that, a myth” on Thursday’s “CNN Newsroom.”

You see, all that black crime, headed to levels not seen since the early 90's? That's all the white man's system that is making black people kill each other when they are not being killed by police. Black people are so dumb that they are unable to see this system for what it is and therefore are unable to beat said system. Black people are just too dumb to win.

Goggans said, “Well, it’s important to talk about the myth of black-on-black crime as just that, a myth. Any Google search of the term can come up a lot of different articles.

Including mine.

He added that while he wasn’t saying black-on-black crime isn’t a problem, “I’m saying that that intercommunity crime happens in all communities across the country, and it is a problem that the movement of Black Lives is focusing on.

Oh it's IS a problem? How big of a problem? Oh the same as "all communities"? Apparenlty Goggans didn't read my article because he'd realize that the issue isn't whether crime occurs in communities, it is the AMOUNT of crime, particularly murders that happens in black communities relative to these other communities. If black crime was in proportion to it's population this conversation wouldn't be had.

The movement of Black Lives is also focusing on state-sanctioned violence, which is a different thing. It’s not just a few white cops killing a few unarmed black men.

Actually the data shows that it is a "few" white cops killing a "few" unarmed black men.

It’s actually the state systematically creating up systems that are killing black people, both women, black children, black men, black queer, black trans, and black gender nonconfroming folks.”

Because black people have no agency and therefore no responsibility for their actions.

Goggans further stated, “There are many folks on the ground in Chicago who are doing great work. You can look at The Interrupters.

Outfits like The Interrupters have been around prior to BLM. Where were all these folks when people like The Interrupters were doing the hard work of directly confronting those who are committing the violence against black people?

It’s important that we talk about how the police are used in black communities.

Police go where the crime is. So if this joker spent his time with The Interrupters then he'd be directly addressing the presence of police. I know this is hard stuff to understand though.

It’s important that we talk about, like in Flint, for instance, you have both the state and federal government refusing to govern, and refusing actually take care of the black community there.”

Is this a good time to point out that the Flint City Council is practically all black? And the guy who made the decision that lead to the lead problem is black? No? Let me know when we can discuss the failure of the black city council to govern and "take care of the black community there". I suppose those city council members were duped by "the system" too.

Goggans also argued, “I think we need to fight all the forms of injustice that [the] black community face[s]. And I think you can’t use black on black crime, or this myth that somehow white people are not also killing white people to obfuscate from the fact that the state is killing black people in America.”

Again, the issue is not whether white people kill each other (they do). The issue is the rates of killing as a proportion of the population. And the state (meaning police, assuming he means that) actually kills more white people in America than it does blacks. But you'd have to do that thing called research to know this.

As if 2008 Never Happened

I was shocked. Really, when I read the following from the Washington Post:

The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

This is what happens when people believe their own hype. The whole "To big to fail" was the last stage of the cancer that dumped the economy in 2008, the first, foundational stage was the granting of mortgages to people who could not afford them or were too damn irresponsible to pay for them. The no income verification loans. The only 5% or whatever down loans. It's as if there is a class of "leadership" who think people get bad credit by accident.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

Hey look. If you're young, you probably haven't gained enough gainful employment to have saved a downpayment. Also in this society if you're young you are probably wasting loads of money "hanging out" rather than finding a spouse, living together and saving together which is the fastest way to build wealth. To the "credit weakened by the recession" point, if your credit is bad because of the 2008 recession, that sucks, but you don't get to get a house on shaky grounds because of it. If you can't recover you stay in the land of renters. As it should be. That doesn't make 'em bad people, just bad risks.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

You mean the taxpayer should be on the hook again for mortgages handed out to people who shouldn't get them? Did 2008 NOT EVER HAPPEN?

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Essentially they want to legalize what is now considered mortgage fraud and predatory lending? Really?

Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today’s low interest rates, among other steps.

As others in the blogosphere have pointed out, wasn't the point of uniform rules to get rid of discrimination that having "subjective judgment" enabled?

Administration officials say they are looking only to allay unnecessary hesi­ta­tion among banks and encourage safe lending to borrowers who have the financial wherewithal to pay.

Which is what lenders are (or ought to be) doing now. Those persons who have fucked up their credit or by circumstances beyond their control have messed up credit lose out. It happens. Life is not fair.

“If you were going to tell people in low-income and moderate-income communities and communities of color there was a housing recovery, they would look at you as if you had two heads,”

Anyone who is "low income" ought not even be asked about home ownership. Low income persons shouldn't be looking to get into a mortgage. Low income persons ought to be looking into increasing their income. And there are plenty of people in "communities of color" who are and have been buying houses. They aren't "low income". Yes those people of color exist.

“It is very difficult for people of low and moderate incomes to refinance or buy homes.”

I repeat: Low income people ought not even HAVE a mortgage much less refinancing one.

But they declined 90 percent for people with scores between 680 and 620 — historically a respectable range for a credit score.

I had no idea anything below 700 was considered "respectable" when looking to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that takes quite a bit to maintain.

“If the only people who can get a loan have near-perfect credit and are putting down 25 percent, you’re leaving out of the market an entire population of creditworthy folks, which constrains demand and slows the recovery,”

Now I will agree with this. Asking for 25% down is too much. With decent houses in some locations easily going to 300-400k, 25% is 60-100K. That is very hard to save for many people.

The FHA historically has been dedicated to making homeownership affordable for people of moderate means. Under FHA terms, a borrower can get a home loan with a credit score as low as 500 or a down payment as small as 3.5 percent.

Credit score of 500? I wouldn't lend someone with that score 5 bucks much less a couple hundred thousand. No. They need to up that credit to 650 minimum. And I'm not even comfortable with that. I also think 3.5% is too little. 10% should be the line.

“My view is that there are lots of creditworthy borrowers that are below 720 or 700 — all the way down the credit-score spectrum,” Galante said. “It’s important you look at the totality of that borrower’s ability to pay.”

Guess what? The borrower's ability and responsibility to pay is reflected in their credit score. The only mitigating circumstance would be medical emergencies and identity theft which includes parents and other relatives using ones identity when one is a child.

It's really sad to see these government folks disregard the 2008 financial crisis in their zeal to enact some social justice program.

Naratives Even Stupidify The Allegedly Bright

One very hard lesson I learned over the past couple of years is that when one is invested in a narrative one becomes willingly blind to information that contradicts it. Even worse is that people who are of above average intelligence, will often fall into this trap. The overriding reasons being that since they know they are smart their narrative could not possibly be wrong. If anything those people who hold a differing view are the ones who are "not so bright". And of course there is the aversion to labels such as racist, sexist, uncle tom, sellout, etc, which can put a rather heavy wet blanket on one's social (and employment) life.

Universities are fast becoming places of indoctrination rather than places of critical thinking and the pursuit of facts. The students who graduate from these places are therefore ill equipped to deal critically with subjects to which they have been indoctrinated to think of in a certain way. Today's example comes from Stanford.

In an article about a Stanford grad who supports the Black Lives Matter movement we see the effects that this indoctrination has on bright motivated persons:

As Florida and the rest of world watched George Zimmerman walk away scot-free after a jury acquitted him of shooting and killing Trayvon Martin, a still-troubled nation questioned whether race played a role in the teenager’s death.

So far so good. Race (and gender) did in fact have a large role in the death of Trayvon.

But for Samuel Sinyangwe, it was clear. The Stanford University graduate, who was living in San Francisco during that summer of 2013, remembered growing up as a black child in Orlando’s College Park neighborhood.

I put this here because I want the reader to know that the person at the focus of the article is not simply your average person on the street. This is a person who has graduated from a top tier university in the United States. We should expect that such persons would have higher than average analytical skills than your average person. We're talking people with IQ's over 110, with many over 120. These are the very people who should be asking the tough questions.

And like Martin did on that fateful night of Feb. 26, 2012, Sinyangwe would stop by a 7-Eleven on his way home from school to pick up an Arizona sweet tea and a pack of Starburst or Skittles.

“I was not physically in Orlando, but it hit me very hard,” Sinyangwe, 25, says. “I was that kid. I could have been Trayvon. That’s why it hit me so personally and that’s why I realized that needed to be something that took the priority in terms of my focus.”

While the media made the Skittles and Arizona sweet tea a part of the story, it was not relevant to the story any further than Trayvon had one hand in his pocket to hold those items. As the record shows, Zimmerman was far more concerned with the hood on Trayvon's head and that he was walking around "looking at houses".

But what this part shows is that we are dealing with emotive narratives rather than facts. It would have made no difference had Martin simply been out for a walk or had just gotten off a bus. He was attacked and killed for who he was and where his "who" was.

Because he felt such a connection with Martin, Zimmerman’s acquittal also had a second effect on Sinyangwe – it radicalized him and refocused his work as a data scientist on issues of state violence and police violence.

Since Trayvon was not killed by police how did Sinyangwe come to this particular conclusion? While I certainly had major issues with the jury decision given the facts of the case, it was the state that failed to prove it's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is not state violence. It is very dangerous to declare outcomes we don't approve of as "violence". This is a particularly nasty habit of left leaning groups.

So when Michael Brown, a black 18-year-old, was shot and killed by a white police officer and left on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, for four hours in 2014, Sinyangwe knew what he had to do.

You mean wait for the investigation to occur? To perhaps go there and interview witnesses? Get a hold of forensic evidence? Oh no. Sorry. I these would be the actions of high IQ persons who understands the value of impartial investigation. Had he done any of that, he would have discovered that the reason that Brown's body was laying out for so long was due to the crowds of people, some armed and letting of shots, that had surrounded the scene. The ME was actually on scene and unable to get to the body because police feared for their safety.

How is it that years after this information is known do we still have people and publications fronting a proven lie?

Also, we should note that Sinyangwe failed to identify with Brown's trip to the store. I wonder why that is.

As they were working to understand the issues surrounding Brown’s death and the deaths of other African-Americans at the hands of police officers, they discovered something puzzling. The federal government did not have a comprehensive national database of people killed by police. Even more troubling, what the federal government was reporting severely undercounted the number of people killed by police by a margin of 2 to 1, Sinyangwe says.

Did it occur to either one of these fellows to take a look at the FBI crime statistics?

In the two years since Brown's death, Sinyangwe and a group of activists created Campaign Zero, a platform that presents comprehensive policy solutions in the hopes of getting the number of people killed by officers to zero. Before any policy solutions, though, they had to know where they stood. Using data, they tried to find the elusive answer to the question: How many people have police killed and why? [my underlines]

Per underlined portion: In what fantasy world do these people live in where they think that in a country which has the highest murder rates of any industrialized countries (perhaps excepting Russia, I haven't checked) would not have even a single person killed by police? In what fantasy world do they live in where police are not shot at, stabbed, etc.? Do these people actually believe that a police officer should allow him or herself to be shot just so the perp can't be shot?

The FBI reported that law enforcement officers across the country had justifiably killed 426 people in 2012. In the same year, D. Brian Burghart discovered that wasn't true.

Using public records, online articles and crowdsourcing, Burghart found that in 2013, 1,271 people were killed during interactions with police. In 2014, that number increased to 1,295, and by 2015, it was 1,299. From 2008 to 2014, the average number of people killed by police was around 419 people per year, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. Why the discrepancy?

Burghart says he found through his work that the data collected by the FBI was only coming from a fraction of police departments across the country. The Wall Street Journal says it found in a 2014 investigation that "among 105 of the largest police departments in the country, about 45 percent of killings by officers went unreported to the [FBI] between 2007 and 2012. Currently, reporting is optional and records from nearly every agency in three large states, Florida, New York and Illinois, aren't in the FBI's data."

This is important, but not for the reasons Burghart or the Orlando Weekly thinks. If the actual numbers of those killed by police is much higher than 412 or 426 then it means that the level of criminal activity is being underreported by the state. If anything the state is giving a false impression of safety. If data from places like NY and Illinois are missing, particularly with the huge spikes in shootings in Chicago that we've seen this year so far, one should wonder just how much criminal activity that involves firearms has really been going on.

The end result: Mapping Police Violence, a website that breaks down the data into visualizations any reader can understand. The group found that out of the 1,152 people killed by police officers in 2015, 336 of those people were black. African-Americans made up about 30 percent of the number of people killed, despite being 13.2 percent of the U.S. population.

Ahh the other sleight of hand used by those on the left:

Blacks are 13% of the population and therefore should be 13% of every and anything else, except basketball, football and Hip-Hop.

The crime statistics show however that black people commit certain offenses, particularly assaults (with and without firearms) at 7x the rate of the white population and way out of proportion of their US population. Furthermore since it is black males who are usually on the giving and receiving end of said violence we have to realize that it is really less than 6% of the US population that is responsible for huge numbers of homicides and shootings. This is not in dispute. It is known by the FBI and any and all law enforcement communities. But these facts do not make an appearance and those pushing these 13% arguments hope that the readers will not notice them. If the reader does notice these facts then the facts are deemed racist as is the person who points them out. The perfect circle of indoctrination.

The FDLE typically has a 98 to 99 percent participation rate among the state's law enforcement agencies. In 2015, FDLE reported 56 people had been justifiably killed by an officer, according to a supplemental homicide report. In the same WSJ investigation, the publication found Florida had not participated in the FBI's national tally since 1996. Orlando Police Chief John Mina says from 2010 to 2015, 11 people have been involved in fatal officer-involved shootings and three people have died while in OPD custody. All 14 are men, and out of those, 10 are black and four are white.

Say John Mina, what percentage of those committing crimes in Orlando are black and how many of them are white? Here's the City Data report on crime in Orlando. Here is a link to the demographic info where we find black people are 70% of the population which "coincidentally" reflects the "death by police" demographics.

Sinyangwe says he spoke with OPD officials about their use-of-force policy and recommended changes, specifically in regard to the policy that authorizes officers to hog-tie people, also known as the four-point restraint, and another policy that allows officers to shoot at moving vehicles.

Sinyangwe should have been hung up on, escorted out the building or never given an appointment in the first place.

Mapping Police Violence found the homicide rate for black people by police in Orlando was almost double the amount than for all races in 2014. New York and Florida have similar size populations, but three times as many people are killed by police in the Sunshine State than in New York.

Again with the relevant questions: What is the overall crime rate of black people in Orlando relative to other races? In particular what are the rates of crime by black suspects in which those suspects had weapons? Second question: Since we see that in places like NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, etc., as the temps rise the murder rates soar. If shootings are more likely to happen in 'warm/hot weather, which Florida has in spades, wouldn't that be a better predictor of levels of violence in Florida relative to NY?

"We pay our tax dollars to the police to protect and serve us," Sinyangwe says. "It's their job to do that. So they should take personal responsibility in upholding and performing their job with the level of quality that is in line with what the citizenry demands."

Actually courts have ruled that police are in fact not for our "service" or "protection".

Almost 121 years ago, journalist and advocate Ida B. Wells published The Red Record, a 100-page pamphlet that includes statistics on three years of American lynchings.

Awwww shit. They broke out with thy lynchings! New low.

From the end of the Civil War in the 19th century to the 1950s, thousands of African-Americans, mostly men, were lynched in Southern states, according to a recent report from the Equal Justice Initiative.

Not to minimize the very real terrorism that lynching represented, but we should realize that the number of black people who kill each other over dumb shit far exceeds the total number of persons lynched in the US. As an aside, I find it highly ironic that many of the people who would use this lynching argument have no problems with automatically believing a woman who claims she was raped or other claims of sexual assault. Many of those same persons will disregard jury findings of innocence. Talk about lynch mobs!

A Pew Research Center poll from last year said 59 percent of Americans now believe changes are needed to give African-Americans equal rights, up from the 46 percent of Americans who responded to a Pew poll in 2014.

Did this Pew poll follow up with a question as to what specific rights black people do not have that are enjoyed by the rest of the population?

Matthew Nichter, a historical sociologist who works as a professor at Rollins College, says Mapping Police Violence, the work of Ida B. Wells, and data collection by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee's research department during the Civil Rights Movement all represent an effort to prove to critics that black people aren't exaggerating when they talk about institutional violence, and that the deaths of Brown, Sandra Bland and Eric Garner weren't just caused by officers who were "bad apples."

Lets get a few things out of the way:

Michael Brown robbed a store and assaulted the manager in the process. This he admitted to his friend. He then assaulted a police officer allegedly because he didn't care for the way he was spoken to. Eyewitnesses say that Brown rushed the officer when he was shot. How is that even a case of "bad apples"?

Sandra Bland should not have been stopped by the state trooper. The trooper clearly arrested Bland because he didn't care for her honest reply to his asinine question. However; Bland killed herself. Furthermore she killed herself after her family did NOTHING to help her get out of jail (all she asked for was $500). Bland and Bland alone is responsible for her death so how is that "bad apples"?

Eric Garner is the only listed case where we can discuss "bad apples". We can also discuss NYS cigarette tax enforcement and the ban on selling loosies as a way to "protect the children".

If you look at surveys of people, white versus black, white folks tend to perceive police as the guys who come get your cat out of a tree," he says. "I think that's why data is so critical. There's widespread obliviousness on the part of the white majority because we still live in such a segregated society. The experience we have in the suburbs is different than police presence in urban black areas."

Does Matthew Nichter have any idea why white folks in suburbs generally see police as those who "come get your cat out of a tree" rather than "Oh shit! Po-po!"? I'll give him a clue. In largely white communities there is very little violent crime. Police literally have nothing to do all day except drive around, hand out traffic tickets and look at porn on their phones. There are white communities where there haven't been murders in 40 years. When murders do happen in these communities it is often either a domestic dispute that went deadly or an outsider committing a home invasion.

By contrast is many black communities there are on the street murders happening every day. You're lucky if there is a 24 hour period where someone isn't shot. This doesn't include things like theft and "simple" assaults. Just shootings. Hence it is the very actions of the people inhabiting black communities that are the cause of the differences in perceptions of police.

And this is what I mean about narrative. All the people noted in the article had invested in a narrative. You have a lynching avenue where there is no lynching. There is the segregation as explanation that fails to hold up under the lightest scrutiny. There is wholesale dismissal of relevant facts in the case of Brown and Bland. There is the total non admission of the sky high murder rates that precipitate police involvement in black communities. In this fantasy world, where police shoot nobody, these facts and observations simply do not exist. Too many "bright" people buy into this and it is literally getting people killed.

Emotionally Unstable

One of the problems with the current left is their increasing inability to control their emotions and evaluate situations rationally. This is seen with the "safe spaces" rage among college children, and I do mean "children". It is seen in the irrational responses to things like "Trump 2016" chalkings on college campuses. To be fair the supposed adults who are supposed to be running theses institutions and are supposed to be setting the example are failing in their job of properly socializing these children. Still though, it is sad to see these emotional midgets masquerading as "strong black people".

Our last example of this class of people was Dr.(!) Imani Perry of Princeton University(!), where she discussed how afraid she was by being held accountable for a ticket she declined to pay and court summons she decided to ignore. Today's example is of the would be airline passenger kind.

Early Monday morning, Imani Cezanne wrote on Twitter that she had been escorted by security off of an airplane because she was wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt.

“Today I was escorted off of a plane by two armed caucasian male officers. I have never believed so strongly that I could die at any moment,” Cezanne wrote. She also posted a picture of the shirt she had been wearing, captioning the image, “What I was wearing when I was unnecessarily ejected from my flight because the FA felt ‘threatened.’ Coincidence?”

A flight attendant tossed this chick off a plane because she had a shirt on with the names of various black people.

Really.

And this chick "never so strongly believed she was going to die at any moment".

Really.

This is so over the top that it isn't even funny. Trayvon, named on her shirt certainly knew what it felt like to "never so strongly believe" he was going to die. This chick was never even remotely in such danger. But lets get back to the actual incident that got her removed from the plane in her own words:

So the actual reason she was taken off the plane was because she couldn't mind her business and decided to butt into the work being performed by the flight attendant. Apparently Mz. Thing is of the opinion that American Airlines and the flight attendants need to get clearance from her in order to do their jobs. So no, she wasn't tossed off the flight for being black. She got tossed off the flight for being an ass. Good for American Airlines.

Now here's the sad thing. It is highly likely that American Airlines will bow to pressure and try to "make good" with this chick in order to avoid bad publicity rather than defend the actions of it's employees and stop allowing drama queen blacks and women to bully people who don't kiss their asses.

Rods and Staffs

I haven't posted on religion in a long time. I'll break that silence today because it's Easter and I had all kinds of Christian imagery around me annnnnd...because of something I was watching last night.

Psalms 23 is a popular psalm. It reads, in part:

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Why the reference to a rod and staff? Particularly in the Old Testament? Well since we know that the Khemetic Neters are often represented with rods and staffs (and holding the Ankh, symbol of life). Below is Horus:

You'll note that he holds a long staff in one hand and in the other a shorter staff, also known as a rod. In this image he also has Ankh in his hands. Again, this is common imagery in the Khemetic pantheon. While it is common for theologians to make the claim that this rod and staff reference are about the shepherding references that are often used in Judeo-Christian themes (Jesus the good shepherd). One has to understand the great influence that Egyptians had on the formation of Judaism. This is just another one

Slave States and Free States

I saw this map of where Sanders has been winning and where Clinton has been winning:

I thought that the map looked familiar. Indeed it did:

Very interesting indeed. We should also note that the places where Clinton has done extremely well has in recent history gone Republican for presidential races, though with Trump likely to be the nominee and the reaction from mainstream Republicans to that possibility, anything is possible.

What these maps also point out is that generally speaking there is a huge racial divide among Democrats. Sanders does extremely well in very white states. It's interesting that Trump is being picked on for "appealing" to white voters (of a particular stripe), whereas Sanders can generally skate by the fact that he has an overwhelmingly white (as white if not whiter than Trump's) support base.

Je Ne Suis Pas Belgium

In the past I have been very sympathetic to the European countries and victims of the terrorist activities. I was under the very mistaken impression that these folks had little idea what their "leaders" had been doing to their countries. I thought they didn't quite understand what the EU was doing to their once sovereign states. I was very mistaken.

Any sane people would not invite persons hostile to their culture and peoples to live among them in large numbers. They would not allow them to create "no-go" areas of insular communities where the police are afraid to enforce the national laws. If you don't believe me look at Japan. Look at China. Look at Hungary. Look at Poland. The leadership of these places understand exactly who they represent. They are not afraid to be proud of who they are and they do what they must to maintain their identity. To be blunt, they are not traitors.

The French leadership and a large percentage of their population are traitors to their own countries. I'm not going to beat around the bush with this. Let us state it plainly and clearly. The French got what they had coming to them. The Belgians have gotten what they had coming to them. The Germans, and all those countries who have invited hostile persons to leech off their governments while large numbers of their people assault and rape citizens. Each of them will continue to get what they have coming to them until they are either made to completely submit or they rise up.

After the mass killings in France, the political elite of that country banded and conspired to prevent the National Front, the only party with the interest of the French nation at heart from getting majority votes in places it was doing extremely well in the first polling. But it would be a mistake to place all the blame on the elites. The French people saw what the parties were doing and went along with it. The majority of the French people conspired with the "leadership" to deny FN wins. Why? Because they didn't want to be seen as racist. This desire is so strong in these people that they are completely willing to have their fellow French citizens, their countrymen killed. If they care so little about their nation and people then I I could care even less.

That the killers were living in Belgium and freely travelled between countries and their neighbors knew who they were and did nothing to cooperate with the authorities in the country they supposedly called "home". makes it clear that these people are hostile inhabitants that should be removed. I'm sure some idiot reading this is thinking Japanese internment. I'll note that as far as is known, no Japanese in the US during WWII were randomly blowing themselves and other people up. They weren't running up into dance halls and concert halls killing people. To me that difference matters. A lot.

Beyond that the so called leadership of Belgium has even gone to the extent of not funding arts by actual Belgians because it is "too white". This pathological hatred of Europeans by their own kind is unprecedented in history. Certainly Europeans did some extremely bad things in their time, but the pendulum has swung to such an extreme opposite that Europeans as a collective seem to have no sense of basic national self-respect.

And the citizens have apparently decided that it is more acceptable to live in what amounts to a police state with military personnel wandering around with high power automatic weapons and giving the state more and more surveillance powers than to be "right wing" and do the one thing that would provide for their safety and liberties: Remove the threatening population.

When the first reaction of the press after Islamic terrorism is to warn about Islamophobia and how Syrian refugees are not a problem you know that the people are lost. So no, I am not Belgium. Belgium doesn't even want to be Belgium. They made their bed. The bedbugs are now biting.

So You Want $15/Hour?

While I am certainly sympathetic to the idea of living wages I am not ignorant of the very real consequences of paying extremely low skilled workers relatively high wages for work. One of the reasons is that unlike when Socialism and Communism first reared their heads, there is a mode of labour that threatens everybody's jobs in the near future: Automation and artificial intelligence.

There are only two things that stop automation from taking off: Technological development and cost of product. As Moore's law is being smashed to bits the cost of product as well as it's ability to perform has been come down dramatically. As the costs of human labour increases, automation becomes increasingly "profitable". As those machines become profitable humans see themselves unemployed. Last year I pointed out to the building disaster that the minimum wage advocates are creating:

Hibbs says that the $15-an-hour minimum wage will require a staggering $80,000 in extra revenue annually. “I was appalled!” he says. “My jaw dropped. Eighty-thousand a year! I didn’t know that. I thought we were talking a small amount of money, something I could absorb.” He runs a tight operation already, he says. Comix Experience is open ten hours a day, seven days a week, with usually just one employee at each store at a time. It’s not viable to cut hours, he says, because his slowest hours are in the middle of the day. And he can’t raise prices, because comic books and graphic novels have their retail prices printed on the cover.

You would be tempted to say that this is not an issue of automation and you'd be right. But imagine if that store owner could run his store entirely with robots and leave it open 24/7? Well lets look at what Carls Jr. is looking to do:

Carl’s Jr. CEO Andy Puzder believes that fully-automated eateries are the future since his visit to Eastsa, one such establishment located in Canoga Park, California.

"If you're making labor more expensive, and automation less expensive — this is not rocket science," Puzder told Business Insider.

Apparently rocket science to some people.

The average fast food employee is 29 years old with a high school diploma, many of whom are single parents, The Washington Post reported. With a median pay of $8.92 an hour, one fifth of fast food employees’ families live below the poverty line – costing the US government $7 billion in welfare payouts.

Puzder believes that raising the minimum wage will be worse for fast food employees in the long run.

Single parents you say? There was a time when "single parents" was a rare thing and teens were the usual employees. What happened? Starts with a "f".

Whether or not the minimum wage is increased, Puzder makes a case for moving over to fully automated restaurants for other reasons. "They're always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case," says Puzder of the benefits of machines versus man.

Imagine. No insurance for employees. No workers comp. No paying for employees who are not actually working (sick and vacation days). I'm not saying that workers shouldn't have these things. I'm saying that these things cost. This last part was particularly instructive:

"Millennials like not seeing people," the Carl’s Jr. CEO said. "I've been inside restaurants where we've installed ordering kiosks ... and I've actually seen young people waiting in line to use the kiosk where there's a person standing behind the counter, waiting on nobody."

The very behavior of the next generation is ushering in their own employment demise.

Try Working

Half marathon race done. Blogging is back on. The below underscores a huge problem with certain black communities. It is reminiscent of the father that told me that his son, who died while being detailed by customers of a store he was trying to steal from, is just like any other son. And that all black boys steal at some point in their lives and therefore condemning his actions and acknowledging that his son's actions are directly responsible for his own death is "wrong." I called and continue to call bullshit on that. But he's not alone. From Miami:

On Thursday, police say Johnson burglarized a home south of 79th Street near I-95 — just blocks away from where he lives. The 54-year-old woman told police her surveillance system alerted her to the break-in of her home. She said she rushed home and found the teen climbing out of a window. “She observed a subject leaving the home through the rear,” said police Det. Dan Ferrin.

Just like Michael Brown of Ferguson fame, Even being caught on camera in the act of committing a crime is not enough for folks to shut up. But what marks this as an egregious case of fucked up parenting is this:

“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” said Harris. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.”

So as long as you were brought up "in the hood" you should be excused from the consequences of criminal behavior. In fact you shouldn't be held to any standard of civilized behavior because you gotta get that money and clothes so you can get this hoes.

IS Child Soldiers

Continuing our weekend of children, a report on child soldiers of the Islamic State:

In the past six months, IS propaganda has featured 12 child killers. According to the researchers, between 1 August last year and 9 February this year, they identified a total of 254 events or statements featuring images of children. In an effort to put brutality into their daily routine, the group encourages youths to hold up decapitated heads or play football with them. IS uses intimidation as a recruitment tool, warning that those who refuse to obey will be tortured or raped.

And

Less than a month ago, IS released a new disturbing clip showing a British boy, nicknamed 'Jihadi Junior' and thought to be aged four, blowing up three prisoners. The child wearing an IS headband is seen pressing a button on a remote control device seconds before a car containing alleged “British spies” explodes

Kenya's Child Prostitutes

And

UN "Piece" Keeping

This is not the first report of this kind of behavior and certainly will not be the last.

the neighborhood is a patchwork of low-slung buildings scorched and looted at the height of the civil war, a place where the United Nations was supposed to come to the rescue. But in a number of homes, women and girls are raising babies they say are the children of U.N. troops who abused or exploited them.

“Peacekeeper babies,” the United Nations calls such infants.

“A horrible thing,” says an elfin 14-year-old girl, who describes how a Burundian soldier dragged her into his barracks and raped her, leaving her pregnant with the baby boy she now cradles uncomfortably.

Wanted to comment on this:

The Washington Post interviewed seven women and girls who described contact with peacekeepers that violated U.N. regulations against sexual exploitation and abuse. Five of them said they exchanged sex for food or money — sometimes as little as $4 — while their country was rocked by civil war and families were going hungry.

We might think that $4 is "little" but in those countries 4 US dollars is a big deal. For example, as of this writing $4 is 3712.00 Congolese Francs, 2401.34 CA CFA Francs, 246.17 Haitian Gourds and 485.68 Jamaican Dollars.

Dr. Perry Whines Some More, Takes Her Ball Home. For Now

Since the video produced by the Princeton PD has been released showing how deferential the police were when dealing with her, Dr. Perry has tried to avoid the criticism she has received from many corners of the net and media. Unable to refute the critics and unwilling to be self-critical and take responsibility for her own choices, Perry has decided to write what she deems to be the final chapter on the matter. Lets examine it.

. I wasn’t a no show! I’d called and asked to postpone the meeting Although I honestly can’t be certain that this information was communicated to me correctly, it felt like yet another effort to discredit me.

So let me understand. Here we have a person with a PhD. Who teaches at an Ivy League university who is "not certain" as to whether she communicated effectively in regards to if and when she would follow up on a complaint of misconduct against a police officer?

Exactly how hard is it to communicate that you cannot meet on such and such a date therefore how about we meet on such and such date and time? How hard is that? People make appointments all. The. Time. This is not hard. either you scheduled an appointment or you didn't. Full stop. This is hard for a Ivy League PhD professor?

I shared several tweets about my experience being arrested last week. The arresting officer told me he was arresting me for a three year old parking ticket. I am an African American female professor at Princeton. As a result, the episode soon spiraled into a media event, which I attempted to avoid engaging at every turn. So I wrote a public statement rather than accepting the countless requests for

No, no and no. Perry was arrested because there was a warrant out for her arrest that was the result of her NOT PAYING a parking ticket. She was also driving on a suspended license as a result of NOT PAYING a parking ticket. And because Ms. Phd teaching at an ivy League university is not broke (as far as we know), she can't claim that she didn't pay because she couldn't afford it. She simply did not feel that the law applies to her.

Secondly SHE brought attention to her arrest by announcing it on social media. All she had to do was pay her ticket and go about her business with a lightened wallet. But nooooo, she played the race and gender cards. She talked about how scared she was and the usual symps went for it.

I do not believe municipalities should generate revenue by using the police power to arrest. Taxes and fines should not be executed through physical coercion. As the justice department challenges Ferguson, Missouri to cease such practices-- ones that create modern day debtors prisons in poor communities-- it is worthwhile to raise questions about the practice generally, including in affluent suburbs.

Well it's nice that Dr. Perry thinks this way. I don't think that highway tolls should be in place. I don't get to drive through tolls without consequences. And this is why I say Perry thinks the laws do not apply to her. And you see how she talks about Ferguson. Never mind that Perry is not poor. The parking ticket would have a negligible effect on her net worth. One may argue that the tickets used in Ferguson are a hardship on poor residents, but Perry is not poor. Pay your ticket miss.

I was terrified when I was pulled over, and then when I was arrested, because in this country police practices are racially discriminatory.

You know black people are paranoid about the wrong things. Could a police office in Princeton decide to kill Perry because she is black? Certainly. Was it remotely possible that such a thing would happen to Perry? Not even. In fact, as a black female she is only behind white women when it comes to risk of death. But see, when you live in the racial fantasy world that many of these educated negroes live in, you get shook over bullshit.

Moreover, over the past year and a half as a nation we have watched the footage of multiple deaths of unarmed African Americans at the hands of police officers.

And in almost ALL of the cases the African-American MEN, were either engaged in criminal behavior just prior to their death, were engaged in criminal behavior at the time of their deaths OR failed to follow lawful directions of a police office. Surely Dr. Perry has kept up with research and knows that the data shows this.

Did Perry intend to do what these MEN did? Apparently Perry decided to do as she was told and had no problems. Just like millions of people do all over the US.

The majority of the time there is no remedy for these deaths.

Because as the data shows, justifiable homicide.

This effectively grants police the authority to act with impunity. It may be hard to imagine for people who are not Black and/or Latinx, but this social reality produces terror for many of us when we encounter police officers, regardless of how they behave.

Well no, Akai Gurley, Oscar Grant (to an extent). The social reality is the fantasy bubble that encourages black people to be paranoid when engaging with the police. No one likes to have an unintended encounter with police, but 95% of the time there is no harm and how one is treated is directly related to how one acts.

While I disagree with a number of the statements made by the Princeton Police about what transpired,

Such as?

and the video footage that the police chose to share with the general public failed to show most of what I objected to,

That would be the handcuffs (standard op) and the search by a male officer, because as we know, men cannot search women because VAGINA.

. I am removing myself from all engagements that sustain that distraction. Additionally, the officers have emphasized that their actions were consistent with standard protocol. But I don’t disagree with them on that point. I never did.

Translation of first sentence: I don't want to answer for my bullshit so I'm going into hiding.

Translation of second sentence: The laws and rules shouldn't apply to me. Even if I'm treated equally I have a problem because I don't want equality I want exceptions for me and my kind.

My point is this: regardless of whether it is consistent with standard procedure and protocol, I should not have been handcuffed to a table for a parking ticket.

Wahhhhhhh! My feeeelz! And once again it was because Perry had an arrest warrant. For x amount of days after receiving the ticket Perry was free as a bird. No one would have arrested her. All she had to do was pay her ticket. When she FAILED to do so, then she was what we call "in contempt of court". You flip the bird to the court, the court sics the dogs on you. Simple. So she was arrested because she chose to not pay her shit. Period. Why doesn't she understand this is her own fault? And she was driving on a suspended license. People get arrested and their cars towed and impounded for stuff like that. Say, did they impound her vehicle?

Moreover, if it were five parking tickets I should not have been handcuffed to a table. A parking ticket is not an indication that a person poses a physical threat.

Again, here she is trying to tell other people how to do their jobs. You know, most of the time, people who are handcuffed to a table aren't a threat to themselves or others. Every so often though, someone flips out and the cuffs keeps them in line. Also because everyone wants equal treatment, it means that "non-threats" get the same treatment as threats so later on, a lawyer can't say "but your honor, they don't cuff everybody..." So just like we all gotta take off our shoes at the security theatre that is TSA, You get to get cuffed to a table. Next time pay your parking ticket.

The “pat down” for weapons that I experienced at the hands of a male officer also did not make sense as I did not pose a physical threat and I was not stopped on suspicion of posing a violent threat to anyone.

When anyone is arrested they are searched. Not only for weapons but for other contraband. See, some people don't pay tickets and the like because they simply do not care about the law. The police don't know you. But here we have Perry explaining why she should get [more] deferential treatment.

And here is the point that goes far beyond my story: Perhaps if police officers were not authorized and encouraged to arrest people for small violations then Eric Garner and Sandra Bland would still be alive.

A) Sandra Bland hanged herself. Her family didn't give a shit that she needed 500 dollars and left her in that jail over the weekend. Her mother is now shilling for Hillary Clinton, while the short memory fools don't even recall that SHE left HER DAUGHTER in jail over 5 hundred dollars.

B) Eric Garner was killed under a liberal administration looking to "protect the children". But more to the point, had Garner simply cooperated, he'd be alive. Garner knew what he was doing was illegal and decided to do it anyway. We know the saying: Do the crime, do the time. Man up when the police come for you for what you know you did.

It was once against the law for my ancestors to read, to own property, to sit in the front of the bus. Hence, rules must be evaluated as to whether they meet standards of justice. Warrants for parking tickets do not meet such standards.

Translation: The laws should not apply to me and other black people because slavery, Jim Crow and all that.

We have evidence that warrants for violations are issued across the country in racially discriminatory fashion.

Yeah yeah, but YOU were doing 20 MPH over the speed limit, with a suspended license and a warrant out for your arrest due to YOU not paying YOUR ticket. What does the alleged "racially discriminatory fashion" have to do with YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

Note: I have never said that in my case that there was necessarily racial bias at work. I could not possibly know whether that was at issue. But I do know that I belong to the racial group to which this happens more frequently than any other.

Well she did say:

"I was treated inappropriately and disproportionately. The fact of my blackness is not incidental to this matter.''

That last part is what we call "high falutin'" talk for "I was arrested 'cause I'm black."

Moreover, as a consequence of the attention my words received in the media I have been subject to hundreds upon hundreds of racial slurs, gender slurs, threats and insults on social media, by telephone, on conservative blogs, and via email.

I will say this, I too have seen many many racial slurs sent Dr. Perry's way. Not even surprised by it. Won't even defend it. I have seen gender slurs directed her way. I won't denounce all of them because Perry herself made gender an issue when she discussed the topic. If she's going to use "vagina logic", then you get the insults you have coming to you. I don't agree with any threats to Perry's person in any way and encourage her to report those persons to the proper authorities. But I want to make note that she noted "conservative blogs". It is a damning commentary that she did not note that she was critiqued by those on "liberal blogs." There is simply no excuse for liberals to back Perry on her complete abandonment of her own personal responsibility in this matter. To use herself and her self created situation as some kind of example of black victimhood should not go unchecked by her so called supporters. Perry is and was *dead wrong* on all points and the people in her circle need to tell her so. Publicly.

Professor Perry Doesn't Pay Her Ticket, Gets Arrested, Blames Racism

Dr. Imani Perry of Princeton University is a prime example of the problems that black folks make for themselves that they then blame white people for. Let's review: 1) Perry has PA plates but apparently lives in NJ. If you change residency you are supposed to change your license to the state that you currently live in. Now a LOT of people don't bother with that and Perry wasn't arrested for that, but she could have been ticketed.

2) Perry received a parking ticket some 1-3 years ago that she failed to pay. I've gotten tickets I didn't pay, and you know what happens? They send you a notice that your license has been suspended. They may even put a warrant out for your arrest for contempt of court/failure to pay. Either way, you get a notice. If you don't want a cop pulling you over, you hop to and pay your ticket. Now Dr. Perry works for Princeton University. She's making decent money and is driving a rather newish Acura SUV. So she cannot use the Ferguson excuse that she is broke unless she's very bad with her finances. Instead of owning up to the fact that she got a ticket and failed to pay it. Instead of owning up to the fact that she DID get a notice that her license was suspended and a warrant was issued for her arrest, she decided to blame the police for following the directions.

Now I watched the video of the arrest and that was perhaps the most accommodating arrest I have witnessed. Ever. The officer was practically apologizing for having to follow protocol. This is something that is unlikely to have been done had Perry NOT been black, female and employed at Princeton U. What did Perry have to say after so much accommodation?

‘Yesterday, on my way to work, I was arrested in Princeton Township for a single parking ticket three years ago,’ she said in the statement. ‘The police refused to allow me to make a call before my arrest, so that someone would know where I was.

‘There was a male and a female officer, but the male officer did the body search before cuffing me and putting me in the squad car. I was handcuffed to a table at the station.

‘At any rate, I was afraid. Many women who look like me have a much more frightening end to such arrests.

‘But the larger point is that I'm working to move from being shaken to renewing my commitment to the struggle against racism & carcerality.'

So much bullshit, so little time. Note how Perry is appalled that she is actually being held responsible for a parking ticket she got for not following the parking rules somewhere. Would it have been so hard to accept responsibility for getting the ticket and failing to pay it in a timely manner? Is this the kind of example she sets for her students?

Secondly the officer asked her more than once if she had anyone she could contact so that they could take possession of her vehicle. That was an invite to a phone call. She declined. Oh. The. Fuck. Well. After declining to contact anyone to "let them know where she is" she complains that she was not allowed to call anyone. Well guess what? You get a call AFTER reaching the jail. That's the legal standard. But I suppose Dr. Perry thinks that she should be excepted from the rules (see parking ticket).

As to the body search, that was done off camera so I cannot say whether it was done properly or not. I suppose that searching by the female officer could have been done, but had that officer been with a male partner or no partner she was going to get searched anyway. And how sexist is she to act like a man cannot search a woman with taking advantage.

As for being cuffed to a table, I suppose Dr.Perry finds "Jail" to lowbrow to watch but if she spent time away from her fantasy world she would know that this is standard procedure when someone is arrested. They do not want you to hurt yourself or others, and yes people are known to get quite violent when arrested.

Dr. Perry was "afraid". Awww....I suppose the idea of being held responsible for your failure to follow the law can be a frightening experience and normal people would say to themselves and others: "Next time I get a ticket, I'm paying that shit quick!" But Perry was scared. Awwwww. But look at her trolling for concern. Many women who look like her have what?

Look, women see the inside of a police station as an arrested person very infrequently relative to men. Black women who are as educated as Dr, Perry and who live and work in relatively upscale neighborhoods rarely if ever see the inside of a police station much less the backseat of a cruiser so Dr. Perry ought to lean off the melodrama. While we can agree that Sandra Bland ought not have been arrested (much less ticketed for making way for a police cruiser), her death was at her own hands and largely because like Dr. Perry, she failed to control her emotions about her situation.

In a larger sense Dr. Perry is damseling. It was the big bad white cop against little black female me. Why couldn't he leave me alone? I thought these liberal professors were against damseling? *shrug*

Lastly, if Dr. Perry is so much against racism and carcerality (an academic term which I'm chuckling about), she would have taken this event as an example of HOW not to let race fuck up your day. She could have used her platform to show that if you are not hostile with the police, they are likely to not be hostile to you even if they have to arrest you. She also could have explained to young black people that if they break the law, including getting parking tickets, that they should be responsible and pay them. And if they cannot afford the entire ticket to make arrangements with the court. She could advise black folks that when they ignore the consequences of their law breaking (such as license suspensions and arrest warrants) that it isn't racism, it's their own irresponsibility and they need to own that.

Had Dr. Perry done so, she would have done far more to fight racism and "carcerality" than her whining, complaining and lack of responsibility for her own actions. The sadder part about this is that she is shaping young minds and Princeton is lending their reputation to such irresponsibility.

Interesting chart

Just saw this chart while perusing the web. Assuming that it is correct then the argument that fatherless homes and single parenting are a major contributor to crime is wrong. Iceland, Sweden and Norway have very low crime rates. A good portion of their crime rates are the result of actions of non-natives.

Akai Gurley Gets Justice

The Brooklyn DA did what the Queens DA failed to do in the case of Sean Bell. This is a model for future prosecution of police misconduct and negligence.

I learned from the Sean Bell case that many of us, including me at the time, considered every homicide to be a murder. We did not understand that a homicide can be many things including murder but that murder requires criminal intent. Unlike the common citizen,a police officer takes an oath to uphold the law and apprehend those engaged in criminal activity. The very job description makes it very hard to prove criminal intent when a police officer kills someone in the line of duty or under the color of law. One of the few ways you can prove such intent would be to run a sting and catch a police officer stating in no uncertain terms that what he or she is doing is against the law and they simply do not care.

Since very few police are dumb enough to get caught making such a clear statement of criminal intent, it is next to impossible to convict a police officer of murder. This is why even though Isnora shot two clips into Guzman (which IMO showed intent) he could get away with the argument that he feared for his life and all that jazz.

Hence when you go after a police officer in court you hit him with a charge that only requires neglect or disregard for life, etc.

Manslaughter and/or criminally negligent homicide is when you don't have the intent to kill anyone but through one's actions someone is dead. Furthermore it is reasonable to believe that you should have known that the actions would have lead to the death of an individual. This is the charge that Liang was found guilty of and it fits. Let's understand why:

Liang, a rookie officer who was on stairs patrol, discharged his weapon in a stairwell that is used by residents and their guests, when he heard a sound. He was startled and pulled the trigger which his finger was already on.

“I heard something on my left side ... It startled me (then) the gun just went off,” Liang testified during the trial.

Firstly, as I've said many times, guns are inanimate objects, they do not "just go off". Liang is STILL not taking responsibility for pulling the trigger. Also as others have said: if this individual was so nervous about the job, he should not have been there. After the shooting, Liang and his partner argued about who would call the shooting in and failed to give first aid to Gurley as he lay bleeding to death.

Liang said he initially thought he’d accidentally fired his weapon but not hit anyone. He and Landau bickered over who should report the screwup, and Liang eventually called his sergeant’s cell phone — instead of reporting it over the radio, which is recorded.

This would be an attempt to cover up the shooting. Liang and his partner showed a reckless disregard for the lives of residents when they let this nervous rookie walk the darkened staircase with a nervous trigger finger. As someone who often uses stairs simply because I like the exercise, I could easily have been a victim of such disregard for public safety. I'm certain that the jurors (at least some of them) could see this as well.

At this point I'd like to point out that comparisons to Eric Garner are NOT appropriate. Garner, whether we like it or not, was engaged in behavior that under NY law would lead to arrest. While we can agree that he should not have been put in a choke hold AND that laws against selling "loosies" are of questionable value, Eric Garner was going to be arrested whether he wanted to or not because he broke the law. In the case of Gurley, there were no laws broken. There was no reason for him to have any contact with a police officer and ought never have met a bullet in the staircase. He was as innocent as you get.

Slowly They Wake

Reading Vincent Emmanuel's piece in Counterpunch entitled The Cures and Failure of Identity Politics reminded me of how I woke up to the growing cancer in left policies. I woke up to the issue of identity politics when Obama was running for office. By all merit based measures H. Clinton should have won the presidency. She had the experience that Obama lacked, whether you agreed with her or not. Obama, on strict merit shouldn't have made it past his first primary. Yet millions of people backed Obama because he was black. It was identity over experience. It was the logical conclusion of Race First ideology.

Now coming from a Garveyite such a comment on Race First as an ideology may sound strange. Indeed there is a time and place for Race First programs. There are also times and places where it does no good. Garveyism isn't about Race First as much as it is a nationalist ideology. Nationalism is not predicated on race. To run a nation you need rules and you need to enforce them. Hence Race First is really Race somewhere down the line when you REALLY think on it. Anyway in the liberal (I will no longer refer to any of them as "progressive") side, identity politics has become the religion above all religions. It's absurd notions that only those in a certain identity can speak about that identity or that certain identities, usually the most fringe of them are not only above critique but are to be favoured is starting to wear thin on those who are willing to examine.

I think we’ve all had enough of the bullshit: identity politics has been a curse to leftist movements in the U.S. for far too long. How could anyone argue otherwise?

Yes. Thanks. Welcome to 2006. At least for me anyway.

During the Obama years, leftists were chastised for their critiques, with many, including myself, being accused of racism. Racism, really? I’ve spent the last ten years of my life dedicated to progressive social movements, yet I’m a racist because I think that Barack Obama is an imperialist scumbag? Piss off…

I saw a lot of people who were anti-war and anti-imperialist suddenly become war apologists and imperialists as soon as Obama took office. In fact I was so disgusted by their clear hypocrisy on the matter that I no longer even deal with such persons. And of course we have the idea that one must be racist to disagree with Obama is patently false.

Today, the same is happening in the context of Hillary Clinton’s run for U.S. President. Any and all critiques of Hillary are deemed “sexist” by HRC’s bootlickers.

Because vagina of course.

The best part of the interview was Bertha’s statement that, “If you want to see a revolution, then elect a female president!” Indeed, Bertha may be right: under Thatcher, the U.K. underwent quite a revolution, although not the type of revolution leftists would like to see.

Yes, this is the trope that women can do no harm and that all things wrong in the world are the doing of men. Oh and of course the revolutionaries who don't even know the first thing about hand to hand combat but love to have the state (that they are revoluting against I suppose) use it's monopoly on violence to get what they want.

However, the Curse of Identity Politics isn’t relegated to the electoral sphere: I’ve been told by activists that the U.S. can’t pull out of Afghanistan because women will be treated worse.

Imperialism anyone?

And I’ve been told that because black and brown people overwhelmingly support Democrats, I too should support the “lesser of two evils.”

Black and brown people also kill at astronomical numbers, should he do that too?

When I sat on the board of directors of an national antiwar organization, we talked about meeting ethnic, racial and gender quotas as much as we talked about ending wars and militarism

Because this is what they are about. They are not building anything, they just want to do a numbers game. That is there thing and they aren't even good at math.

In fact, during one strategy retreat in Chicago, we started out each day by exploring what pronouns each of us would prefer to use. Yes, this is what modern activism, for some, has turned into.

Well when you don't have to worry about survival you can spend time on that kind of bullshit. Also when you are supporting bullshit like trans-genderism, you spend time on that kind of bullshit. See in the sane world there are "he" and "she" and persons with medical conditions (physical or mental).

Young women are tired of hearing about the first female U.S. President – they’re interested in policies that will actually help the vast majority of females in the U.S., not bourgeois feminism aimed at the dwindling white middle-class.

Let me translate this for race. Black people are waking up and will get tired of hearing about police brutality- they are interested in policies that will actually help the vast majority of black poor in the US who suffer from epidemic levels of crime. Not college educated wanna be revolutionaries who think anti-white is pro-black and is doing any good.

The real question is: how long are we going to play the identitarian game? In 2020, will we have to go through the same song and dance with a centrist Latino or LGBTQ candidate? I sure hope not.

As long as those in power are too weak to say "no" to these bully groups and deal with them forcefully.

I would argue that the more the identitarians try and play their identitarian games, the more they will lose support and standing in progressive communities

I agree 100%. What drove me to be hostile to feminism was the entire Black Male Privilege nonsense with the cherry on top being the total acceptance of "rape culture - teach men not to rape" bullshit. The more they do this the more people will leave. I'll see them on the other side of the court.

Already, young black activists with Black Lives Matter and various other community organizations are challenging the dominant liberal narrative that having people of color in powerful positions will automatically result in better conditions for people of color.

The BLM group is perhaps the most ill informed group among the identity set. That information has been known by actual black scholars and nationalists for a long ass time. This is what happens when you let the children take over.

As a result, my black activist friends are not interested in replacing a white police chief with a black police chief.

I'll go out on a limb and say his black friends are not all that informed. If they were they'd be concerned with why there needs to be a police chief in black neighborhoods at all. Once they figured that out, they'd be not very concerned with the police chief at all.

In many ways, the identitarians have already lost the ideological battle. After all, Latinos are being deported in record numbers, African Americans are worse off today than they were prior to Obama taking office, and women are facing unprecedented attacks from religious conservatives.

And here we see that Vincent has not fully come to understand the problem. He still has to think he's "progressive". See Latinos should be getting deported in record numbers, because Latinos have been entering the country illegally in record numbers. This is what a sovereign nation does: protect it's borders and looks out for the welfare of it's citizens.

I remember a YouTube video posted by some black guy back when Obama was first elected to office. In that video he said that he bets that black folks would be worse off after Obama than before. look, you can't have high levels of illegal (and legal) immigration and improved job prospects for black folks at the same time. You cannot have high levels of illegal and legal immigration and have improved political representation prospects at the same time. You cannot have high levels of illegal and legal immigration of non-English speakers and have increased funding for predominantly black schools. Thinking black folks know this.

And lastly exactly what "unprecedented attacks" have women had by religious conservatives is this guy talking about? Religious conservatives have lost major rights in the past 8 years. Being made to fund birth control they do not agree with. Made to cater weddings of gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so. Being told by state agencies that they will be fined for calling a man a man and a woman a woman. Schools tossing the constitutional rights of males accused of sexual assault. These are unprecedented alright!

Vincent is beginning to see what is wrong with his chosen ideology but doesn't quite yet understand that it is the ideology that is the problem. Identity politics is but one of the fruits of this ideology. As of this writing vincent is like someone who doesn't like the taste of the apples but thinks it has nothing to do with the tree.

The Problem With Implicit Bias

Social scientists have come up with a thing called "implicit bias". What it tries to show that you can predict behavior based on the biases of a subject. So if a subject says they think that everyone is the same, implicit bias will "reveal" that they actually don't think so and act in a manner consistent with that bias. This is similar to what we refer to as "revealed preferences".

In revealed preferences we look at what people actually do as opposed to what they say they will do or say the prefer. So for example liberals who claim to highly value diversity are often shown to actually live in very not diverse places. They say they believe in diverse schools, but when their children arrive, they quickly move to neighborhoods with very little diversity or diverse as in "lots of Asians".

But back to implicit bias. What the current SJW thinking [sic] tells us is that people act in accordance to their biases when in fact people often act in opposition to their biases, particularly when life and death are not in consideration.

The finding suggests that while white officers may have an “implicit bias” to associate blacks more quickly with danger, they hesitated longer to react, explained Lois James, lead researcher and assistant professor at the university's College of Nursing.

“That’s the driving message of our paper, implicit biases do not predict how people will behave,” James said.

There it is.

The Year Of The Monkey

Yesterday began the Chinese New Year which is the year of the Monkey. I guess that in some way this is a sign of how things have gone. What do I mean? Well lets start with this:

The Sacramento Kings basketball team had to cancel giving away Lunar New Year shirts celebrating the Year of the Monkey on Monday after a player noted the shirts could be deemed offensive during Black History month.

Could be deemed offensive? By whom? Imbeciles who are so ignorant that they are unaware of how the Chinese lunar calendar works and are so self centered that they think anything that is offensive in one context is racist in all contexts. But it's bad enough that this imbecile kicked up a fuss about something that wasn't racist n the least bit, but that the Sacramento Kings so called "leadership" caved to the imbecile.

'I walk into the building and DeMarcus Cousins calls me over to an animated discussion he's having with Kings operations people. He [asks] me, "Olskool, what you think about this T-shirt? Told him a little insensitive on first day of Black History Month." They pulled the shirts,' said Johnson on his Facebook page.

Who decided that this imbecile was the go to person on black issues? And how does black hypersensitivity trump thousands of years of Chinese culture?

'We all need a lesson in sensitivity,' Kings president Chris Granger said, according to the Sacramento Bee.

No, We need leadership willing to say "no" to self centered, self-important groups that make issues of things that are not issues.

In an effort to celebrate Chinese New Year, we had some concerns about the T-shirt giveaway, so we pulled them all before the doors opened. Certainly we don't want to offend anybody, and we acted as soon as we heard the concern,' he added. Johnson commended Cousins for pointing out the potential offense the shirts could have caused. 'Good move Kings. Year of Monkey Tees on 1st day of Black History Month not a good look. Thanks DeMarcus...,' Johnson tweeted along with a photos of the staff taking away the shirts.

This is a sad case of giving in to ridiculous claims. Anyone who would have been offended are stupid *cencored* who should have been ridiculed in all corners. Meanwhile in Chicago:

CHICAGO — The nation's third largest city recorded 51 homicides in January, the highest toll for the month since at least 2000...here were also 2,900 shootings, 13% more than the year prior, according to police department records.

But, Year of the Monkey.

This highlights the problem. The real deal issues affecting black folks are given little to no attention by the leadership. When attention is paid to the real deal issues affecting black folks, the blame is externalized, the solutions are externalized. Black folks are held to no adult standards and are denied agency in the creation and solutions to their problems. Instead, like the non-controversy that is the Year of the Monkey, liberal white folks allow the whiney children (that would be black folks) to get what they want (externalized blame and lack of self control) and everybody else has to tip toe on eggshells.

Meanwhile, 51 dead and 2900 shootings. Not important in the least bit. Better to discuss the kid shot 16 times while high on drugs, with a deadly weapon who cannot follow directions.

Meanwhile other minorities have just learned that imbeciles hold a veto power over their cultural celebrations. How long until they start to see black people as the enemy?