Friday, May 31, 2019

Make Sodomy Great Again!

In 2016 Donald Trump swept in and won the Republican nomination, defeating a crowded field of generic Republican Conservatism Inc. candidates. Trump talked about things that appealed to actual conservative voters, as opposed to Beltway think-tanks and the Chamber of Commerce. First and foremost, he promised to build a wall, secure the border and enforce immigration laws. Instead we have a completely open southern border, the Feds shipping illegals into the interior of the country where they disappear, no wall and no immigration reform. The border is being overrun on a daily basis and Trump's signature campaign pledge seems mostly forgotten other than occasional tweets muttering impotent threats.

So what is Trump focused on today? An issue that is really important to his base that will convince them to show up to re-elect him in 2020? Well, see for yourself....



Well that is just swell! When can we start ordering our pink "Make Sodomy Great Again" hats, manufactured in Mexico?

Trump is ceaselessly chasing after voting demographics that will never vote for him in 2020. Black voters don't care about the black unemployment rate, they vote monolithically for Democrats and are all convinced Trump is the devil because Tribe > Economics. Candace Owens is an uninteresting token, a talisman "conservatives" can point to and exclaim that they are clearly not racist because they follow her on twitter. She is not a harbinger of Blexit or some other nonsense. Homosexuals and other sexual deviants are also sold out for Democrats. There is nothing Trump can do to change that.

Meanwhile his base is getting shafted and ignored at every turn.

Trump is turning into the greatest disappointment since every single Star Wars film made after Return of the Jedi.

If Trump expects his base to show up in 2020 to vote for him after getting nothing he promised other than some solid court nominations, and after expending all of his effort moving the embassy in Israel, crowing about black unemployment and virtue tweeting to sexual degenerates, he can go ahead and start making vacation plans for 2021 because he won't be in the White House.

Thursday, May 30, 2019

13/50 And The Death Penalty

The death penalty is one of the most controversial and least understood aspects of the criminal justice system. Execution has long been the ultimate penalty for the most heinous crimes. It is used (too) rarely and convictions and death sentencing kicks off decades of appeals, meaning you are often in more danger of dying of old age on death row than you are being executed by the state.

I saw the news today that New Hampshire overrode the veto of Governor Sununu and in doing so joined the growing number of states to ban the death penalty:

New Hampshire becomes 21st state to abolish the death penalty

What is interesting is that New Hampshire hasn't actually even executed anyone since 1939 according to the story. This is not really surprising, New Hampshire is consistently ranked among the top three safest states in the U.S. in terms of violent crime, right behind fellow New England states Maine and Vermont. New Hampshire is over 90% white with about a 1% black population. Vermont is even whiter at over 94% while Maine is considered the whitest state in the Union at nearly 95%. This will come in to play in a moment. These states are so white, in a nation that was founded by whites and has always been majority white, that the New York Times ran a piece last year lamenting how white New Hampshire is: Being Too White Is A Problem That Must Be Solved: The New York Times And The Quest To Diversify New Hampshire. Imagine a newspaper running an essay complaining about how black Detroit or Baltimore is.

So the move to abolish the death penalty in New Hampshire centers around the lone inmate on death row, a black habitual criminal named Michael "Stix" Addison, who murdered a white police officer Michael Briggs. According to this story from the Boston Globe, officer Briggs knew Addison and at one juncture had perhaps saved Addison's life:

Briggs knew Addison. Several years earlier, he had been the officer on scene when Addison was shot, and he had tended his wound. He was aware now that Addison was coming off a crime spree with a friend and that both were wanted in a shooting. But Briggs could not have known of the threat Addison made when friends told him the police were searching for him: He had vowed to shoot.

Again, Addison was a lifelong criminal. Boo-hoo he had a tough childhood. He was in the midst of a crime spree. He declared that he would shoot the cops looking for him. He murdered a cop doing his duty in cold blood. This officer, Michael Briggs, is dead leaving behind a wife and two sons.



If anyone deserves the death penalty, it is this guy. But still the people of New Hampshire managed to get the death penalty overturned even though it is so rarely used in the Granite State. Both articles I linked to make the same basic statement about the death penalty, emphasis in red mine:

Addison became a potent symbol to both sides. Opponents of the death penalty pointed to him as an example of the racial disparities in a system where 34 percent of people put to death nationally since 1976 have been black, according to the Death Penalty Information Center , while only 13 percent of the country’s population is black.

And the second one:

Cushing and other repeal advocates cite the enormous financial cost of capital punishment, with millions of dollars poured into endless appeals that can turn killers into celebrities. They talk about the impossibility of removing human error from the judicial process, and they point to the exonerations of death row inmates proven innocent by advances in DNA analysis and other scientific testing.

They also raise the stark racial inequities in how the death penalty is applied. More than a third of defendants executed in America since 1976, when the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty, have been black, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, even though only 13 percent of the American population is black. And a person who kills a white victim is disproportionately likely to be put to death — more than three-quarters of victims in cases resulting in execution were white, according to the information center, even though only half of murder victims nationally are white. New Hampshire is 94 percent white.

What is missing from both statements is a pretty commonly known fact and is the source of a popular meme and twitter shorthand: 13/50. Nationally blacks indeed make up about 13% of the population, however blacks also account for over 50% of the murder in the United States. In some cities like St. Louis almost every murder is committed by black men, who only make up half of that 13% so it is more like 6.5% of the population commits over half of all murders.

In general, the only crime that carries the death penalty these days is murder. So if a small percentage of the population, less than 7%, commits over 50% of the murders in the country, it stands to reason that the aforementioned small percentage of the population will be wildly overrepresented on death row because they are wildly overrepresented in committing murder. In fact, since only about 34% of the people executed since 1976 are black, but blacks commit 50% of the murders, they are actually underrepresented on death row. The argument that the death penalty is racist is false on its face, blacks are on death row because they committed murder.

One other thing that jumped out at me from those quotes is this:

Cushing and other repeal advocates cite the enormous financial cost of capital punishment, with millions of dollars poured into endless appeals that can turn killers into celebrities.

I couldn't agree more. It is ridiculous that it takes so long to execute convicted murderers. I read this morning that a man (a white man no less!) who committed murder in 1991 is set to be executed today, more than a quarter of a century later.

That is ridiculous. From arrest to trial to conviction to execution should be done in under two years. We don't need to eliminate the death penalty, we need to drastically expand it and speed it up. Child molesters, violent rapists, people convicted multiple times for drug dealing. I would add a whole slew of crimes to the list of death penalty eligible infractions. Selling fentanyl and get caught for the second time? Quick trial, reasonable appeal if warranted and then out you go to the gallows. Molest a 7 year old kid? Same thing, short rope, tall tree.

This nation is in deep trouble.

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Gun Control Will Be Easy To Implement!

I found this story in our local paper pretty amusing :

Analysis: Thousands in Illinois may have guns without permit

Tens of thousands of Illinois residents whose gun licenses have been revoked could still be in possession of firearms, according to an analysis of state records by the Chicago Tribune.

The failure of the system was underscored in February when a man killed five former colleagues and wounded five police officers in Aurora, Illinois, using a gun he kept despite the revocation of his Firearm Owner's Identification card in 2014.

Local police departments are supposed to ensure that those whose licenses have been revoked surrender their permits within 48 hours and fill out a form stating their guns have been passed to a legal gun owner or the police.

But since 2015, nearly 27,000 Illinois residents whose FOID cards have been revoked haven't updated authorities on what they have done with their firearms, the Tribune reported . That means authorities do not know whether 78% of those revoked cardholders still own guns.

Lol.

So it seems that cops in Illinois are supposed to "ensure" that people who have had their firearms licensing revoked have given up their guns within 48 hours. Unfortunately, cops in Illinois have more pressing issues like dealing with actual crime. Besides, who wants to send their officers out to someone who probably has a gun to try to take that gun away from them?

Local police departments are informed by state police when a card has been rescinded, but most don't prioritize checking on the status of remaining weapons due to a lack of resources, officers or background information.

Cops love walking in blind to hassle someone that they are pretty sure is armed and tracking these people down and forcing them to give up their license and any guns is probably very time consuming. Meanwhile cars are being stolen, women are raped, murders are committed, people are assaulted. Given the limited resources of cops, they are not going to have the time to go knock on tens of thousands of doors within 48 hours of notice.

That issue is just dealing with people who are already in the legal system and have had their licenses revoked. Now imagine that same situation but people who are legally clean. There are almost 13 million people in Illinois, with over 9 million in the Chicago area which means almost 4 million scattered in the rest of the state. According to the USCCA the state of Illinois already has issued over 300,000 concealed carry permits not to mention the likely millions of non-concealed carry lawful gun owners in the state and the huge number of firearms either illegally obtained in Chicago or that are owned by gun owners who elect to not tell the state about it. I would never move to Illinois but if I did I wouldn't report or license my firearms and I am guessing there are lots and lots of people like me who do live in Illinois and refuse to comply.

Now stretch that out across the entire country. If deep blue, gun hostile Illinois can't even deal with tens of thousands of people who have lost their firearms licenses due to criminal behavior, how does the nation as a whole suddenly start confiscating tens or hundreds of millions of firearms? I would conservatively guess that half or three-quarters of local law enforcement would simply refuse to carry out confiscation. At the local level, many law enforcement personnel are pro-2nd Amendment. I am not sure about my local sheriff's position but I am guessing he is not keen on sending his deputies to knock on doors to try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens who will refuse to give them up. Doing so is a great way to fill a lot of body-bags. There are millions of civilians in this country that are former military or law enforcement. How many bag-pipe and flag draped coffin funerals are cops interested in seeing when police are getting killed in shoot-outs trying to seize firearms from people who have committed no crime? Imagine tens of thousands of Waco's and Ruby Ridge's across the country. Cops just aren't going to do it and they don't have the time anyway.

Gun confiscation is only going to impact law abiding citizens. People with illegal guns are not going to stop having illegal guns because it is more illegal to possess them. That is why we call them "criminals". The Left also knows full well that people are not going to just turn in their guns. Many will, tens of millions won't. So either you pass toothless laws that people ignore or you deputize hundreds of thousands of people to kick down doors and start a bloodbath. That seems to be contrary to the spirit of reducing gun violence but then again this has never been about that. Gun control leading to confiscation has always been about disarming the private citizens who will object to some of the evil that the Left wants to enact. People publicly express dissenting thought in this country because they refuse to be quiet, and they refuse to be quiet because they are armed. It is hard to round people up for the trains when they are shooting back. If you think that is hysterical or hyperbole, it isn't. The Marxists have been open about eliminating dissenting thought by force for a long time and they aren't less committed to that today. Once you give up your guns, there is nothing to stop them from putting you in a camp. Due process? The First Amendment? Give me a break, those are only as strong as the 2nd Amendment.

If you let them disarm you, you stop being a citizen and become a subject and the rulers can do whatever they want to subjects.

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Day Ten In Twitter Gulag

It is now the 10th day since I was arbitrarily suspended by Twitter for "7 days" and my suspension is supposed to lift tomorrow. In a fit of pique Twitter has now put me on double-secret probation. Although I am told by Twitter, both on a desktop and the phone app, that I can browse twitter but not comment or tweet, I actually can't. I get this message on my computer and phone:


On my phone it will show this and allow me to continue but as soon as a scroll anywhere it flips back to this message and it will keep doing it over and over so essentially I can't "browse" twitter. On my desktop I can't even click through to twitter, the button doesn't do anything. Some fruitcake in the Twitter HQ cubicle farm has clearly monkeyed with my account so I can't even browse twitter. It will be interesting to see if I can actually get on my account tomorrow after my suspension is lifted, and I wouldn't be surprised if I can't, and from there how long I last before getting suspended again. It is their little game and I recognize Twitter as hostile territory, maybe I can keep my comments reserved to people on our side and leaning that way instead of getting caught up in trolling low-IQ bozos and getting suspended. The forecast for that happening is not great.


Monday, May 27, 2019

The Content Of Their Character

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. 

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

These words are deeply ingrained in our cultural religion. We are supposed to believe that this is what the "civil rights" movement, which has morphed into a more generic "justice" focus, has always been concerned with. Growing up we were taught that we should treat people with respect and give them the benefit of the doubt regardless of their race. In this dream of Martin Luther King Jr., the ideal would be a "color blind" society. Two years removed from a black man serving two terms as President of the United States, one would think we were rapidly approaching that day. If you think this you are sadly wrong. I was born 7 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and at no time in my life have race relations been worse in this country. More than a half century after the Civil Rights Act, the "War on Poverty", school integration, affirmative action, etc., all designed to even the playing field and still we are not only no closer to what King purported to believe, we are actually much further apart. Now we are talking about reparations being paid by people that never owned slaves to people that were never enslaved in the first place, in spite of the $22,000,000,000,000 spent on fighting poverty.

King's legacy is supposed to be bulletproof and unquestioned. Not only are you not allowed to question what King really stood for, anything less than total fawning is considered a sign of low moral character. His legacy has been a carefully crafted narrative to the point that the real legacy of the real man who was Martin Luther King is very nearly lost.

This weekend a pretty stunning revelation of who MLK really was came to light. It has been common knowledge for a long time that King was an adulterer. It is even hinted at in some recent biopics like Selma but we aren't supposed to talk about it. We get a lot of "all men are flawed" talk, usually from the same people that scream and yell about Trump and his infamous "grab them by the pussy" comments. I guess a billionaire playboy who never purported to be anything else is held to a higher standard than a man who claimed to be a Christian minister. The revelations this weekend put a number to King's behavior and added some spicy details that are hard to believe. Here is the headline from the Daily Mail:

The MLK tapes: Secret FBI recordings accuse Martin Luther King Jr of watching and laughing as a pastor raped a woman, having 40 extramarital affairs - and they are under lock in a U.S. archive, claims author

The story is incredible. A man who is held up to near demi-god status in America, someone many would consider the greatest American to ever live, had affairs with more than 40 different women, called himself "...the founder of the 'International Association for the Advancement of P***y-Eaters'" and is alleged to have been present while a woman was raped, and not only didn't intervene but is heard to be laughing. Not only is he alleged to have had several dozen affairs, it is reported that he was involved in "threesomes" and orgies, including at least one prostitute, and that he told one reluctant participant "...that performing the act 'would help your soul'.".

It is hard to confirm any of this. The man reporting this information, Pulitzer prize winner David Garrow, has extensively studied the FBI records but the actual recordings are being held under seal by the government until 2027 so we have to take his word for it but the old saying still stands that where there is smoke, there is usually fire. I wouldn't be shocked if in 2027 a Democrat president orders the tapes destroyed or sealed for another 50 years, or that is they are released we find that the tapes were "accidentally" damaged and are unplayable. There is too much money riding on the legacy of MLK. He has spawned countless grifters who have banked on their relationship to him, from family members who get speaking gigs based on being a third cousin twice removed to professional race-hustlers like Jesse Jackson.

Jesse Jackson and Ralph Abernathy with MLK. Jesse is smiling
because he knows he will never have to get a real job.

This news is getting some play overseas but very little in America. It was never trending on Twitter as far as I can tell and Google is showing mostly results from overseas news outlets.


Little wonder, most American news outlets are terrified of saying anything that casts MLK in a bad light. Even "conservative" outlets like Breitbart and Fox News don't mention this new, specific information based on searching for "Martin Luther King" on their websites.

I am not in a position to cast stones when it comes to being a good husband but I am also not held up as a deity in our civic religion. Many people will still fawn over King based on his deification and refuse to consider who he really is. Many people can give a stirring speech. I can bring the thunder when speaking, not like King but still no slouch. I can talk convincingly about all sorts of stuff that I don't know anything about or don't even believe. It isn't that hard. Where you find the true measure of a man is not his soaring rhetoric but in his life away from the cameras and microphones. King dreamed of a nation where a man is judged by the content of his character. By that measure King is no hero. At a minimum he was a scoundrel who cheated on his wife with impunity and seemingly without remorse. A remorseful, repentant man doesn't keep cheating on his wife over and over. He was a hypocrite who talked about his faith openly and then ignored his faith behind closed doors, calling himself "Reverend" while using his position to convince women to perform sex acts to help their souls. He reportedly plagiarized others while a student, held borderline Marxist beliefs and was a heretic by any measure. There are no doubt hundreds and thousands of civil rights activists that were decent people but they get little notice, instead the adoration all goes to King and his cronies that have banked on his legend for decades.

Perhaps someday we will hear for ourselves what sort of man Martin Luther King Jr. was away from the microphones and cameras. I think when we do it will shatter a lot of people's visions of who he was but many will stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to see him for who he was. The civil rights movement today, whatever it started out as, is little more than a cash grab for minorities who have figured out how to monetize white guilt. As long as the money is flowing, there will be plenty of people eager to exploit King's fake legacy.

Friday, May 24, 2019

The Woke-inator

Way back in the day, 1984 to be exact, a film hit the theaters that would become one of the most iconic films of modern times. The Terminator, starring a young Arnold Schwarzenegger back when he could barely pronounce most English words, spawned a number of sequels, reboots and a TV show that was actually pretty good and thus was canceled. Millions of people have said "I'll be baaack" in imitation of Arnold. The sequel, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, was actually a much better film and the liquid terminator effects were amazing in 1991. I am one of the few that liked Terminator 3 and I even liked Terminator Salvation. Genisys was awful. In a better world, the series would stand as is and we could just enjoy the films. Even though the effects are really dated, I still enjoy watching the first two movies now and again. Of course we don't live in a better world, we live in this one where machines taking over and nuking humanity doesn't sound that terrible.

In the modern film era, there is no risk taking and no innovation. We get endless remakes of classic films, awful sequels and superhero movies. It is rare to see anything new or interesting. So naturally one of the most iconic film franchises ever is going to get a reboot, Terminator: Dark Fate, apparently picking up right after Terminator 2 and pretending none of the other films happened. We saw a screen still a while back....


Ruh roh.

Then the trailer was released. Double ruh roh.




Allow me to summarize:

You have a male Hispanic bad terminator.

You have a butch lesbian-looking female terminator.

You have the young Hispanic girl that is apparently the one being protected.

You have her Hispanic brother.

You have grrrl power Linda Hamilton, at 62 all buffed up to look more like her Terminator 2 character than her original Sarah Connor the waitress in the first movie.

You have a cameo from Arnold but I am guessing based on the still photos released that he won't be in it much.

Sarah Connor's son John, the designated savior of mankind and Sarah's love child with Kyle Reese, doesn't seem to be anywhere around based on the trailer and the cast list. Too white, too male.

The CGI also looks awful in the trailer and that is a bad sign.

Overall it looks like a combination of "how many explosions can we pack into a film?" and "can we form a central cast that has no white men?".

It isn't that I don't think non-white male actors should be in films. It is simply that it would be nice if films were specifically written for those actors. Even though Black Panther was not a terribly good movie that was massively overhyped, it was a mostly black cast playing characters that were understandably mostly black. It wasn't taking a Norse god, Heimdall, and casting Idris Alba to play him. Idris is a great actor in what I have seen him in, notably The Wire, but to pretend that you could have a black guy as the Norse god Heimdall is ridiculous. It would be like casting a Korean woman to play the Egyptian god Amun. The racial identity of Norse gods is not incidental to their character, it is their character. No one would cast Matthew McConaughey as T'Challa because that character is specifically black.

The idea of "representation" is a fairly new concept, although it is really just a rehashed grievance with a new name. The point is that any cultural expression needs to have sufficient "representation" of various identity groups. You need Asian representation, black representation, Hispanic representation, female representation, homosexual representation and so on. That is more important than being accurate and faithful to the storyline.

What I wonder is why the emphasis is not on these groups demanding "representation" writing material that they are naturally "represented" in. Using Black Panther again, there were very few white actors in that movie and the ones we saw were generally bad guys. That is fine and it makes perfect sense because the movie is about an African kingdom. I wouldn't want to see Japanese or Guatemalan actors because it wouldn't make sense. You wouldn't do a biopic of Shaka and cast a short Polish actor to play him.

Being a white male isn't the central point of The Terminator series but it is a story about Sarah Connor, a kind of meek white waitress, being forced to take on a new role to protect her son John. Sarah was written as a white woman. Her baby daddy Kyle is a white guy. Their child is a white kid. That is how the story was written by James Cameron. I would love to see a dystopian sci-fi show written specifically for black characters. It sometimes seems like "woke" Hollywood has so little faith in black characters that they are more comfortable hijacking an existing series and shoehorning a laundry list of diversity into the cast just for the sake of having non-white males in the lead roles.

Getting a part because of your race or gender isn't justice or representation. It is pandering. Terminator: Dark Fate probably will make a bunch of money at the box office riding on the name recognition but I would be willing to bet now it is going to be a terrible movie.

The Soft Bigotry Of Inconsistent Standards

My twitter suspension continues. My appeal was apparently just flat out ignored so I deleted the offending tweet and twitter decided to restart the 7 day suspension clock. So now I will end up suspended for like a week and a half. I may or may not be tweeting under a super clever pseudonym temporarily but this repression is going to make Mandela look like a chump.


Meanwhile, twitter seems to have a very different standard for women and "people of color". A tweet like this one is apparently just fine.



There are tons of examples like this. Obviously if I tweeted something like "I hate black people with every fiber in my body", it would not only not be true, it would get me permanently banned from twitter

I can only assume that women in general and colored women women of color are treated to a separate and much lower standard by twitter because twitter believes they lack the self-control to be civil. The poor dears just can't help but say outlandish and overtly racist stuff.

But I'm the racist that needs to be censored.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Size Matters...But Only To A Point

Commander Zero has a handy flowchart for those worried about their 9mm being big enough to stop an assailant.



Very succinct and accurate.

The interwebz are full of "experts", many who have never shot a gun in anger (nor have I and hope I never have to) but are convinced that only their favorite caliber is adequate. For some .40 is the bare minimum, for others it is .45. There are no doubt some people out there insisting that anything smaller than a .454 Casull is a guarantee of an early grave. It is mostly a load of crap.

While a .22 or .25 probably will kill someone eventually, they aren't going to do it quickly and a wounded assailant is still dangerous. If they are shooting at you, you want them to stop shooting at you. I am not a sure enough shot to try to hit someone in the head with a .22 under duress, so you really need something with more oomph. Sure a .45 will leave a fist sized hole going out and that ends any altercation, but smaller calibers like 9mm or even .380 using a decent ammunition will also kill someone quickly. There are lots of factors besides "how big a hole does it leave?". Can you carry it comfortably? Are you confident in your shooting ability? Is the recoil going to make you flinch and make it very hard to accurately get off a second or third shot? If you watch some videos, you can see shootouts between cops and bad guys where they both blaze away at each and no one gets hit. Cops train extensively to shoot but under duress it is easy to miss even at short range, especially so with the shorter barreled pistols most people are carrying. If your first shot with a .45 goes awry, you have to refocus and get the next shot off. With the minimal recoil of a .380 that is a lot easier to do. Maybe you train enough to feel like you can get the second or third shot off with a .45 or .44, or perhaps you are just a badass. That is fine but in a stressful situation, having a gun you are comfortable shooting that you can fire multiple times accurately and rapidly is critical.

As always, the best caliber gun is the gun you are actually carrying. If you are going to carry, get something you are comfortable shooting and get good at it. That will solve 99.9% of the possible scenarios you might run into. Let others worry about using a cannon to boost their ego.

A Mass Shooting Near A College And Crickets From The Media

Whenever there is a shooting at a school or university, the media goes crazy. Well, it goes crazy as long as the shooter(s) fit the desired profile. When the perpetrators are the wrong sort of characters for the media? It doesn't get much attention, like the recent school shooting in Colorado featuring a girl (Maya McKinney) who thinks she is a boy, and her father Jose Evis Quintana is a Mexican illegal alien who has been deported twice, and Devon Erickson, a homosexual 18 year old registered Democrat who hated Christians and Trump and appeared in court with his hair dyed purple. He looks like he is going to have a swell time in the state penitentiary. What is the going exchange rate of cigarettes for scrawny white homos in the state pen? What appears to be his car had a pentagram and "666" spray-painted on it.


At a memorial service for the slain student, Kendrick Castillo, the event turned into a political rally by gun control advocates and hundreds of students walked out, furious that the memorial was being turned into a photo op for gun-grabbers. I wonder if that girl Maya, who thinks she is a boy, will demand to be incarcerated in the male prison? That would be a barrel of laughs, I am guessing her "transitioning" is going to be magically put on hold.

A mentally ill "trans" girl with the twice deported illegal alien father and a homo Democrat who hated Christians shooting up a school isn't going to get any new guns laws passed, so as you would expect, this story went down the memory hole.

The same seems to be happening here in Indiana with a mass shooting in Muncie, very close to the campus of Ball State. We are told over and over that "mass shootings" are an exclusively white male thing even though shootings that are classified as "mass shootings" are actually predominantly carried out by a certain demographic (see this short vid from Colin Flaherty debunking that narrative). When I first saw the story, I was clued in to what was actually going on and that it wouldn't get much attention because it was described as a shooting at a "house party". House party is code for a party where the partygoers are vibrantly diverse, in the same way that any story where you read about "teens" rampaging is telling you that the "teens" in question are part of a specific demographic. The shooting in Muncie was exactly what you would expect.

Seven people were shot in the incident. That makes it a mass shooting by the accepted measure. One young man died, 17 year old Daymarr Kennedy. The alleged shooter has been arrested, 19 year old VaShaun Harnett. The deceased young man, who again was a 17 year old minor, has a Facebook page (still up at this point), that includes this profile picture:



A 17 year old posing blowing smoke with a pistol in his waistband (always a smart way to carry a gun). His profile includes a picture of a blue bandana, which was the sign of the L.A. gang the "Crips", as well as multiple pictures of him making gang signs, his middle finger raised or making a pistol gesture at the camera with his fingers. Looking through his posts and the posts of his friends is a journey through bizzaro land. One of his friends is lamenting that he can't believe he is gone. What did you expect was going to be the end result of a 17 year old posing with guns and making gang signs on social media? One picture of him flashing gang signs led to a string of illiterate comments including a black guy who looks to be in his 30s threating Daymarr, who was 16 at the time, and Daymarr threatening to kill him and friends of Daymarr posting stuff like this:



Again, what did his friends think was going to happen in his life? He was going to become a doctor or an engineer? He was headed for a lifetime in jail or an early grave. Reports from the news indicates that Daymarr and his alleged killer had a long running beef that finally boiled over at this party. For all of his tough guy poses with the guns and gang signs, now he is dead at 17. His life was probably never going to end any other way, either with Daymarr dead or him in and out of jail until he killed someone.

His alleged killer VaShaun Harnett has perfected the "Imma bad ass" mugshot pose:


Wow, what a total bad-ass! Nothing tells the world what a tough guy you are quite like being a 19 year old who shot 7 people (nice shooting Tex), one is dead and one is in pretty bad shape and might die. So this fella is looking, at a minimum, of one count of murder, six counts assault with a deadly weapon and/or attempted murder, using a handgun which was certainly illegal in the commission of crime, plus who knows what else. Bonus, even though he murdered a minor, he is an adult so he is looking at a possible death sentence or "best" case scenario the better part of the rest of his life in prison. Just another day in America. Rinse. Repeat.

I spent a little time wandering around the friends and friends-of-friends of the accused killer and the victim using the wife's Facebook account. It was a dystopian social media nightmare. The level of sheer degeneracy, idiocy and dysgenic breeding was grotesque. All of the males seemed like wannabe gangsters of some sort, all of the girls looked like they were still in high school, used atrocious grammar and language and a significant chunk of them had already been knocked up once. Many of the girlfriends were apparently white but their posting were scattered with attempts to sound ghetto with lots of the use of "nigga", which I thought was a no-no for white girls.

As I started out with, this sort of "mass shooting" never gets much attention. Seven people were shot, one is dead (a 17 year old), one is in critical condition. The national news paid no attention. Had this been a 19 year old white kid who shot 7 people at a school, it would be all over the national media for days on end. Speeches would be made. Legislation would be demanded from that little twerp David Hogg as he continues to bank on the murder of his classmates. We would be asked to have a "national conversation". When a VaShaun murders a Daymarr, it just isn't very interesting to the media. The local Indiana media covers it for a short time, only because it happened fairly close to Ball State, but otherwise it is just another black-on-black shooting, just the latest in the endless killing that makes up over 50% of all murders in the U.S. committed by a small percentage of the population. No one cares about that or the wreckage these killings leave behind at enormous social cost. If I am interpreting the Facebook grammatical wreckage correctly, it looks like Daymarr's girlfriend is pregnant. Now the baby daddy is dead.

Yet another reminder that the media lies to you. It lies through omission of stories and facts. It lies by emphasizing some news at the expense of other news to advance an agenda. Sometimes it just outright lies to you. Nothing you hear is trustworthy, every bit of news you get is twisted and turned and spun for the advantages of someone else.

When you understand this, you start to question everything you have been told. When you start to ask questions, you begin to see what is really going on.

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Day Three In Twitter Gulag

While Twitter was able to decide I was engaged in hate speech hours after a post and suspend my account almost immediately, my appeal is on day three and still no word. I assume they will reject my appeal but in the meantime as a punishment for suggesting that I was wrongly suspended for a "racist" reply to an overtly racist post, I am not allowed to even look at twitter dot com until some degenerate at Twitter HQ decides to deny my appeal. Nelson Mandela and MLK got nothing on me when it comes to being jailed for political speech.


Monday, May 20, 2019

Being A Nice Guy

This weekend Vice President Mike Pence spoke at the commencement for Taylor University. Taylor is a Christian school in my home state of Indiana and is pretty open about their commitment to Biblical principles. How well they adhere to that is not my business and I am not really sure but it is a defining characteristic of the school and that characteristic shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that chooses Taylor as their college out of all of the college choices in Indiana.

Mike Pence is the Vice President of the United States. He is the former Governor of the state of Indiana. He served in the United States Congress representing the people of his district in the House of Representatives. He was born in Indiana, went to college in Indiana and then law school in Indiana. He turns 60 next month and has spent virtually all of his life here in the Hoosier state apart from his tenure as Vice President starting in January of 2017. So he is the quintessential Hoosier.

More pertinent, he is also very outspoken about his Christian faith. It is his faith and the fact that he takes it seriously that causes such backlash from leftists. Pence specifically takes unpopular stances on issues of homosexuality and that simply cannot be allowed. Even though he is the nicest guy around, he is the bogeyman of the homosexual left. Peter Buttpirate, the sodomite mayor of South Bend, Indiana and media darling Democratic presidential candidate, has been waging a one sided "feud" with Pence, who has never said much of anything about Buttplug. Pence is the convenient piƱata of the left to whip up their followers. To hear them talk about Pence, he is only moments away from rounding up the gays and sending them to concentration camps.

You wouldn't expect Pence to get invited to speak at Smith College or Evergreen or some other bastion of liberalism and homosexuality. Taylor on the other hand seems exactly the sort of place that Pence would be invited to speak, an openly and avowedly evangelical college in Pence's home of Indiana. That shouldn't be controversial but this is 2019 and everything is controversial. Right on cue, during the commencement speech a couple dozen graduates walked out before Pence spoke. They were hella mad because Pence is mean to the gays.

Laura Rathburn was one of the dozens to walk out, disappointed that the school's administration picked Pence to address her class. Rathburn decorated the top of her mortarboard in rainbow colors and added a message on top that said, "Ally Visible For Those Who Can't Be.” 

“I think his presence makes it difficult for everyone at Taylor to feel welcomed,” she said.

The handful of students got a ton of attention from the press that loves to take shots at Pence and especially in the case of the Indy Star loves to push Peter Buttpirate as a serious candidate, even though his qualifications amount to a) mayor of the 4th largest city in Indiana and b) gets sodomized by another man. This photo ran on the Indy Star story.


Is there any group in America that is more visible, painfully and irritatingly so, than homosexuals? You have to be delusional to think they are not "visible". More importantly, Taylor has a pretty clear stance on the issue of the gays. On their "Distinctions & Beliefs" page, Taylor takes a clear stand in favor of the traditional Christian understanding of human sexuality and describes homosexual behavior alongside other sexually deviant behavior like fornication, adultery, pedophilia, prostitution and incest. It has always been the Christian understanding that homosexuality is a perversion no different than being a pedophile or engaging in bestiality and Taylor specifically affirms this...

The biblical design for human sexuality demands sexual faithfulness for married couples (Exod. 20:14; 1 Cor. 6:13-20) and chastity for those who are single (1 Thess. 4:3-8). All premarital and extra-marital sexual activity (e.g., fornication, adultery, incest, prostitution, homosexual behavior, and all sexual activity involving children) is immoral. And all use or involvement with pornographic materials is sinful, as are all forms of sexual abuse, exploitation, and harassment (1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10).

There is absolutely nothing vague or unclear about this. It isn't hidden, it is right on their website. If you don't agree, then you can go to a different college. We have lots of them in Indiana where sexual perversion is celebrated. Taylor just isn't one of them.

It isn't like Taylor invited someone like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton who clearly are not Christians in any sense of the word. Pence is a pretty standard issue generic evangelical Christian, the same kind of Christian that sends their kid to Taylor because it is supposed to be a Christian school. Parents and students choose Taylor and Liberty and other schools like these specifically because they affirm traditional Christian teaching and there isn't anything much more clearly taught in Christianity than the sinful and disordered nature of homosexuality. If you realize this and decide to go to Taylor anyway, then at least have the courtesy of keeping your yap shut about it, just like you don't go to a Jewish or Islamic school and start demanding they serve bacon in the school cafeteria. But for some reason young leftists, especially homos, have made it their mission to seek out people that don't buy into their fetish and demand that they submit to and wildly celebrate their deviancy.

Pence is proof that it doesn't matter how hard you try to be nice and polite to these people. They still hate you. To be more specific and this is an important point:

They don't hate you because of anything you have done, they hate you simply for what you are.

Mike Pence epitomizes what the Left hates. He is a decent Midwestern man, mocked for never being alone with a woman other than his wife. He is white. He is heterosexual. He is unapologetically Christian and his faith informs his politics, just as what is important to every other person informs their politics. When you combine that all together, you create the ultimate boogeyman for the Left and they hate him even more than they hate Trump. Trump's big flaws, he is rude and egotistical and narcissistic, are things they loved about Obama. Pence on the other hand is hated because he appears to be genuine and committed to everything they hate.

You can't placate these people, you can never be kind enough or courteous enough, you can never be sufficiently fair in your dealing with them, to make them not hate you because they hate your very existence and they want to see you dead. Sure we should be kind and generous and polite because it is the right thing to do but never make the mistake of thinking that you can defeat this enemy by being the nicer guy. The old saying is true, nice guys finish last and finishing last in this contest means extinction.

Sunday, May 19, 2019

Civilization Ex nihilo

A powerful video from The Last White Man, the reborn video channel formerly known as VertigoPolitix.

The basic gist is this: people that have proven over the course of millennium that they are incapable of creating functional societies cannot be absorbed into existing civilizations and sustain them. Replacing Germans and Frenchmen with Somalis and Eritreans is not going to result in a more diverse Europe, it will simply result in Somalia and Eritrea with snow.

Watch and learn.


A Scene From America's Glorious Multicultural Future

So this happened right here in the Hoosier state this weekend:

Indiana State Trooper's car hit by impaired driver while arresting another impaired driver

The story is pretty much what you would expect, the trooper had a car pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. While he was finishing up the arrest, the trooper's car was struck by a different vehicle. He went to check on the other car and the driver hit the gas to try to get away but was stuck and couldn't move. The driver of that car was also arrested. So a DUI twofer!

The first driver got charged with the following: Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) .15% B.A.C, OWI Endangerment, OWI per se, Driving While Suspended Infraction and Speeding

The second driver got this: OWI Endangerment, OWI with a B.A.C. over .08%, and Failure to Yield to Stationary Emergency Vehicle

What I found amusing about this were the players.

The arresting officer's name is Ala’a Hamed. He seems like a decent guy, there is another story about him saving the life of a motorist who had a heart attack and he talks like anyone from Indiana but he is pretty clearly Middle Eastern of some sort.

The first driver stopped is Mario Rodriguez, operating a vehicle while intoxicated and with his license suspended.

The second driver is Ashley Brown, from Hammond, IN. I looked around and was not surprised to see her mugshot:



So we have a Middle Eastern cop pulling over a drunk Hispanic guy and then having his car hit by a drunk black woman. It sounds the beginning of a bad joke.

Our new America is gonna be lit!

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Oops I Did It Again (Twitter Version)

With apologies to Britney Spears.

It appears I have angered some purple-haired gender-fluid freak sitting in a tiny cubicle in the bowels of Twitter HQ for another example of "hate speech". I was suspended for 7 days this time, so I appealed the suspension which will no doubt  be rejected but in the meantime they punish you even further for your failure to submit by not even allowing you to view Twitter. At the same time my other accounts were magically locked for "suspicious" activity, until I had a text sent to my phone. What was my ThoughtCrime this time you may wonder?

First, here is the tweet I was responding to (one of hundreds or thousands like this twitter permits everyday)



Please note the sweeping generalization that demonizes an entire race of people, as well as committing a crime against history because without white men there wouldn't be a nation here, nor would we have things like the internet and twitter in the first place.

Blackness Everdeen is an example of cultural appropriation, using the name of a female white character from "The Hunger Games", Katniss Everdeen, who is the creation of a white female author, Suzanne Collins. So obviously using her character's name in that way is racist. This person is a pretty typical of the inexplicably self-confident youngish black woman on Twitter.


Black Lives Matter, no wall (even though illegal alien labor hurts blacks more than white, they don't care because "muh shared enemy whitey"), resist, etc. In general her tweets are inane and she seems to spend a lot of time a) reporting people who respond to her or replying back with juvenile insults and completely dumb gifs and b) reporting anyone that replies with anything other than guilty white groveling and self-loathing.

Even though I know better, I replied back to her. Again this is a waste of time. People like this are incapable of critical thought and unable to respond to anyone with any substance more serious than making incest jokes. But I did it anyway, here is the response in question:


That is a completely verifiable fact. The majority of violent crime in this country is committed by black men. When you add in Hispanics, Middle Easterners and various other non-white men, what you find is that white men are wildly underrepresented when it comes to violent crime. So what exactly is wrong with this statement? Also whites are the majority in this nation (seeing as how we built it) so if she thinks white men are such a danger, there is nothing to stop her from moving somewhere with no white men. Problem solved. Plus we won't miss her. What exactly is she proposing we do about this "white man" problem? If they are such a threat, is she talking about rounding us up and putting us in concentration camps? Deporting us to Estonia? Just killing us off? This rhetoric from her is not only racially charged, it contains an implied threat. Twitter of course will see it as perfectly fine.

It is pretty clear that twitter is mass suspending anyone that replies back to her tweets while leaving her tweet and others like it untouched. She spews nonsense about white men being a threat to the nation that they created and yammers about "white fragility" and her account is untouched (I did report this tweet on another account, undoubtedly in vain).

No surprise here. I know Twitter is hostile territory where people on the Right are regularly suspended for little or no reason while imbeciles and racialist grifters on the Left are unmolested. I also know that social media like Twitter, Facebook, etc. is the equivalent of the town square in our national discourse and that they are cracking down on dissident thought. Trump has made noise about this in the past but done nothing about it. People on the right are systematically being shut out of the public discourse, leaving only the approved Conservative Inc.™ controlled opposition "conservatives" (Ben Shapiro). The inability to engage in the marketplace (and I know that trolling low IQ idiots is not really engagement) is going to make the already challenging task of getting a Right-wing message out to the swayable normies.

I know the "libertarian" argument. "Private companies" can do whatever they want! Do you want the government to control private companies?! Are you some kind of libtard socialist?!?!?!?!

That is swell in a discussion online but in the real world we don't live in a free market. Twitter and Facebook have near monopolistic control over the social media marketplace. Those who try to break into the market are attacked in ways that would make the old robber barons proud. The attempts by Gab to create an alternative platform have been instructive. Gab has been repeatedly shut out of app stores and since only a handful of companies control the apps on smart phones, that is hard to overcome. Gab has been booted by their web server multiple times for bogus reasons. The have had a ton of problems with payment processors. Andrew Torba keeps punching back and is making some real breakthroughs but the truth is that social media companies, banking conglomerates, tech groups and the government itself are working in concert to suppress right-wing speech. Tell me more about this free market thing.

This is another example of conservatives and libertarians surrendering the fight by agreeing to rules that the other side ignores with impunity. That is a recipe to keep losing and your "principles" won't feed your family or keep you warm in the gulag (see: Fighting In A Cage Using The Queensberry Rules for more on this).

The first time I was suspended on Twitter, (for calling Kirsten Powers of USA Today a bimbo, something I stand by because she isn't very smart at all but she is kind of pretty, and everyone knows she wouldn't have a job like this if she were ugly. See also Tomi Lahren) I was kind of mad about it because what I said was pretty tame. Now I just take it as part of the cost of doing business in our world. I don't hide my identity at this point and I don't pull punches. That means I am going to get suppressed by the fruitcakes at twitter and at some point my account will just go away, something I am already planning on.

This can be tiring but we can't rest or throw our hands in the air in frustration and quit. The other side will never quit. This is their religion, the whole reason for their existence and the only goal they have is total victory. If you aren't a black transvestite illegal alien Muslim, you are not going to like living in the world they want to create.

Listen, and understand! The boxed wine drinking cat lady lesbian is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop... ever, until you are dead!




Friday, May 17, 2019

More On The College Board's "Not A Racial Preference" Racial Preference

I posted yesterday about the College Board's decision to add an "adversity score" to applicants as a end-around race-based affirmative action scheme, It Isn't Race Based Admissions If You Call It Something Else. I saw that Heather Mac Donald over at City-Journal wrote about it as well and did a better job of it. Her post titled Grievance Proxies has the following sub-heading: The College Board plans to introduce a new “adversity score” as a backdoor to racial quotas in college admissions. Here is the critical snippet:

Advocates of this change claim that it is not about race. That is a fiction. In fact, the SAT adversity score is simply the latest response on the part of mainstream institutions to the seeming intractability of the racial academic-achievement gap. If that gap did not exist, the entire discourse about “diversity” would evaporate overnight. The average white score on the SAT (1,123 out of a possible 1,600) is 177 points higher than the average black score (946), approximately a standard deviation of difference. This gap has persisted for decades. It is not explained by socioeconomic disparities. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education reported in 1998 that white students from households with incomes of $10,000 or less score better on the SAT than black students from households with incomes of $80,000 to $100,000. In 2015, students with family incomes of $20,000 or less (a category that includes all racial groups) scored higher on average on the math SAT than the average math score of black students from all income levels. The University of California has calculated that race predicts SAT scores better than class.

That is kind of a lot of data but the general gist is that black performance is not tied to affluence and poor students across all races did better on the SAT than black of all income levels. In other words, the issue here is not "income inequality" and the adversity score is intended to shoehorn underperforming black students into schools at the expense of better qualified white and Asian students.

She also points out the elephant in the room, that Asians score much better than whites and drastically better than blacks even though many of them are relatively poor immigrants. Asians also have a shorted history in America and still have leapfrogged other minorities in terms of performance.

So the problem is not what the advocates of the "adversity score" are saying it is and the "solution" won't change income inequality, it will just serve to increase the number of black students in college at the expense of white and Asian students.

Heather also points out another significant issue, specifically that this process tends to be a dysgenic selection. Families that play by the rules and follow the path that leads to stable families are punished in favor of families that don't. The more screwed up your family, the better your odds of getting into an elite college!

The College Board’s adversity score will give students a boost for coming from a high-crime, high-poverty school and neighborhood, according to the Wall Street Journal. Being raised by a single parent will also be a plus factor. Such a scheme penalizes the bourgeois values that make for individual and community success.

The "adversity score" is just the latest attempt to level the disparity field by assuming that the only reason some students do better than others is that they come from "privilege". Heather's solution is pretty generic conservative speak: work hard in school, don't worry about being told you are acting white and have parents that get married and stay married. That would all help a ton but it won't get to the root issue. The performance on SATs by race mirrors pretty closely IQ by race. There is a certain amount of inherent, genetically inherited natural intellectual ability that no program or changes in culture will fix. As the son of a doctor in an intact family, I had all sorts of advantages in school. Just by being exceptionally intelligent I was able to sleepwalk through school, including college with minimal effort.

When it came to football though, genetics had the opposite effect. In high school I was significantly shorter than average, had a hard time putting on weight so I was lucky to tip the scales at 125 even though I was strong for my size and while I was in great shape and could run forever, I wasn't especially quick over short distances. All the work and effort in the world wasn't going to make up for the fact that trying to tackle a running back that was taller than me, quicker than me and outweighed me by 90 pounds almost always ended badly on my end. No one has an issue with me saying that and everyone would agree. Likewise no one worries about black athletes being wildly overrepresented in the NFL and NBA, especially at certain positions in the NFL like running backs, wideouts and d-backs. Raw, inherent athletic ability in certain sports is fine but when you start talking about raw, inherent intelligence as a measure of ability academically? That is how you get banned from social media and lose your job if you are an academic, so most of them just don't talk about it.

Biological reality is what it is but we are moving rapidly away from even the pretense of looking at the facts and evidence to make decisions. The results are what you would expect and only getting worse.

Thursday, May 16, 2019

You Want Free Markets And Limited Government? Dracarys!

I don't care for Turning Point USA but this is pretty spot on and culturally timely. 


It Isn't Race Based Admissions If You Call It Something Else

The College Board, the company that administers the SAT test most college bound students take as part of the admissions process, has found a new way to give racial preferences that punish white and Asian students while promoting black and Hispanic students:

SAT to give students adversity scores to capture social and economic background

There is a lot of push-back on "affirmative action" and Asian students are suing Harvard claiming to have been discriminated against based on their race, with more qualified Asian students being passed over for less qualified black and Hispanic students. This is a way to get around overt racial selection by calling it something else. The goal is quite overt, namely changing the demographics of incoming freshmen classes to pump up the number of non-white and Asian students.

The College Board, the New York based nonprofit that oversees the SAT, said it has worried about income inequality influencing test results for years. White students scored an average of 177 points higher than black students and 133 points higher than Hispanic students in 2018 results. Asian students scored 100 points higher than white students. The children of wealthy and college-educated parents outperformed their classmates.

The assumption in the above quote is that "income inequality" and race are somehow disadvantaging black and Hispanic students relative to white and Asian students. Not mentioned is that perhaps white and Asian students are simply more intelligent on average. The goal is simply to pack classrooms with more non-white and Asian students because "diversity" is universally a positive. I found this line to be especially ominous:

An adversity score of 50 is average. Anything above it designates hardship, below it privilege.

So if someone is deemed to be "privileged", a word that is almost always linked to being white, it sounds like that would actually hurt your chances of getting in. Not just providing a boost to minority students but putting the boot to white and Asian students.

What this means is that if you follow the American dream, work hard and become successful, your children will be punished by losing spots at elite universities in favor of less qualified students because you are too successful and therefore your kids are "privileged". It is like the NFL draft where the worse you perform in the prior season, the better your draft position which leads to "parity", aka mediocrity. That makes sense for a sports league, not so much for a society.

Nowhere is it questioned whether this makes sense or not. The goal is a numbers game: more black and Hispanic students is an unqualified good.

At Florida State University, the adversity scores helped the school boost nonwhite enrollment to 42% from 37% in the incoming freshman class, said John Barnhill, assistant vice president for academic affairs at Florida State University. He said he expects pushback from parents whose children go to well-to-do high schools as well as guidance counselors there.

“If I am going to make room for more of the [poor and minority] students we want to admit and I have a finite number of spaces, then someone has to suffer and that will be privileged kids on the bubble,” he said.

Someone will suffer and that will be privileged kids on the bubble. This is nothing other than de facto racial preferences. The goal is to keep changing the rules to get non-white and Asian students in and to punish white and Asian students for being successful.

What is worse, this isn't even helping black students. Black college students already have abysmal graduation rates and general college performance, so adding even more black students is just setting up more young black adults to not graduate and end up with a bunch of debt and wasting years they could be learning job skills. I posted this story about a year ago with an important graph, Participation Ribbon Egalitarianism Has No Place In Education.

For white students, only 3 out of 5 have completed their degree six years after starting, which of course means that almost 40% of students start school and likely never complete a degree, and many of them have nothing to show for it other than student loan debt. No one lists on their resume "Completed 4 semesters of college". For black students it is even worse with 3 out of 5 students failing to complete their degree in six years, and if you haven't completed a degree in six years the odds are you never will. Schools like the University of Michigan have a staff of almost 100 and spend $11 million a year in their "diversity office" but in the case of blacks the majority of them attending college don't graduate.

What this tells us is that there are already too many kids going to college and there are especially too many under-prepared or simply unqualified black kids going to college. They get in and then they don't complete their university education. That isn't helping anyone except diversity officers and admissions officials at colleges who can brag to their colleagues about their highly diverse incoming freshman class.

The dirty secret of college is that we have too many kids going to school in the first place. There is a lot of talk about that issue. The really naughty secret that we are not allowed to even discuss is that we are admitting too many unqualified and ill-prepared students that are disproportionately black and Hispanic.

If we want to tackle "privilege" and "income inequality" we should be having a serious conversation about the best way for black and Hispanic students to move out of generational poverty and into the middle class. Learning a trade worked for white Americans for many years. Going into a 4 year degree program that you won't graduate from is doing more harm than good. Part of being a dissident in this political world is accepting reality, and dealing with issues as they really are rather than what we wish they would be. Unfortunately as the College Board is demonstrating, most of our "elites" still stubbornly dwell in a fantasy world and we all suffer for their delusions.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

The Golden Age Of Gun Buying

There is no more stark distinction between the two Americas than what you find on the issue of guns. In leftist dominated states like Washington and New Jersey, the state government is ceaselessly trying to find new ways to restrict firearms ownership. Other states like mine continue to expand opportunities to own guns, carry concealed and other gun-friendly laws (Indiana just expanded the legal protections afforded to someone using a firearm in self-defense).

For example, according to USCCA, my home state of Indiana has one of the highest percentages of concealed carry permits in the U.S. at 13% of the population.

Even that underestimates the percentage. Around 24% of Hoosiers are under 18 so of the 6.7 million Indiana residents, only about 5.1 million are adults and eligible to carry. That works out to 17% of Hoosier adults possessing a concealed carry permit. Utah is even higher at 22.5% of the population licensed to carry concealed. Contrast that with New Jersey....

It is all but impossible to legally carry a concealed weapon in New Jersey without an urgent reason that the government accepts. Even The Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts has over 5% of the population with a carry permit.

Where this is less obvious is in firearms sales. It is a safe estimate that there are at least 400,000,000 firearms privately owned in the U.S., more than one per person. Most of the places I have lived it was safe to assume that the vast majority of my neighbors owned at least one gun, even if just a hunting rifle.

Meanwhile most Democrats running for their party's nomination to oppose Trump are yammering about gun control and are especially excited to use "executive orders" to ban guns. Kamala "Kneepads" Harris said yesterday in New Hampshire that she would "take executive action banning the importation of AR-15-style assault weapons". I guess no one told her that the vast majority of AR platforms are made right here in America. Fellow Democrat Cory Booker, also trailing far behind the two frontrunners in the race, is proposing sweeping laws including requiring an FBI background check before you are issued a license that allows you to buy firearms for five years at a time but also to even possess a firearm:

The core of the New Jersey senator’s proposal is a federal gun-licensing program that would require, among other things, a comprehensive FBI background check and proof of completion of a gun-safety course. After a license is approved, holders “could freely purchase and own firearms” for the five-year duration of their license, “with regular, automatic checks to flag non-compliance with license terms” and the possibility of renewal.

So every five years you would have to submit to a "comprehensive" FBI background check, whatever that means, in order to be permitted to exercise your Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. Given that there are tens of millions, maybe in excess of one hundred million, gun owners in America, how exactly is the FBI going to manage all of these background checks for tens of millions of people every five years? The FBI has 35,000 employees. So if you have 50 million gun owners, even spread out over a rolling five years, that is 10 million background checks per year. That is 285 "comprehensive" background checks per FBI employee. There are 260 weekdays in a normal year, so every single FBI employee would have to complete more than one "comprehensive" background check every single working day. That doesn't leave much time for instigating any actual crimes. Do we want the nation's premier law enforcement agency primarily focused on snooping in the lives of law abiding citizens so those citizens can own a deer rifle they shoot 4-5 times a year rather than working on kidnapping, bank robbery and terrorism? Democrats apparently would say yes.

While Democrats are talking about taking guns away from law abiding citizens, those same citizens have access to purchase guns in a dizzying array for incredible prices. You can buy a Ruger AR-556, their AR-15 platform, for under $500. There are dozens and dozens of great quality, high capacity 9mm handguns available for under $400. A Maverick 12 gauge that hold 7 shells in the magazine plus one in the chamber is just over $200. Bolt action rifles in .308, 30-06 and 6.5 Creedmor, rifles capable of hitting accurately and lethally out several hundred yards, or much more for an experienced shooter, are only $300 and you can add optics for only a little more. Better yet, you can buy online and get the best price and have almost any gun shipped to a local FFL dealer for a minimal charge. You want a semi-automatic version of the M249 SAW machine gun? Yep. How about a .50 Barrett sniper rifle? Yep. Ammunition is a little expensive to ship but if you buy in bulk you can get crazy deals on ammo, especially common rounds like .223 and 9mm. With outfits like Palmetto State Armory selling the components to build your own AR-15 and 3D printing getting better and better, there are an increasing number of untraceable firearms that are not on record with the government.

What I am getting at is that most gun control advocates in government and other public platforms have no clue of the sheer volume of firearms and ammunition flowing into the hands of private citizens every day. Getting quality firearms is easier and less expensive than it has ever been in my lifetime. When the ban on high capacity magazines was temporarily overturned in California (hopefully soon to be permanently overturned by SCOTUS), online retailers sold a huge number of "high capacity" magazines to California residents. Some reports say that more than a million high capacity magazines went into California in just a few days. The online retailers I follow were actively marketing to those buyers and offering special deals. At the same time, in places like New Jersey where high capacity magazines are supposed to be destroyed or turned in, it looks like no one is doing so. The same is true with bump stocks. People simply are refusing to comply. When you try to do the same thing on a nationwide scale, what do you suppose is going to happen? People like me that lost all of our firearms in a tragic boating accident don't need to worry but those who still own guns simply won't comply. Will Democrats turn the entire already overwhelmed law enforcement apparatus of America to the task of kicking down doors of law abiding citizens instead of pursuing actual criminals? If you like the idea of seeing nightly news reports of shoot-outs between cops and gun owners on the news every night, basically Ruby Ridge repeated all across the country every day, then voting for Democrats is the way to go.

With a year and a half until the election, gun sales are pretty brisk. If it looks like that Trump will lose? Watch the floodgates open. Smart people are already planning as if Trump will lose to beat the rush and there is no better time in modern history to do so than the times we are living in right now.

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Putting The "Eeeee!!!!" In Ebola

Not to be alarmist....

Stolen from WRSA: https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com

....but there is more news on the Congo ebola epidemic. Spoiler alert, it isn't good news.

Aesop at Raconteur Report has an update on the Ebola Outbreak Is Definitely Not A Crisis™ situation in the Congo: I Dun Tole Ya.... It is really pretty shocking that it hasn't jumped yet. The capitol of the Congo is Kinshasha with an estimated population of over 11 million. Look at the city on satellite on Google maps sometime, and look at 11 million people crammed together like sardines. Then reread Aesop's post and think about 11 million people smooshed together and a disease that spreads by sneezing and coughing. The main airport in Kinshasha, N'djili Airport, services three quarter of a million people per year. Just one infected person hopping on a flight to Heathrow and then sneezing in the concourse could spread the disease to dozens of other counties. Then look around at some of the other nearby nations and cities like Nairobi in Kenya. It seems like only a matter of time until it escapes containment.

But hey, it probably won't happen. I wonder who won the sportsball event last night?

We Got What We Wanted, Why Does Everything Suck?

It has been a recurring theme for me that feminism has promised women for decades that if they adopt feminist positions and make them a reality, then the lives of women will magically get better. But they keep winning and yet women keep getting more and more miserable. The solution is never to step back and ask if feminism actually works, it is to insist that what we need is just more feminism. So they get more feminism, women become more miserable and the answer is always the same.

The Zman had a recent post that made me do some noodling. Titled The End Of The Road, he ponders the idea that the West has won and it is all easy street from here, a common school of thought following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The West won the Cold War, before that liberal democracy vanquished fascism and imperialism in World War II. What we thought were "our values" were ascendant and we were victorious. Today in 2019 that victory is starting to look a little hollow. Z says....

The West is noticeably less free today than it was thirty years ago. The ruling class is rushing to close off political debate and free expression. In the name of democracy elites are sending gangs of thugs to harass and assault people exercising their democratic rights. In the name of capitalism, a narrowing group of oligarchs are exercising control over large swaths of the economy. The surveillance state is reaching levels unimaginable thirty years ago.

In the shadow of this growing authoritarianism sits the political and cognitive elite, unable to come to terms with what is happening. What is remarkable about the current age is the public debate, the officially permitted one, at least, is irrelevant to what is actually happening in the world. Three years on and the American media is still talking about invisible gremlins supposedly hypnotizing voters in the 2016 elections. Meanwhile, millions of barbarians pour over the southern border and the public space collapses.

Who would have predicted that 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Evil Empire (and it was evil) that we would be seeing freedom evaporating everywhere we look and the people who made the world safe for democracy would be losing that democracy and actively being replaced? I mean, we won! Not only did we win but our victory made the world better for almost everyone. Global poverty is drastically reduced. Life expectancy is up. More people are free and have elections than ever before. This is the golden age of raw consumerism, you can buy anything under the sun and have it delivered to your door, usually for free and often within two days. We have endless entertainment.

Meanwhile people are depressed and killing themselves with alarming regularity.

My working theory is that most people in America are just aimlessly walking through life. They have no purpose, neither individually or collectively. The only people who seem to have a purpose are the Communists and they are trying to destroy America, not lead her back to greatness. There is no frontier to tame, no continent to settle. We did the moon landing and we are getting too stupid to go back, much less go to Mars. The Soviets are vanquished and in spite of desperately trying to find a new supervillain or fighting whichever next Most Dangerous Nation Ever™ that Israel tells us to, there simply isn't a realistic enemy to fight.

What exactly is our purpose other than paying taxes and buying stuff? This is what "winning" feels like? We fought the World War and won the Cold War, making the world safe for democracy, so we can be scolded for our civilization and be forced to bow down before whatever sexual degenerates they decide to parade in front of us?

We are starting to wonder if winning is all it is cracked up to be.

Sunday, May 12, 2019

The Impossibility Of Satire In Clown World

How can you have satire in a world that is spiraling into insanity faster than you can make stuff up?

On April 29th I wrote a post titled "Reporting Crime While White". The reason for the post was a proposed law in Grand Rapids, Michigan that would make it a crime to call the police on "people of color" who were just "participating in their lives", whatever that means. As part of my post I pondered a hypothetical situation where a white woman calls the cops because she sees some men looking into cars and trying the door handles but ends up being the one arrested because the men in question were black. It was supposed to by hyperbolic but an example of how laws like the one proposed in Grand Rapids can go astray.

Then I saw this on social media, in the New York Times of course.



It was published about a week after my post. Here is a snippet of the question received by "The Ethicist" for The New York Times Magazine, Kwame Anthony Appiah.

Recently, I witnessed a young black male cut across my yard, duck between my neighbors’ two cars and try the doors of both, before “breaking” into the unlocked one. I opened my back door and yelled, “I see you getting into that car!” He took off running. I called the police and then posted to the (admittedly sometimes racially charged) Nextdoor app, in the hopes that my neighbors would check the locks on their cars and homes.

Break-ins are fairly common in my neighborhood, and this isn’t the first time that I’ve witnessed what appeared to be a theft and called the police. It was, however, the first time I was certain the suspicious person was a black man. I immediately felt a pang of guilt for calling the police and haven’t been able to stop thinking about it, given the tragic way things too often end between police and people of color.

So this seems pretty straightforward. A man is acting in a furtive manner. He cuts across private property without permission, enters another yard without permission, is checking the door locks to see if the cars are locked and then finding one unlocked opens the car door. The person (presumably white and a woman based on the full question) shouts out a challenge and the young man bolts. She calls the police and then reported this on "Nextdoor" although she seems to regret it because it is often "racially charged", in other words it is used by her white neighbors to report non-white suspicious characters. In a sane world this is absolutely common sense. You see someone who is not from your neighborhood sneaking around and trying to break into cars. You scare them off and warn your neighbors. Your neighbors are thankful because you probably saved someone getting their car or stuff inside stolen. But we don't live in a sane world. We live in clown world. 


The rest of her question was guilty white middle class woman speak. She hoped he wasn't arrested and after all people really shouldn't leave their cars unlocked (the guilty white SJW equivalent of "dressed like that, she was asking for it"). Apparently she thinks she would prefer to live in a neighborhood where thugs rampage all night and your only recourse is to seal yourself in your home and pray you make it to morning. It is like New York in "I Am Legend" but the pandemic is not a seemingly incurable disease, it is just out of control people. It probably just proves I am racist but I have no interest in locking myself inside the house and hiding in the bathtub, hoping what is outside doesn't get in.

"At least no one will call me racist!"

Where I live, worrying about the cops showing up is the least of your worries if you are lurking around a house in the middle of the night. That is why people don't break into cars around here.

So Mr. Appiah weighs in on her question. He starts off by pointing out that what the man was doing was indeed burglary regardless of the door being unlocked. He also tells her that reporting this activity is a civic responsibility. For some reason he then comments about Missouri's "lax gun laws". I guess if you live in New York, being allowed to own firearms at all indicates "lax" gun laws. He then makes an odd comment about the murder rate in Missouri. 

Your state also has the highest rate of black homicide victims in the country (and most violent crimes are indeed intraracial).

So Missouri has the highest rate of black homicide and it is mostly (almost exclusively truth be told) black on black crime. So it sounds like he is OK with her calling because she might have stopped a black man from stealing a gun from a car and using that stolen gun to kill another black man. But then it goes off the rails.

Still, your anxiety that the police might overreact to your call is reasonable. In a 2015 survey conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago, about half of African-Americans reported being treated badly by police officers because of their race. (Fewer than 5 percent of white Americans said this.) Unjust policing is wrong; it’s also self-undermining. One problem caused by the flagrant abuses of police authority we see reported in the media — the sort of events that generated the Black Lives Matter movement — is that they weaken community support for the police, and such support is essential to successful policing. It’s possible to understand why so many police officers appear to be willing to turn a blind eye to misconduct by their fellows (solidarity develops naturally among people who face danger together), but the abuse of police authority makes their jobs harder. They’d be better off if they did more to root it out.

Let's break this down. First, the part about the survey where half of blacks reported being treated badly by police officers "because of their race" versus only 5% of whites. Blacks are far more likely to encounter the police than whites on a per capita basis. I won't bother to repeat the statistics showing the vast over-representation of blacks in violent crime. In Missouri, specifically St. Louis, this is especially true where virtually every murder suspect in the city is black. So if you are encountering the police more often, chances are you have more opportunities to be offended at your treatment. I might also gently suggest that some communities have a very different frame of reference that influences their interactions with police. I have been pulled over plenty of times. I am never happy about it, sometimes the cop is cool, sometimes not, but I have never been pulled over without cause. So maybe half of black people think they were "treated badly because of their race" but were mostly just mad because they got a ticket or were arrested while actually committing a crime. 

Second, black lives matter was launched by the shooting of Trayvon Martin (A drug using black teen killed by a Hispanic man who shot Trayvon in self-defense) and accelerated by the shooting of Michael Brown (a criminal who was assaulting a cop and got rightly shot for it) and the death of Eric Garner (another man committing a crime who was 350 lbs and in poor health). From these events and a few others, the media and activist groups have launched a narrative of innocent black men being gunned down for no reason by the cops. In contrast, much of the interaction I see with cops and black suspects shows remarkable restraint on the part of the police. But this woman and Mr. Appiah seem to believe that if the cops caught the guy looking in her neighbor's car, they were likely to just shoot him on sight. 

The bigger issue is that we have people that are conflicted about calling the cops on what is obviously criminal behavior because they have been brainwashed into thinking that that calling the cops on a black man is a) inherently racist and b) dangerous to the black man. The person writing this letter, assuming it wasn't a 4chan gag, really seems to be wondering if notifying the police of criminal behavior is a greater public safety risk than letting criminals browse through automobiles to see if there is anything they can steal. 

When the law enforcement deterrent is reduced, it encourages criminal behavior. If this woman didn't call the cops, her neighbors might have lost some property that they would have to replace at their own expense and the criminals would  mark the neighborhood as an easy mark. This can only embolden the criminals. Maybe next time instead of trying car doors, they check the doors on houses looking for one unlocked. In her misplaced guilt, she could have put the lives of her neighbors in danger and even that of her own family. A neighborhood with a police response and watchful neighbors is one criminals stay away from, the opposite is one that draws criminals and maybe one of these guys finds her back door unlocked when she isn't home but her kids are. 

There is no limit to the suicidal brainwashing many of our fellow citizens have succumbed to. It is up to the few of us that have not surrendered to keep warning the rest until the inevitable happens.