Thursday, January 31, 2019

Irony Alert! D-List Actor Edition

*Language/content warning*

You were warned. No complaining.

Let's talk about Jussie Smollett (aka J-boogie; Juicebox ( 😳 ); Smitty. Brother of Jojo Smollett, Jazz Smollett, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Jake Smollett, and Jocqui Smollett. Yes, really)

So some swishy fella named "Jussie Smollett" has claimed to have been attacked while minding his own business at 2 AM on a frigid night in Chicago. The report sounded made up from the get-go with talk of white men wearing ski masks and MAGA hats in the middle of the night in Chicago, who just happened to know that he was an actor (I had no idea who he was before this week) and just happened to have a "noose" and some bleach on hand. They ambushed him and beat him up, saying "This is MAGA country" (because Chicago is a well known haven of Trump supporters), calling him a faggot and nigger. It was so over the top and we have had so many hoax "hate crimes" reported that it immediately started to draw closer examination. Of course the narrative started to fall apart almost immediately but it didn't stop the media from repeating the story (from TMZ!) as if it were completely plausible and it also didn't stop politicians from virtue signaling and calling for new "hate crime" legislation and laws against lynching (even though murder and attempted murder is already against the law in every state, as far as I know). Apparently no one in the media has learned anything from the Buzzfeed debacle and the Covington Catholic kids fiasco, or more likely they just don't care. "Why do they call us the enemy of the people?", they whine.

The Chicago police have reportedly spent untold man-hours looking into this and it seems more sketchy by the moment. They released a surveillance photo that happens to have two men in it. No sign that they are suspects, they just happen to be two men and in the general area. No MAGA hats, no nooses. In fact they look like two black men to my untrained eye but the picture is so fuzzy that the two men in the picture could be just about anyone. See below.

Yep, I am sure this will be the big break that blows this case wide open!

Maybe he really was attacked by two white guys and maybe it was hate motivated. I have no idea but I have a hard time believing that a fairly minor actor just happened to draw the attention of two white guys looking to "lynch" him with what was apparently a clothesline in the middle of a frigid night in Chicago. There are lot of people I don't like but you don't see me skulking around in below freezing temps in case they go to Subway in the middle of the night. In fact, were I a betting man I would bet that this whole thing disappears and turns out to be a hoax. It seems far more likely to me that this was a domestic violence situation or perhaps a tryst gone wrong than the scenario he describes. Anyway, we will see.

But who is this Jussie Smollett anyway? I saw an older tweet of his that set the irony meter off the charts. First, this is his Twitter bio...

Aw, he is all about love man! Or man-love. Probably more the latter. But nothing is more important than love. Oh. Then this tweet sort of confuses me.....

Nothing is more important than love, unless I don't like your politics and then I will throw a vulgar, childish Twitter tantrum. A "bitch ass nigga". Imagine the irony of a black man calling a white man a "nigga" and also calling him a "bitch ass" since the black man in question likes being penetrated like a woman. If you were to compare Trump with his supermodel wife to Jussie with his preferences, which man has a "bitch ass"?

I know, I know. That isn't very nice but can we please stop pretending that homosexual behavior is beautiful and natural? It isn't.

Hopefully more and more people are realizing that all this crap from Leftists about "love" is just a sham. They don't love anyone but each other and they actually mostly hate each other too, just less than they hate us. Their hatred for the rest of us knows no bounds. They talk about hate crimes and toxic masculinity and hate speech but the most vitriolic hate always comes from them. Most people I know on my side of the political divide wouldn't say anything even close to that scandalous about homosexual men. Most of us have been tamed and cowed into a suicidal defensiveness, thinking that if we just keep our collective yaps shut they won't bother us. Oh please don't call me a racist or a homophobe, that would be the Worst Thing Ever! This is a lie. The radical Left wants us all on boxcars to the gulag and the last train still ends up at the gulag. Their fundamentalist blood cult is based on the notion that once they get rid of the people that created and sustained this society, all will be well. The reality is that the whole thing is going to collapse and they will still blame us for it.

So I don't know if Jussie Smollett was beat up by two homphobic white guys wearing MAGA hats or if he was getting roughed up by some random dude he met through Grindr. I also don't care. As of right now the latter seems more likely. What I do know is that black men in Chicago are routinely shot and otherwise attacked by other black men and having the cops chasing their tails looking for two mystery men that almost certainly don't exist means they aren't investigating serious crimes. A black man in Chicago is statistically speaking almost 100% more likely to be the victim of a crime at the hands of other black men than he is from a pair of MAGA hat wearing rednecks. I hope the police solve this, if there really were men who beat him up, black or white, random strangers or domestic partners, I want to see them arrested, tried and convicted if guilty. If this turns out to be a clumsy hoax, I want to see Smollett arrested and charged and convicted for filing a false police report. But either way it won't make a lick of difference in my life and it won't make a lick of difference in the lives of black men in Chicago or anywhere else. That is the truth.

Inside The Fever Swamp Of The Neocon Mind

A handful of neocons have held an inordinate amount of influence over Republican foreign policy for many years. These are the people that convinced President George W. Bush that it made sense to invade Iraq under false pretenses, an invasion that destabilized the entire Middle East, led to thousands of Americans dead and maimed, tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead and created the conditions that led to the rise of ISIS. So other than that it was a pretty solid idea. They oppose any withdrawal from any conflict and seem open to starting new conflicts just for the sake of doing so and regardless of the costs. While Trump has done very little tangibly to reduce our military commitments, he has talked a lot about it and that has been enough to raise the hackles of the neocons and explains why neocons like Bill Kristol are at the core of the NeverTrump cult. Since the 2016 election they have been doing their best to out-crazy one another and yesterday Max Boot retook the lead for being the most unstable neocon with an editorial in the Washington Post: Why winning and losing are irrelevant in Syria and Afghanistan

As an aside, it is worth noting that more and more, the neocons and NeverTrumpers are only being published in leftist rags like the Washington Post and New York Times. Their twitter feeds are full of far left loons praising them. The neocons and the far left share a hatred toward Trump and a sense of disgust toward the American people. You are known by the company that you keep and for the neocons increasingly the only company they keep is the far Left. It kind of goes to show that the neoconservatives are not really conservative at all in any meaningful sense.

Back to Max. He tweeted out a link to his own article but later deleted it. You can see why from this screenshot:

Wars that last for hundreds of years to police the borders of Pax Americana. I wasn't aware that the Pax Americana extended to literally ever corner of the earth. Max is only a few steps removed from shouting from a podium about a Thousand Year Reich with America's sons and daughters dying to protect American "interests" in Somalia and Syria.

Stop for a moment and think about this again. Max Boot, silly hat and all, is advocating for wars that we never, ever win and probably can't win. It is a recipe for endless wars where Americans are sending our sons and daughters (but not Max Boot or his ilk) to fight in wars and occupations where there is no strategic mission and no chance of victory. He even compares these "open-ended" occupations to American law enforcement: "Just as the police aren’t trying to eliminate crime, so troops are not trying to eliminate terrorism but, instead, to keep it below a critical threshold that threatens the United States and our allies." The big difference is that police are protecting actual American citizens in America, not bankrupting America to fight in wars overseas. The vague warnings about "fighting them over there instead of here" no longer hold much sway. The reality is that the more we try to intervene and tinker in the Middle East and Islamic world, the worse things get. Before we invaded Iraq, the region was fairly stable. Sure the leaders were dictators but at least they kept the peace. Now we have chaos all across the region, replacing dictators with much worse. Ask Christians in the Middle East if things were better before or after the invasion of Iraq and the Arab Spring, that is if you can even find any Christians still in the Middle East.

Boot also dismisses the financial toll. He writes: "Nor are these conflicts financially ruinous: The war in Afghanistan accounts for less than 10 percent of the defense budget." That doesn't sound like much but 10% of the "defense" budget is $70,000,000,000 or around $212 for every man, woman and child in America. For my family that works out to over $2000 every year for the last 17 years, and the costs in prior years were much higher. What did my family get for the $34,000 we have poured into Afghanistan?

In other words, for what we spend in Afghanistan in a single year, $70 billion, we could build a wall on our southern border three times over and we have been spending that amount for 17 years. I am not a math wizard but I think that $70 billion times 17 years is $1,190,000,000,000. Yep, a total cost $1.2 trillion with a "t" dollars or around $3600 per person. I know that number is almost certainly not accurate, I am just using Max's numbers. I am not sure what would qualify as "financially ruinous" if a 17 year war with a total bill over a trillion bucks that we are losing doesn't count. Make no mistake, we are losing in Afghanistan. Even Max admits that the Taliban already control almost half of the districts in Afghanistan. The Afghan "security" forces are being slaughtered: "Afghan President Ashraf Ghani says more than 45,000 members of the country's security forces have been killed since he became leader in 2014." That is about 9,000 Afghans being killed, and that is just official security forces, every year since 2014, in a country with a population of only 32 million. Talks are close to being finalized that will lead to withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and once we are out and no longer supporting the Afghan "government", it will immediately collapse and the Taliban will take over again. So after 17 years the situation will be the same as it was when we went in, except for the thousands of American casualties, over a trillion dollars of American money and now the people of Afghanistan will be even more pissed at us. Warfare Max Boot style!

Of course Max doesn't care about the cost, not in dollars and debt and certainly not in casualties. What use are the unwashed masses, the deplorables in fly-over country, if they are not feeding their children into the maw of the endless war machine? Propping up the corrupt Afghan government or protecting the poppy fields or whatever we are doing there is more important than securing the American border.

We are faced with a stark choice for the future of America. On one side we have an America First nationalist strategy that prioritizes American interests, securing America's borders and protecting the American people militarily, culturally and economically. It recognizes that the American government and specifically the American military exist for the protection and benefit of Americans, not to fight hundreds of brushfire wars in every corner of the globe.

On the other side we have Max Boot's vision where America is only useful as a breeding pen for new soldiers to fight in whatever war Max and his ilk can drum up next. The American people exist only to breed new soldiers and pay more taxes to fund the war machine, all while Max Boot and Bill Kristol lounge around the East Coast at cocktail parties, safe from harm and sneering at the very people they expect to pay for their wars. It doesn't matter who lives in America just so long as they are willing to send their sons and daughters to fight for the entertainment of the neocons. 

It is a pretty stark choice. I have already chosen which side I am on and my side won't include goofy hat wearing Max Boot.

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

In The "People That Will Die In The First 48 Hours Category"

So a fella on Twitter with a fair number of followers shared a video that he proclaimed showed a 4 year old boy "fully operating", whatever that means, an "assault rifle". I grabbed a screenshot part of the way through the video.

Yep. A bolt-action "assault rifle". It isn't a selective fire rifle. It isn't even a semi-automatic rifle like an AR-15, also commonly misrepresented as "assault rifles". Nope, it is a bolt-action rifle and the four year old knows how to work the bolt and eject the magazine. Not quite the same is knowing how to field strip it but I guess for "Shomeo" that counts as "fully operating".

When you look at this guy's profile, it starts to be a little more clear.


As I commented on his tweet, he should do really great when Civil War 2.0 kicks off. More likely he is going to be one of the many people dead in the first 48 hours. I hope for his sake that he has a butch boyfriend to protect him when our cities start to look like a wide-scale prison riot.

I would also point out that most of the people that I know that are gun enthusiasts, hunters and responsible firearms owners learned to safely handle guns at an early age. I had a BB gun when I was young and graduated up to a 20 gauge as I got older. I shot handguns and shotguns as a kid and started hunting when I was old enough to tromp through the grouse woods. As a result I am extremely conscientious about making sure any firearm I handle is unloaded and that I am never pointing a gun, even one I know is unloaded, at another person. You are in absolutely no danger from me even though I own a number of firearms, unless you are threatening me or my family in which case you are in mortal danger. This 4 year old is almost certainly going to grow up to be no danger to anyone that isn't a threat because he learned firearm basics at an early age.

On the other hand, people that grow up learning about guns from video games, rap videos and movies? They are the ones that are shooting each other in Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit every weekend.

A properly trained gun owners is a safe gun owner. A gay guy that thinks that a bolt action rifle is an "assault rifle" is destined for a bad end when things go south.

The Beltway Game Of Make-Believe

This was a delicious quote from The Zman regarding the Old Skool "Conservatives" at National Review....

That old crowd is still lighting candles, hoping the Left will get back to talking like socialists, so they can get back to pretending to be conservatives.

That is a great take. The Bill Kristol's and Jonah Goldberg's of the "Right" pine for the days when they could boil the political divide down into neat little talking points like higher or lower taxes. Most of that stuff was pretty inconsequential. Higher taxes always come with loopholes so that the filthy rich people writing the tax increase laws can avoid paying the tax increases they create. Does anyone seriously think that Elizabeth Warren's wealthy patrons are going to allow her to create a huge tax on their assets without building in a way for them to avoid it? Her asset tax scheme is just silly posturing to allow her to position herself to the left of Kamala Harris. All things equal lower taxes are better than higher taxes but when we are spending ourselves into oblivion and the "conservatives" are still, $21 trillion in debt later, calling for an increase in "defense" spending, it just shows that most Old Guard Conservatives™ are not all that conservative after all.

Our political dynamics have changed pretty drastically. Trump is evidence of this, he never would have been nominated by the GOP ten years ago when the GOP was still playing "Whose turn is it?" in the nominating process and throwing clowns like John McCain the nomination because they were up next. The Weekly Standard died because it never seemed to understand that things have changed and National Review is likely headed for that same fate. Gatekeepers in Conservatism Inc. like Ben Shapiro are trying to turn the ship but the future of American politics for the next decade is going to be very different from what it has been most of my life. The Left will continue to try to hold together a wildly disparate coalition of disaffected and mutually hostile minorities, uber-rich folks, government paper pushers and sexual deviants based entirely on a platform of punishing the evil white men. The Republicans will have to try to hold together the Trump coalition of middle/working class whites in sufficient numbers to win states like Michigan again. Unfortunately for Trump, other than judicial appointments, none of his accomplishments to date are going to resonate much with the people he needs to show up. He must get immigration reform and border security done. I don't think people will give him the benefit of the doubt if we roll into 2020 with nothing having been done on the issue that got him elected in the first place.

Regardless, the venerable voices of "conservatism" are not likely to last much longer. Too many people are on to their con game of pretending to be "standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" as they have done very little other than talk and posture for decades. The Democrats have the same problem, trying to push ridiculous candidates like Elizabeth Warren and "Gropin' Joe" Biden on their primary voting base when that base is all in for the radical bimbos like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Being the adult in the room doesn't carry any weight with these loons.

We aren't going back to the old days of genteel arguments about tax policy. We are in an era of fighting for survival politics between identity tribes and that fight has no use for pious scolding from the old crowd.

Monday, January 28, 2019

Poor Tom Brokaw

The one-time TV talking head, famous for reading from pre-written news in a serious tone of voice, got himself into a heap of trouble over the weekend by saying something so uncontroversial that it was sure to trigger the Left. What did he say? Did he "Sieg heil!" on national TV? Did he say it is OK to be white? Wear a MAGA hat?!?!?! WAS HE SMIRKING?! Nope, he said this on Meet The Press:

“I also happen to believe that the Hispanics should work harder at assimilation. That’s one of the things I’ve been saying for a long time,” Brokaw said. “You know, they ought not to be just codified in their communities but make sure that all their kids are learning to speak English, and that they feel comfortable in the communities. And that’s going to take outreach on both sides, frankly.”

Oh. Well that is pretty much common sense. I can see why liberals got triggered, nothing sets their meager synapses on fire like common sense.

Hispanics have been moving in massive numbers to the U.S., legally and illegally, since the 1965 immigration "reform". By 1965 the U.S. had been around for 200 years and was well established as the sort of country people from majority Hispanic populations want to move to because, not to put too fine a point on it, it isn't majority Hispanic and was around 80% white. It seems to me that common sense and simple logic would inform the assimilation process for Hispanics like it did for my Irish and Polish forefathers: they wanted what America offered so they adapted as quickly as they could to American norms and language. What Brokaw said was what everyone understood that an immigrant community should do, become like the people whose land they were moving into and learn to speak our language. I never spoke Polish at home because I didn't live in Poland. Before anyone pipes up, Americans didn't migrate to North America. There was no nation here, just nomadic tribes. Europeans came to America and conquered the inhabitants, tamed the wilderness and settled the continent.

The reaction was swift and predictable, full of wroth and righteous fury. You can get a good sampling at this post from Breitbart, Latino Activists Rip Brokaw for ‘Xenophobic,’ ‘Disrespectful’ Remarks About Assimilation. One I liked especially was from "Latino Rebels" who wrote a full post about it. This line was especially choice:

We as a community are creating the new America right before your very eyes, Mr. Brokaw. Sorry if it doesn’t fit your perceptions of what America should be like. That future is bilingual, bicultural, at times in English, other times in Spanish. Our community is defining this future. Not you.

Actually no, you are not "creating a new America". The America that was already here was preferable to what Hispanics had built anywhere else. That is why you moved here instead of gringos moving to your nations. No, what you are doing is moving into a prosperous and free society and demanding that it change to suit you. What is missed is that changing America into a "new America" is really just recreating the mess in Latin America. There is no such thing as magic dirt. As demographics shift away from a European/Western Civilizational majority to a Latin American plurality, it follows that the politics and culture will shift as well. They are not creating a new America, they are simply recreating Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico but with snow.

Assimilation is just one of those things you do as a foreigner moving to an established nation. But what poor Tom doesn't understand is that failure to assimilate is not a bug, it is a feature of mass migration. The people pushing mass migration, from neocon shills like Bill Kristol to billionaire mouthpieces like the Cato Institute to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce/Wall Street Journal, all the way to the various far left advocacy groups and George Soros, are all looking not to enhance or supplement American culture, they are looking to replace it and as heritage Americans have been stubbornly resistant, they are taking the logical step of just replacing us. Convince us to abort our children, put off marriage, especially put off child-bearing by frightening us with ridiculous cost estimates of having children, shaming women into the workforce and appealing to environmental altruism. At the same time telling us that we need new migrants to do the jobs Americans "won't do", since we pay those Americans not to work, and trying to convince us that we need these new American workers to pay into our old age programs since we didn't have kids of our own to do that.

White fertility rates in America and especially in Europe are way below replacement rates, and this is intentional.  Meanwhile Hispanics are at replacement or above in 29 states and blacks are at or above in 12 states. Again, part of the plan. The same is happening in Europe where Europeans have been discouraged from having children for decades and are now told they need massive numbers of new workers from Africa and the Middle East to fill jobs and pay into the social welfare system, but the obvious "flaw" in that plan is that these new arrivals seem disinclined to work and are instead net takers from the welfare system. Rather than funding it, they are draining it more quickly. As I have said before, when the money runs out and the "new America" and her non-white plurality has to choose between old age programs for retired white people and social welfare programs for the new Americans, which do you think they will choose? They will choose in solidarity with their own people, which every group does with one major exception.

Tom Brokaw apparently forgot that he doesn't live in a rational nation anymore where you can try to express an opinion, he lives in a 24-7 outrage machine where any slip-up, even when that "slip-up" is just common sense, can get you scorched in public and require a demeaning public groveling. He will never recover, he can never apologize enough to placate the outrage mob and especially because he is that most hated creature the old, white man. The only thing they want from him is to just die already, a a humiliated and broken man.

Subsidizing Our Killers

Last year a scandal broke, largely ignored by the media, that exposed that a massive scam was going on in the state of Minnesota. From City Journal, Mogadishu, Minnesota.

When it was noted that the carry-on bags of multiple airline passengers traveling from Minneapolis to Somalia contained millions of dollars in cash, on a regular basis, law enforcement was naturally curious to know where the money came from and where it was going. It soon emerged that millions of taxpayer dollars, and possibly much more, had been stolen through a massive scam of Minnesota’s social-services sector, specifically through fraudulent daycare claims. To make matters worse, the money appears to have wound up in areas of Somalia controlled by al-Shabab, the Islamic jihadist group responsible for numerous terrorist outrages.

The story is infuriating. Somalis living in Minnesota are scamming the daycare funding system and taking their ill-gotten loot back to Somalia. Recall if you will that over 100,000 Somalis have been given shelter in our country and this is the thanks we get. When the report came out, Democrats in Minnesota responded the only way Democrats know how: accusing the person asking inconvenient questions of racism.

Public discussion of the resulting contradictions has been limited, to say the least.  Minnesota governor Mark Dayton has sought to stifle public discussion with tired imputations of bigotry and intolerance. Indeed, he advised native Minnesotans with qualms about immigrant resettlement to move out. “If you are that intolerant, if you are that much of a racist or a bigot, then find another state,” he said. “Find a state where the minority population is 1 percent or whatever. It’s not that in Minnesota.” Dayton also made an economic argument that did not exactly fit the case of Third World immigrants who are themselves heavy consumers of welfare benefits. “Our economy cannot expand based on white, B+, Minnesota-born citizens. We don’t have enough,” he said. A trust-fund baby himself, Dayton was engaging in a classic case of projection. It was certainly not an invitation to debate.

If you don't like refugees stealing from you to fund terrorists, go find another state! How can we build our economy on white citizens, we don't have enough so we need to import Somalis who will no doubt become productive tax-paying citizens, assuming they can find time between shuttling bags of cash to terrorists to get an actual job. You know, magic dirt and all that.

The reality is that the mass influx of Somalians into Minnesota is not turning the Somalis into Minnesotans, it is turning part of Minnesota into Somalia. In spite of efforts to mute stuff them, stories still make it into the news like this: Minneapolis’ ‘Little Mogadishu’ Sees 56 Percent Increase in Violent Crimes Caused by Somali Gangs. From the article:

Violent crimes increased by more than 50 percent in 2018 in Minneapolis’ Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, nicknamed “little Mogadishu,” which authorities attribute to Somali gang activity in the area.

Buried in a recent Star Tribune article was the fact that violent crimes jumped from 54 in 2010 to 84 in 2018, an increase in roughly 56 percent. Authorities attribute the violence to rivalries between Somali gangs, such as the Somali Mafia, the Somali Outlaws, the Hot Boyz, and Madhibaan with Attitude, Alpha News reports.

According to a 2014 Southside Pride article, the Outlaws and Madhibaan with Attitude have a rivalry that stretches back years, and likely resulted in the murder of two Somali men in April 2014. That article notes that the summer of 2013 was a particularly bloody season for gang warfare, which produced at least 4 killings.

This is not isolated. Maine has similar issues with Somali "refugees" committing crimes, for example: See video: Somali gang storms Maine park, beats victims. As the prior report describes, many of the gang crimes are carryovers from tribal rivalries that stretch back to Somalia and the criminal behavior of the Somali "refugees" includes sex trafficking.

Back to the original story. What brought this to mind was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, hidden behind their paywall but you can sometimes get around it by opening the link in a private browser window: America’s Other Endless War: Battling al-Shabaab in Somalia.

Staff Sergeant Alex Conrad, 26, was killed by Al-Shabaab militants back in June. Sergeant Conrad was in the Special Forces and died while defending an outpost hundreds of miles from Mogdishu. The WSJ article points out that the conflict in Somalia is just one of many we are fighting on the African continent, mostly by Special Forces.

America’s war against al-Shabaab is one of the longest-running conflicts in U.S. history, simmering quietly for a dozen years in the desert landscape of the Horn of Africa. It has proven a frustrating mission with wins but no victory, setbacks but no defeat.

Its limitations were apparent just this week, when al-Shabaab claimed responsibility for an 18-hour siege that left at least 21 victims—including one American—and five attackers dead at a hotel-and-office complex in Nairobi, Kenya.

Somalia is one in a series of American wars unleashed by the Sept. 11 attacks, from Afghanistan and Syria to Niger and Yemen. On any given day, across a swath of Africa, South Asia and the Middle East, hundreds of U.S. troops might find themselves dropping bombs on or exchanging gunfire with any number of armed Islamist organizations—al-Shabaab, Islamic State, the Taliban, the Haqqani network and al Qaeda’s branches in the Maghreb or the Arabian Peninsula.

They are sprawling, Whac-A-Mole conflicts, often fought by elite commando units, and often hidden from public view by successive administrations wary of testing the public’s tolerance for unending war and surprising casualties in far-off lands.

Your tax dollars at work. Thanks Minnesota! 
Very few people realize this is going on. But what is infuriating is that we have al-Shabaab militants killing Americans and likely using the cash looted from Somali "refugees" in America scamming the daycare system, profiting from sex trafficking and who knows what else, to pay for the weapons they use to kill our own people. We have allowed a massive number of Somalis, from 100,000 to 150,000 or more, into this country over the last two decades and it appears they are assimilating poorly, if at all; show no signs of ever planning on going home and they seem to resent and hate the very people that gave them shelter from their violent fellow Somalis, like hateful and ungrateful Congresswoman Ilhan Omar who has spent her brief time in Congress making a buffoon of herself.

When faced with evidence of Somalis looting the daycare system, Minnesota governor Mark Dayton says if you don't like it, move to another state. Meanwhile militants in Somalia are using the tax dollars of Minnesotans to buy weapons to kill American soldiers that are only there to liberate Somalia from Somalians. It is absolutely insane to the point of being suicidal.

A nation that bankrupts itself to fund her own enemies is not one that will survive.

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Quick Thoughts On Roger Stone

I don't know all that much about Roger Stone and I am pretty sure the charges against him are just more of the same procedural BS that is all Mueller has managed to come up with. A lot of people have chimed in on this but here are my two cents.

The arrest itself is what is most interesting to me. Here is a man accused on procedural crimes, non-violent, "white collar" crimes to use the old lingo. He is represented by an attorney and the Feds know who his attorney is. The Feds don't contact his attorney and tell him to have Stone appear, which he would have done without hesitation. No, instead they conduct a pre-dawn raid. With CNN conveniently present. Over two dozen agents decked out in full tactical gear. Guns drawn, including rifles. The sort of tactical gear you would expect to see in a raid on a biker clubhouse or a crackhouse, where you might expect to encounter violent resistance.

He looks awfully dangerous.
But the home of a 66 year old guy with an attorney of record? A lobbyist and political strategist, even one with a history of playing dirty in political campaigns? Come on. Does anyone think that the exact same thing couldn't have been achieved with a pair of agents in suits knocking on the door after breakfast? Or just a phone call to his attorney telling him to appear, which he would have done promptly? But where is the theater in doing that?

There are two possible things going on here.

One, this is just another example of law enforcement overusing their tactical gear. They tend to gear up and kick down doors. I get why, after you kick down a door once and get shot at, you will be a lot more cautious and better to use overwhelming force if you can, but I also believe quite strongly that kicking down doors in the middle of the night is a great way for people to get shot accidentally. If someone kicks in my door and comes charging into my house in the dark, I am far more likely to be prepared to use deadly force to defend my family than I am if a cop shows up in daylight and knocks on the door. In the dark of night I can't assume someone kicking in my door is a cop but I can assume that there is a real potential threat and respond accordingly. I understand you can't knock politely in the daytime in a lot of situations but I also am not convinced you need to pull out the SWAT team every time.

Two, and more likely, this was intended as an overt threat, a message to anyone that challenges the Deep State. The message was clear: We can send the FBI with guns drawn to your house, bang on the door and do it all in front of controlled media CNN. Even if you are completely innocent, there is something very damning about the FBI banging on your door with guns drawn. Another important point: when a someone, anyone whether civilian or cop, has their gun drawn, the chances of an accidental shooting go up enormously. People don't generally get shot by someone with their gun holstered. What if someone had walked out of a dark room in Stone's house and startled an agent with a loaded gun in their hand? That is how accidents happen and in a situation where there is no credible threat from a man who is presumed innocent until proven guilty there is no excuse for escalating the danger of an accidental shooting. But the message? That came through loud and clear. If you are a prominent figure you have to choose sides: either you are against Trump or you are against the Deep State. There is no neutral ground and the Deep State has the power of endless investigation and the very real threat of dozens of LEOs in tactical gear with guns drawn knocking on your door in the predawn hours with the "media" on hand to record it all. A gun drawn is an overt threat that the one holding it is prepared to use it.

We are seeing a slow but steady escalation. The Russia investigation has been going on for two years with zero evidence of collusion. At this rate it is quite likely the "investigation" will still be going on election day 2020. It isn't really about finding anything damning at this point, if there was something there we would have heard about it already. It is just about keeping the public perception that were there is smoke, there must be fire. So the Deep State sends in the armed agents and conducts a media circus event to make their point.

Roger Stone seems like a dirtbag and political shyster of the worst kind. He might be guilty of some non-violent procedural crimes, including the same crime President Bill Clinton was guilty of, impeached but remained President. But a dangerous criminal worthy of a guns drawn raid with over two dozen agents? Please. It was a message and nothing else. I am generally a supporter of law enforcement but if things go sour as I expect, it won't be Eric Swalwell and Michael Bloomberg coming for your guns, it will be LEOs wearing tactical gear with guns out kicking in your door. At some point tens of millions of us are going to be faced with a very difficult choice and most of us will choose to declare "I will not comply". Then we will see where the law enforcement community stands.

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Leadership By Locust

Almost every politician is full of crap and the higher up they are in the government, the more full of crap they are. We know this. We all know this. Other than some Bernie-bros that stumble around starry-eyed thinking Bernie is the One True Savior, the magical "socialist" with three homes and a top 1% income that will make Real Socialism™ work, we all know that politicians are full of crap. But at least they used to do us the courtesy of pretending that they cared about the people and the future of this country.

The latest crop of politicians doesn't even pretend anymore. People like Ilhan Omar, the ungrateful Somali, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, possibly the dumbest person to hold elected office in American history, and Rashida Tlaib, the foul-mouthed Palestinian from Michigan, are in office for one reason and one reason only: the strip this country bare of every resource like a swarm of locust.

They no longer even pretend to be civic minded or mouth platitudes about American values and the American dream because they think that dream and those values are actually the problem. This is nothing more than a giant cash grab enforced by the militarized law enforcement apparatus. They are going to break the U.S. open like a piñata, scramble around the floor scooping up goodies and then walk away from the broken pieces.

I believe in lower tax rates even though they don't directly help me because I believe that they are good for the country. People like Ocasio-Cortez want higher tax rates because the people it would impact are not part of her identity group and she sees higher tax rates as a way to fund payments to people that are part of her identity group. Ilhan Omar fled her home nation of Somalia because it was full of Somalians and came to America because it is full of people like me and has spent her time in this country crapping on the people that welcomed her in and trying to transform America into the kind of place she fled from because she thinks it will benefit her tribe.

We are no longer a nation of different people all working together to create a brighter future for everyone. We are just a nation of competing tribes and identities trying to get all the goodies we can for our own people at the expense of others. Who cares about the future, we want to eat our seed corn now and let future generations worry about what to plant. Our nation is all identity politics, all of the time. Tucker Carlson gets this mostly right in his latest piece: Covington isn't about facts, but about identity politics. Nick Sandmann committed 'facecrime'. He said:

Let’s be honest. This entire conversation is not really related to what happened outside the Lincoln Memorial last Friday. The people who are angriest at Nick Sandmann and his classmates don’t actually care what happened. They don’t even know. They haven’t watched the video, and they don’t plan to.

This isn’t an argument about facts and evidence and truth. It’s an argument about identity. The Kentucky students are being attacked for who they are, not what they did or didn’t do. The sooner the rest of us understand that, the sooner we’ll understand what is at stake here. Everything is at stake, most specifically our ability, collectively, to live in peace in a multi-ethnic society.

Tucker holds out hope that with the right kind of thoughtful leaders we can still survive as a multi-ethnic Republic. But as the Congress gets more "diverse", it gets more divisive. The reality is that we are not going to get "thoughtful leaders" in the future, we are going to get identity politics warlords using the power of demographics to take what they can get. Tucker has a national platform and probably feels some obligation to try to express some hope. Maybe he really believes it but I stopped believing in the fairy tale ending a long time ago.

When the Ocasio-Cortex and Ilhan Omar types have finished picking the fields clean, they will turn to the people that planted the fields and demands to know why they didn't plant more. There is no appreciation of the blessings of prosperity, health, opportunity and relative safety they enjoy in this country compared to where they could be living. Instead there is the endless demand for more. More of everything and outrage that anyone would deny them what they demand. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex, who is qualified to make laws by virtue of an undergrad degree in economics and flirting with strangers for tips as a bartender, says it is immoral to have a system where people can become billionaires but the people who are the wealthiest in America (besides being overwhelmingly leftists) also created lots of jobs. Jeff Bezos created Amazon which employs more than 600,000 people. Bill Gates created Microsoft which employs 135,000 people. Warren Buffet started Berkshire Hathaway, employing 377,000 people. Even Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook employs tens of thousands of people. On and on and on. If you work in the private sector, chances are the company you work for was started by someone who is very, very rich and that is not only OK, it is great. Taking risks and investing is how economies grow. They don't grow by people like Ocasio-Cortez looting the productive class of people in order to funnel money to her own tribe. You don't grow the economy and increase prosperity by shuffling the same money around. One would think having a degree in economics would teach you that unless you have actually taken a university economics class.

Leadership by locusts is going to leave this once prosperous country, the envy of the world, as barren as the Mojave Desert and when there are no more resources to devour, the locust will start to devour each other and the rest of us. Plan accordingly.

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Write Your Senators To Oppose The Nomination Of William Barr To Be Attorney General

President Trump nominated William Barr to be the next Attorney General of the United States, a position generally considered to be the top law enforcement post in the Federal government. Barr already had one stint as Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush and didn't exactly cover himself in glory. Looking at him as the nominee now is very troubling.

Barr was involved in the cover-up after Ruby Ridge and pushed for immunity for Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper that was criminally negligent, at the very minimum, in the shooting death of Vicki Weaver while she was holding her child in her arms.

As many others have reported, Mr. Barr supports the seizure of firearms via "Red Flag" laws, telling arch-gun-grabber Diane Feinstein that these laws are the "single most important thing we can do in the gun control area.". These laws allow the government to confiscate your guns if they think you might be a danger to others, even if you have committed no crime. One man, Gary Willis, has already died in an attempt to confiscate his guns without having committed any crime and expanding these laws guarantees that he won't be the last. Trying to take guns away from citizens that have committed no crime is a sure-fire recipe for both dead civilians and dead cops.

He also spoke in favor of the Brady Bill and other restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and "high capacity" magazines back in the 90s and seemed to lie about it during his confirmation hearings.

In this environment when an energized radical Left is going after guns again in an effort to disarm the American people, William Barr is the worst sort of nominee and not at all what I would expect from a President that claims to cherish the 2nd Amendment.

I sent the following note to our new Senator from Indiana, Mike Braun, and the same basic note to our other Senator Todd Young:


Dear Senator Braun

We are writing to you this morning to express our concern over the nomination of William Barr to be the next Attorney General of the United States. As the top law enforcement official in the Federal government, we rely on the Attorney General to protect the rights of all Americans. Unfortunately Mr. Barr has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted in that responsibility. From his actions following Ruby Ridge to his recent testimony in favor of gun confiscation, Mr. Barr has proven himself to be untrustworthy to hold the office of Attorney General and we strongly urge you to vote no on his confirmation. Our civil liberties and especially the 2nd Amendment are under constant assault and we need someone who will be a defender of our rights in the office of Attorney General, not someone with a history and testimony that indicates the opposite. We will be watching the nomination of Mr. Barr closely and again urge you to vote no on his confirmation.

Thank you for your consideration,

Arthur and Eva Sido
Spencerville, Indiana


I would urge anyone that is concerned about their civil liberties and especially their 2nd Amendment rights to write to their Senators and urge them to oppose the nomination of William Barr to the office of Attorney General.

The Magical Birth Canal!

As a man, the birth canal is a pretty mysterious, confusing thing. But who knew that it was also magic?!

The state of New York passed a pretty sweeping abortion bill that, with some very broad requirements, allows women to kill their unborn child at pretty much any point in the pregnancy. Details here. Basically they are prepping for the retirement/death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her replacement by Trump with a solid pro-life justice that will interpret the Constitution as it is actually written. Bye-bye Roe v Wade. If Roe is overturned, abortion will return to the states where it will be a patchwork of laws. My state and many others will likely functionally ban elective abortion. States like New York will double down and become havens for women seeking to terminate their pregnancy (aka kill their unborn child) at any point and for any (or no) reason.

According to New York, something magical happens when a baby travels down the birth canal. It transforms from a euphemism into a person. One one side of the birth canal an unborn child is just a clump of cells. Six inches later that clump of cells is granted complete personhood. Amazing! This is what I wrote last night on Facebook...


This is our youngest child Tori about twelve hours after she was born. According to the new law in New York state, it would have been legal to kill her twelve hours before this picture was taken. What was different about Tori 12 hours earlier? Absolutely nothing. But if my wife had decided for "age, economic, social and emotional factors" to kill her, it would be been OK with New York state.

As usual, the evil nature of this bill is hidden behind euphemistic language, calling it the "Reproductive Health Act". There is nothing health related in this bill, it is simply legal cover to strip away the humanity of a unique person simply because they are on one side of the birth canal instead of the other. Throughout history evil people have taken away the humanity of people they found inconvenient in order to make it easier to kill them. Today the proponents of abortion are no different.


This is why pro-abortion evangelists use euphemisms and try like crazy to avoid using any word that humanizes the child. No even marginally sane person can say why my daughter was less human and deserving of life 12 hours before that photo was taken so you obfuscate and deflect by talking about "choice".

The Democrats should just ditch the donkey as their mascot because it is clear that a different mascot is more appropriate.

Worshiping Moloch by sacrificing your kids has never really gone out of style and today Moloch is the primary deity of the progressive jihadi. Oh sure, they don't use the name Moloch anymore. They call Moloch by many new and exciting names, "Choice", "Reproductive Health", or a new personal favorite "Women’s Bodily Autonomy". Who could be against women having autonomy over their own bodies? As long as you pretend that in a situation where there are three people involved, the pregnant mother, the father and the unborn child, only the woman has any say in the issue you can get away with a system where a woman can murder her child and the father can't say anything about it but if she decides to keep her child the state will make the father pay for the child the rest of that child's life until adulthood.

The people cheering New York's new law are evil. They disgust me. They might as well have been chanting the name of Moloch and throwing children into the fire because they are no different from those that worshiped Moloch 5000 years ago.

Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Another Step Closer To Civil War

I don't have much to say about the Covington Catholic kids and the Indian guy banging a drum in their faces that hasn't been quite ably said elsewhere. It was a pretty predictable sequence of events that the Left has honed to near perfection. They just overdid it on this one. I wrote on Facebook:

I was going to blog about the Covington Catholic high school kids and the American Indian guy but a ton of other people already have and far more capably. This event is the same, predictable sequence we have seen over and over. The media intentionally misreports something to paint Trump, Trump supporters, white people in general, etc. in a bad light. The progressive jihadi instantly go into Two Minutes of Hate mode. Orange Man Bad! Their prejudices are reinforced and their hatred "justified".

Meanwhile more context and evidence comes out. The story falls apart. It turns out that what the media reported happening actually didn't happen that way. The accused are at least partially vindicated. We see this all the time with "hate crimes".

But it doesn't matter. The Leftist sheep are riled up. Their prejudices are reinforced. All Trump supporters are racists and Trump is inciting them. They refuse to examine the new evidence.

Meanwhile a new outrage is already cooking. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

There is only so much of this that can happen. The name of this kid is already out there. His home address can be easily found and the school can obviously be found. Sooner or later, one of these antifa types is going to go off script a little and someone will end up dead. When that happens, all bets are off.

Welcome to 1984.

Sadly for the Left, there were other cameras rolling but it hasn't stopped a lot of them from just doubling down. Some, to their credit, begrudgingly apologized. Others seemed sincerely embarrassed. But what should really stick with you about this fiasco are two big points:

First, there are tons of "conservative" leaders that are completely willing to throw white Catholic school kids from Kentucky under the proverbial bus. I think part of it is that they are terrified that someone will take away their cushy gigs as talking heads and authors on the East Coast. I don't think most of them believe the stuff they say and not-so-secretly despise the people that make up the bulk of Republican voters, in the same way that Democrat leaders, Hollywood celebs and academics wouldn't be caught dead hanging around the "people of color" they pretend to care about. The fact that the kids in question were white, probably middle or upper middle class kids, that attended a private religious school in Kentucky, is not incidental to this fiasco. It is central. People like failed publisher Bill Kristol, who has already publicly daydreamed about replacing the white working class with non-white immigrants, tweeted his usual smarmy, pompous crap about this incident before deleting his tweets but the internet never forgets. The on-life-support National Review posted an essay by Nicholas Frankovich that...well read the headline for yourself...

Even without the full video evidence, that is so over the top as to be laughable for it's inaccurate take and just awful theology. National Review pulled the story, sort of apologized for it and a bunch of tweets were taken down. When NR finally goes the way of the dodo and Weekly Standard, this incident will be on the tombstone.

It was not just neocons that took shots at these kids but an awful lot of "evangelical leaders" as well, including the usual suspects like Russell Moore and Ron Burns, aka "Thabiti Anyabwile". It is painfully obvious that many both secular and religious "conservative leaders" alike are pretty disdainful of regular folks and are far more concerned with staying on the gravy train than they are being actual leaders. If we are going to survive the times that are coming, we need new leadership that is not cocooned in the belly of the beast.

The second thing that is apparent from this event is something I have been saying for a while. It is only a matter of time before someone gets killed. Over the weekend, leftists came out of the woodwork to threaten violence. A CNN contributor fantasized about punching these kids. These minors. Brain eating nincompoop Reza Azlan did the same and then doubled down by threatening to beat up Dinesh D'Souza. That is pretty hilarious because Reza looks like a complete sissy. A Hollywood type and Disney producer, Jack Morrissey, posted a tweet that of course he later said was just a joke and deleted it but again, the internet is forever..

Wow that is hilarious! But the really dangerous stuff came later, like this from unhinged vulgarian Kathy Griffin that was publically calling for the MINOR kids in the video to be doxxed.

Her tweet has been reported a bunch of times, including by me. It was tweeted on the 20th early in the morning, and here we are late morning on the 22nd and it is still up. It is a clear violation of Twitter rules, and is endangering the lives of school kids. Twitter refuses to take this down but me calling a media bimbo a bimbo was cause for suspension. Covington Catholic was forced to cancel classes today because of the threats from unhinged leftists (but I repeat myself).

What happens if some lunatic gets the names and addresses of these kids and decides that they are just proto-Nazis and decides to kill them? We already had a Bernie-bro try to assassinate Republican Congressmen and school kids in Kentucky don't have the Capitol Police to guard them. If that happened, wouldn't someone be logically correct that people like Kathy Griffin are responsible and retaliate in kind? This is not some far-fetched notion. Inciting others to violence is certain to have some blowback and it seems only a matter of time before the overheated, violent rhetoric from the left leads to someone getting killed and as I said, when that happens, all bets are off. 

Some of the less insane voices on the Left, people like Obama and Biden, need to step up and tamp down the violent fantasies of their followers before something awful happens and we all get caught up in it.

Monday, January 21, 2019

Reporting Crime While White

We have been treated with stories of black people allegedly being stopped by police for the "crime" of "driving while black" or "walking while black". I have no doubt some of these stories are true. Back in my youth I worked in a store at a very high end mall and mall security followed young blacks around until they left on a regular basis. Of course they also followed young white kids around as well because in general large groups of unsupervised teens can cause trouble. In the years since we have been treated to story after story of large groups of teens causing mass disruptions in malls. For example, just a few weeks ago there was a huge brawl in the Buckland Hills Mall. According to reports there were around 300 teens fighting. When it comes to public spaces there is a fine line between freedom of movement and protecting your business.

Anyway. On a semi-regular basis, someone on Facebook shares a post from someone called Tray John. It is a recreation of a blog post from a guy named Steve Locke. The original post came in December of 2015. Mr. Locke is a teacher at the Massachusetts College of Art and Design. I have never heard of it either but it really isn't my scene. He is also an artist apparently. You can buy some of his "art" for the low, low price of $300 like this:

From linked photo on Mr. Locke' s page,
Pretty impressive, right? Well how about this?

Screenshot from Mr. Locke's page, see link above
A little boy with "God is love" on one side and then reversed it says "you little faggot". Huh. I guess that is like profound and stuff. It mostly looks like something he slapped together in a couple of minutes with MS Paint and is now selling for $1,000. I guess I just am not all that cultured. Anyway, my point here is not to poke fun at his "art". It is to look at his post that keeps going viral on Facebook.

Here is the gist of the story. Mr. Locke was headed to work and was going to get a burrito for lunch. A cop car pulled up behind him and two cops, two white cops he takes pains to point out, get out of the vehicle and approach him. They start asking him some questions and inform him that someone that fit his description had just tried to break into a lady's house nearby. He was a black male, wearing a puffy coat and a knit hat, about the right height and weight. We are entirely reliant on his narration of what happened, what was said (he places the statements in quotes which implies these are exact words) and how it was said and even still as I read the post several times what struck me was that the cops were professional and courteous. They were responding to a 911 call (I assume) and looking for someone that was attempting to engage in a violent crime and still they were polite. He fit the profile, although he was quite outraged that the cops didn't know how unique his knit hat was or that his puffy coat was a Ralph Lauren. The police were just trying to respond to a call and they noted this to him. The woman that reported her house being broken into was there and they wanted her to take a look so they could confirm it wasn't him. Then he writes this:

It was at this moment that I knew that I was probably going to die.  I am not being dramatic when I say this.  I was not going to get into a police car.  I was not going to present myself to some victim.  I was not going let someone tell the cops that I was not guilty when I already told them that I had nothing to do with any robbery.  I was not going to let them take me anywhere because if they did, the chance I was going to be accused of something I did not do rose exponentially.  I knew this in my heart.  I was not going anywhere with these cops and I was not going to let some white woman decide whether or not I was a criminal, especially after I told them that I was not a criminal.  This meant that I was going to resist arrest.  This meant that I was not going to let the police put their hands on me.

Again note that he goes to great pains to point out that "some white woman" was the victim of a crime. But no rational person would have thought at this point "I am going to die". The idea that him telling the cops "It wasn't me" was supposed to cause the cops to immediately abandon their investigation of someone fitting the description of a violent criminal stretches the bonds of credulity. Do cops stop suspects on the street and typically have them confess their crimes right there? Of course not. I am pretty confident that almost everyone arrested protests their innocence. Afterward he writes about how shook up he was and that he needed a hug and a "good cry" in his car.

We are supposed to read it and feel bad for him, and empathize that he thought he was in imminent danger of being killed by the polite, courteous cops. But I didn't feel that way at all. I kind of wondered why he was being so hysterical, other than simply reinforcing the false media and cultural narrative that cops are gunning down black men left and right in our cities.

Even though the police were doing their jobs, courteously and professionally from what I can tell, this is supposed to represent some huge injustice. Oh, and his post has a link to a gofundme account right at the top so he can raise money to buy his own studio to create his, um, art.

Reading between the lines, what he mostly seems mad about is that two white cops were responding to a call from a white woman and how dare they not just pass him by. Don't they know he is a professor?! I mean, my God the man had a lanyard on! How could you suspect someone wearing a LANYARD of a crime?! With a card (ironically enough in the photo accompanying the post the ID is flipped around so you can't tell what it says). The outrage here is that a white woman dared to report a crime involving a black man and that two cops who happened to be white were responding to a call of a break-in and looking for a dangerous criminal that matched his description. My wife and daughters were stopped once in Ohio. They were driving a car that was similar to a car in an APB. The cops stopped them, asked a few questions and sent them on their way. It happens.

We hear a lot in this post about how shook up he was. Well, we all get shook up when interacting with the police, even for something as minor as a traffic stop. What is not mentioned is the woman that had reported the attempted break-in. She is just some evil older white woman that is looking for an excuse to jail a black man. But why were the cops out? What did they say to him? He reports (and this is all from his memory so we have to take his word for it how this went down and even that it went down at all):

“We had someone matching your description just try to break into a woman’s house.”

So this happened in the late morning/noon-time (he was getting a burrito for lunch on the way to work). The home of an older woman was being broken into. We can assume she was home at the time and infer that she was alone. I have never had my home broken into but even as a man and a man with the means to protect myself, that would be a terrible thing. Imagine being an older woman, presumably home alone, in your house, your sanctuary, when someone tries to break in. She must have been terrified. I bet she was shaking and a wreck for days afterward. But no one posted her story. No one cares.

According to the events described, a man tried to break into the home of a woman. She was undoubtedly terrified and not sure what would happen. Would the man get in? Would he rob her? Beat her up? Maybe even murder her? But somehow in this story, she becomes one of the villains. No one I have seen post this story has given any thought to the older woman who was the actual victim of an actual crime.

What about the cops? Day in and day out they are called on to pull people over with no idea who is in the car and what they are up to. They approach people on the street not knowing if they are carrying a weapon and potentially dangerous. They respond to 911 calls knowing they could be walking into an ambush. Just a few moments ago as I am writing this there was a report of a cop in Alabama investigating a crime and being killed. These cops in Mr. Locke's story were responding to a call of a man trying to force his way into a home. They see a man on the street that matches that description. They stop the man and politely ask him a few questions and detain him for a brief time. They are not hassling him because he is a black man, a professor no less!, but because he matches the description given to them by a frightened woman. Did the cop actually do as he says and "unsnapped the holster of his gun"? Maybe but then again in his next sentence Mr. Locke writes: "I took my hands out of my pockets."

So let's look through this scenario. Cops have been called to an attempted break-in. They are canvassing the neighborhood and see a man that matches the description they were given. The cop gets out of the car. The man they approach has his hands in his pockets. Is he keeping his hands warm or does he have a gun? You can't tell and neither could the cop and by the time you figured it out, you are already dead. I assume it is standard procedure for cops to snap your holster shut when sitting in the car so that you gun doesn't work itself loose from the holster. I also assume that if the man you think might be the same one that tried to break into a house might have a gun in his pocket, you don't want to have to unsnap your firearm in case you have to draw it. A split-second is the difference between you going home to your family or having a folded American flag handed to your wife at your funeral. There is no indication from the story that the cop had his hand on the gun or was in any way threatening Mr. Locke with it. I am sure most cops doing stops like this are running on adrenaline all day long, every day.

In Mr. Locke's story, he was a victim. He was seconds away from death. He was unjustly stopped and questioned, even though it was in the investigation of a crime. He seems to think that having a lanyard and saying "It wasn't me" should satisfy the police. He spares not a second of thought for the cops doing a dangerous and thankless job. He doesn't even spare a second of thought for the woman who was terrified by someone trying to break into her house. He was enraged at being questioned and for being embarrassed. Mr. Locke writes:

"That white woman could just walk up to a cop and talk about me like I was an object for regard. I wanted to go back and spit in their faces."

He wanted to go back and spit in their faces, including "that white woman". He wanted to spit in her face and in the face of the cops, who by his own recollection were polite and courteous while responding to a call from a frightened woman. I have been stopped by the police before and been grouchy about it but never to the point of ever even thinking about spitting in their faces. Again, from everything that he wrote from his own recollection, the cops were professional and courteous but Mr. Locke was embarrassed.

So what we seem to have here, based strictly on my own reading of his words, is a man who was briefly questioned by police in the course of an investigation of a violent crime. The police were professional and courteous, but they were white. The alleged victim was white. The writer, Steve Locke, is black and fit the description of body type, race and apparel of the suspect in this violent crime. My take-away from this is not that Mr. Locke was wronged in any way and was in legitimate fear for his life. It is that he was mad that the police questioned him at all and were unsatisfied with his declaration that he was not a criminal. When I read this story, as I have done several times, I don't get what the hand-wringing is all about. What should the cops have done? Or perhaps a more pertinent question, what would all of these people reposting this story have wanted the cops to do if it was their mother home alone when someone was trying to break in? I know if it was my mom, I would want the cops to do their absolute best to find the man trying to break-in. I also know that if I were briefly detained by a couple of black cops because I matched the description of the suspect in a violent crime, I would be happy to cooperate with them.

Yes, I know that there is a deep suspicion of the police in the black community. I know historically there is reason for that suspicion. But I also know that as long as blacks live in America, they will run into the police and that those same police are the ones called out when a young black man is gunned down by another young black man. What would have been helpful would have been Mr. Locke writing about his experience and then pointing out that he had nothing to fear. He wasn't really a suspect. He was simply being asked a few question by cops trying to catch a bad guy. He cooperated and they went on their way. If he had pointed out that black men don't have to fear the cops, then his post about his experience would have been helpful. Instead what you get is an overwrought post about a man who was treated with courtesy and professionalism that reinforces for black men that they are in danger from the police and tugs at the heartstrings of whites who don't ask the hard questions after reading his post.

The hard reality is that we live in a world where people do awful stuff and hurt other people. A world where cops in urban areas spend their days chasing after people that have done bad stuff, one after another after another. Steve Locke was asked a few questions and inconvenienced but a woman was terrified in her own home and cops were trying to find the person that did it. Yet we are told that Locke is the sympathetic character in this story and that the actual victim was really the villain because she is white and dared call the cops on a black man.

When you read stuff like Steve Locke's story on the internet, take some time to think it through before you share it. Ask what you would have wanted the cops to do in this situation. Ask how they could have handled the situation differently so that Mr. Locke would be satisfied or if there was in fact no way they could have acted that would have been acceptable to Mr. Locke. It is a complicated world we live in and often thinking through a topic and getting all of the evidence is a way to avoid leaping to conclusions, conclusions that are often divorced from reality.

Irony Alert: MLK Day Edition

Only in America.

Bankers and stock brokers get a paid day off to celebrate the birth of a man who was a borderline Marxist. Meanwhile non-governmental low wage employees have to show up to work today.

Happy Martin Luther King. Jr. Day To America's Financial Services Professionals!

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Speaking Of Toxic Masculinity

Rod Dreher weighs in on the American Psychological Association report about "traditional masculinity" being harmful: Manhood As Mental Disorder. In it he makes a point that is worth pondering. We are told that one of the harmful effects of traditional masculinity is violence. Rod writes:

Plus, I don’t trust the spin. For example, this line:

"Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims."

That is absolutely correct but that is not in itself an argument. In the thousands and thousands of years that mankind has some sort of recorded history, mankind has always engaged in violence and war and almost all of it has come from men. This is true long before we had navel-gazing psychologists telling us being manly is "harmful" and, this is key, that will be true as far into the future as you care to look. While Western man is becoming more flaccid and weak, the rest of the world is not. Men in drug gangs in Central America, in ISIS and myriad other Islamist gangs around the world, in fact men in almost every non-Western/East Asian culture are just as violent as ever. Rod continues and points out one of the Forbidden Facts™ that we are not allowed to notice...

True, but misleading. Homicides in the US are disproportionately committed by black men. The American Council on Science and Health reported in 2017:

"The CDC confirms that, following an extended period of general decline, the overall homicide rate — as well as the homicide rate within each racial group — has increased from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the homicide rates were (per 100,000 population):

20.9 for blacks (non-Hispanic)
4.9 for Hispanics
2.6 for whites (non-Hispanic)
5.7 for all races

Compared to the national average, the homicide rate was 54% lower for whites, 14% lower for Hispanics, and 267% higher for blacks. Put another way, the homicide rate among African-Americans is nearly quadruple that of the national average.

Last year, President Obama highlighted the importance of this issue. He said, “The single greatest cause of death for young black men between the ages of 18 and 35 is homicide. And that’s crazy. That is crazy.” Actually, it’s worse than that. According to the CDC, homicide is the #1 cause of death for African-Americans in all age groups from 15 to 34 (i.e., 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 to 34)."

On the other hand, the white male suicide rate is six times higher for white men than for black men.

Rod shared a screenshot from the FBI crime stats website.

When you take out black men especially and also Hispanic men from the murder statistics, the murder rate in America is actually quite low. Hispanics commit murder at almost twice the rate of whites and blacks commit murder at a rate more than 8 times the rate of whites. This is similar in other violent crime categories from assault to rape. Violent crime in America is drastically different when viewed in racial categories.

No one serious disputes this. It is no secret that the cities that are slaughterhouses like Baltimore, Detroit and St. Louis have large black populations and that in those cities the murder problem is overwhelmingly contained in that community. You can argue about what the root cause of this violence is but I would point out that the rise in black on black violence seems to track along with the rise of fatherlessness in that community. It seems that lacking stable male role models in the home, demonstrating "traditional masculine" roles like provider and protector, has left black men to find their identity in the violent street culture, especially rap music that glorifies violence and misogyny. Other segments of the American people have serious drug and crime issues but nowhere near the same level of murder.

The problems with masculinity in America are not found in cartoonish depictions of leering men and references to the #MeToo political movement. They are found in a lack of traditional masculinity, the same masculinity that the American Psychological Association describes as harmful. In the place of traditional masculinity, we have true toxic masculinity: violence, sloth, ignorance. The solution to the toxic masculinity that plagues America is not to make men more effeminate but to return to the traditional notions of masculinity: leadership, courage, responsibility, chivalry. We won't find that in psychologist's offices or Gender Studies departments. We will only find that in homes headed by fathers. The fact that saying that is considered controversial is a testament to just how much trouble we are in. Millions of young men without direction or character form a very dangerous powder keg. We are very close to seeing the fuse lit and when it is lit, I only hope there are enough traditionally masculine men left to contain the inferno.

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Real Men: You Will Miss Us When We Are Gone

By now, most people that are concerned with these issues have seen the infamous Gillette ad that seeks to recreate their old ad campaign, the best a man can get, which was full of positive examples of men as fathers, providers and protectors, and replaces that imagery with a series of scenes showing (mostly white) men being bad people. The old ad campaign was cheesy but it encouraged men to act like men by showing examples of men being men.

Now we are treated to a Clockwork Orange-esque video that focuses on what men are allegedly doing wrong.

You WILL be cured of your toxic masculinity! 
No one is really excusing poor behavior by men. I have never catcalled a woman or groped a co-worker. I would step in if little boys were fighting and it was getting out of hand. In general we could stand to have more civility and basic courtesy in America but that is not what the ad is saying. The ad is specifically aimed at men, and specific men which is obvious from the ad, and a specific context in which traditional male behavior is exaggerated and turned into a caricature with a misuse of the old saying "Boys will be boys". That used to mean that boys acted like...well, like boys. They roughhouse and sometimes get into fights. They like to talk about girls when girls aren't around because boys and young men find girls to be irresistibly fascinating while at the same time completely incomprehensible. They like to belch and play sports. "Boys will be boys" was used to dismiss harmless male shenanigans, not to excuse men assaulting women. Now after decades of trying to stamp out masculinity by the media and entertainment world, we have corporate America jumping on the bandwagon because no one knows more about morality than a bunch of globalist suits in New York, right?

If only someone had talked to Adolf about his feelings....
You will wait in vain for a similar ad that scolds women for being catty toward one another and bitchy toward men. Anyone who has been married, had sisters or raised daughters knows that women can be every bit as "toxic" as men, and sometimes even more so. My wife has often said she preferred working with men than with women and I have heard the same thing privately from a lot of women. I would guess that the quiet psychological bullying many women suffer from other women is far more damaging than a man ogling a woman's butt in the yoga pants she specifically wears to draw attention to her butt.

It is not about poor behavior, it is about men and their place in society, the society that coincidentally they built, sustain and defend. Men, especially white men, especially especially white men that hold to the traditional beliefs and norms of Western civilization, are the most intransigently anti-revolutionary part of the population. Therefore they need to be crushed and silenced.

Far too many people, especially people that fancy themselves to be quite wise and worldly, seem incapable of making pretty obvious connections. If the Gillette ad popped up in a vacuum, well then it could be dismissed as clumsy corporate virtue signaling. But when it comes out just a few days after the American Psychological Association declares that traditional masculinity is harmful? And after last year's fiasco in the Brett Kavanaugh hearings? I don't believe in those sorts of coincidences. The press release from the APA contains gems like this:

- APA’s new Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men strive to recognize and address these problems in boys and men while remaining sensitive to the field’s androcentric past. Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.

- The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors.

- The clinician’s role, McDermott says, can be to encourage men to discard the harmful ideologies of traditional masculinity (violence, sexism) and find flexibility in the potentially positive aspects (courage, leadership). He and his team are working on a positive-masculinities scale to capture peoples’ adherence to the pro-social traits expected from men, something that has yet to be measured systematically.

If that rhetoric doesn't creep you out, you aren't paying attention. Being stoic, aggressive and competitive is what drives men to build civilizations instead of sitting around picking out purses to go with their sandals and crying while watching Lifetime movies. And overcoming traditional masculinity is the clinician's role. Think about that a second. People that are professional psychologists are being told that it is their role to quash traditional masculinity. They can't even talk about things like courage and leadership without cautions like "flexibility" and "potentially positive". Can you imagine this nation existing if we had always looked with caution at courage and leadership?

This is the sort of stuff taught to budding psychologists and in turn being pushed on people seeking psychological help. If this doesn't discourage you from seeking help from these quacks, it should. I have spent some time in the office of psychologists and I came away realizing most of them are far more screwed up than I am. If anyone needs mental health help, it is mental health "professionals". Ironically, it is "traditional masculinity" that has built the sort of stable, safe civilizations where weirdos can sit around and think up stuff like this to undermine masculinity. People in survival stage civilizations don't sit around trying to decide if their feelings are toxic or not. We have it too easy in this country and it is making us weak and worse is making the weakest and weirdest deviant people in our society the most influential and powerful. This is not sustainable.

If you don't know which stage we are in now,
you are part of the problem
This is the message being crammed down our throats by the media, corporations and the "entertainment" world not to mention the psychological community.....

- Men that like to wear dresses and panties are perfectly normal and deserve special recognition for how supremely mentally healthy they are.

- Men that like to sodomize other men are noble and should be proud of their sexual preferences.

- Men should take selfies with their mouths hanging open in moronic grins and should blubber like a child at the drop of a hat, showing how in touch with their feminine side they are.

On the other hand

- Men that exhibit the natural traits associated with manhood are toxic and need to be shamed, scolded and re-educated. 

- Men that act like men have always acted have something wrong with them and this behavior should be corrected by psychological "professionals".

If you want to know why the male suicide rate is up, it might have more to do with the attempted suppression of natural masculinity rather than men being excessively stoic.

Of course what is also missed from the cultural conversation about masculinity is that an awful lot of poor behavior by men is the result of so many men in this country growing up without fathers. We are now multiple generations of young men being raised by women in the home and school. They don't know what healthy masculinity even looks like, being fed a steady diet of pills to suppress their natural behaviors and mass media images of men as idiots barely tolerated by their wise female partners. When I was growing up, no adult man said to me: "Don't whistle at strange girls or pinch their butt" but they didn't have to. I learned by wacthing men like my dad and his friend and my namesake Art Regenold. They were clearly the heads of their households. They provided for their wives and children. They hunted and fixed stuff. They did not whistle at women or grope co-workers. I learned how to be a man by watching men. No one learns to be a man by listening to women gripe about men or watching virtue-signaling corporate ads or having their problematic traditional, natural masculine behavior undermined by quacks. Generations of men raised without traditional male role models in the home are a powder keg. You can drug them, you can badger and shame them but you can't change who they are and without the social structures men put in place, eventually they are going to return to barbarism.

One final note, just as a warning. Someday, probably very soon, the people in America, and especially women, will find themselves once more in need of some old fashioned masculinity. They are going to find that "Yeah gurrrrl power!" super-heroines in movies that beat up men twice their size are just fictional. When it all starts to go sideways and they find out what real "toxic masculinity" looks like, they are going to wish for more men that embrace their traditional masculine role as provider and protector. They had better hope there are still some around.