Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Many Black Males Live In War Zones

Death rate in WWII for ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY: 1.8% to 2.6% (depending on the numbers. Veterans Affairs puts active duty personnel serving in WWII at more than 16 million).

Homicide rate in 2000s America for BLACK MALES: more than 2%

Black males are dying at a rate associated with the land invasion of Europe and Asia. This is one of those cases where we need to separate out the volatility: deaths in high crime areas are a slow burn, while military deaths are clustered in major battles. One cannot compare visiting a Chicago ghetto with vacationing in Okinawa at the time of the typhoon of steel which killed over 100,000 Japanese and 65,000 allied soldiers. However, it is the case that by serving in the military for the duration of WWII, a male had as much risk of dying as a young black male in the ghetto.

I don't know what the casualty rates were in places like Lebanon during the civil war, but the odd thing is how normal the carnage in the inner cities has become to mainstream American society.

Grand Old Pussies: Video Edition

Palin banned from talking about Obama. We already knew this, but interesting to hear Palin lay it on the GOP establishment.
And then there's top scumbag Rove. I still remember him saying how he doesn't want his kids to do manual labor, minimum wage jobs. Import illegals for that. And here's Mark Levin laying into Rove
The first step in waking up conservatives is to shake them out of their support for the Northeast liberal controlled portion of the GOP, which seeks to use conservatives as a fig leaf to advance their own power (see the Bushes).

Friday, July 26, 2013

The Cathedral's View of Preparing For War With China

This article was published in Yale Journal, firmly ensconced within the Cathedral. It is news worthy in and of itself. That the Pentagon now believes war with China is a serious probability and they are seriously planning for it is a major change in U.S. policy. This is the Cathedral and the government working in real time, putting the United States on a path to what would likely be defined as World War III if there was any additional nations joined a China-U.S. war.

  Who Authorized Preparations for War with China?
There have been other occasions in which the Pentagon has framed key strategic decisions so as to elicit the preferred response from the Commander in Chief and elected representatives. A recent case in point was when the Pentagon led President Obama to order a high level surge in Afghanistan in 2009, against the advice of the Vice President and the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. The decision at hand stands out even more prominently because (a) the change in military posture may well lead to an arms race with China, which could culminate in a nuclear war; and (b) the economic condition of the United States requires a reduction in military spending, not a new arms race.
The Cathedral still likes the threat of nuclear war.
Congress held a considerable number of hearings about China in 2008 and in the years that followed. However, the main focus of these hearings was on economic issues such as trade, job losses due to com­panies moving them overseas, the U.S. dependency on China for financing the debt, Chinese currency controls, and Chinese violations of intellectual prop­erty and human rights. In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2012, Admiral Robert F. Willard spoke of the potential challenges posed by China’s A2/AD capabilities, but made no sional China Caucus, wrote to Secretary of Defense Panetta in November 2011 that “[d]espite reports throughout 2011 AirSea Battle had been completed in an executive summary form, to my knowledge Members of Congress have yet to be briefed on its conclusions or in any way made a part of the process.”40
In the same month, Sen. Lieberman (I–CT) co-sponsored an amendment to the Fiscal 2012 Defense Authorization Bill that required a report on the implementation of and costs associated with the AirSea Battle Concept. It passed unanimously, but as of April 2013, such a report has yet to be released.41 In the public sphere there was no debate—led by either think tanks or public intel­lectuals—like that which is ongoing over whether or not to use the military option against Iran’s nuclear program, or the debate surrounding the 2009 surge of troops in Afghanistan. ASB did receive a modicum of critical examination from a small number of military analysts. However, most observers who can spell the ins-and-outs of using drones or bombing Iran—have no position on ASB or its implications for U.S.-China relations and the world order, simply because they do not know about it. A December 11, 2012 search of Google brings up 15,800,000 hits for “U.S. drone strikes”; a search for “AirSea Battle”: less than 200,000. In Googlish, this amounts to being unknown, and suggests this significant military shift is simply not on the wider public’s radar.
The argument being made here is that the Pentagon is pushing policy on the hapless and clueless Obama Administration. It's been well documented that the Cathedral isn't happy with Obama (though they mainly keep that discontent behind the scenes) because he's an utterly ineffectual leader. Having an empty suit in the White House is good for the Cathedral because it controls so many organs of State Power, but where it doesn't exert total control, such as the Pentagon, the weakness of an Obama becomes a problem.
I am not arguing that the U.S. military is seeking out war or intentionally usurping the role of the highest civilian authorities. Information about the rise of China as an economic and military power is open to a range of interpretations. And the Pentagon is discharging its duties when it identifies new threats and suggests ways to respond to them. Moreover, civilians—including two Secretaries of Defense—have endorsed ASB and arguably the strategy it implies. But while ASB should not be dismissed on the grounds that it is merely an attempt to secure a mission and funds for the military, there is room to question whether the threats have been overstated and to ask if the Pentagon-favored response is the right strategy.
The time has come for the White House and Congress to reassess both the threat and the suggested response. Four areas ought to be considered in such a review process: (i) While the economy of China does not by itself determine its military strength, it does constrain its options. One would be wise to take into account that China’s per capita GDP is far below that of the United States, and that to maintain support, the Communist Party needs to house, feed, clothe, and otherwise serve four times more people than the United States—on top of dealing with major environmental strains, an aging population, a high level of corruption, and growing social unrest.45 (ii) The military modernization of China often provokes concerns that it is ‘catching up.’
Although it is true that China has increased military spending, the budget for the PLA started well behind that of the U.S. military and China’s defense spending is still dwarfed by that of the United States. (iii) Moreover, whatever its capabilities, China’s intentions are rele­vant. China shows little interest in managing global affairs or imposing its ideology on other nations. Instead, China has shown a strong interest in secur­ing the flow of raw materials and energy on which is economy depends. However, the United States can accommodate this core interest without endan­gering its security by facilitating China’s efforts to secure energy deals in the global marketplace and pathways for the flow of resources (by constructing pipelines, railways, and new ports in places such as Pakistan)—rather than seeking to block them. (iv)
Finally, it is widely agreed that the United States can no longer afford to fight two major wars. Hence, one must note that the most urgent threats to U.S. security are—almost all of which can be found in the Near and Middle—not Far—East. It is up to the serious media, think tanks, public intellectuals and leaders of social political movements to urge for such a comprehensive review, and to counter the gradual slide toward war that the Pentagon is effecting—even if its intention may well be to promote peace through strength.
Emphasis mine.

China does not seek to manage global affairs. The United States seeks to manage global affairs, and if China doesn't like it, it can always work to dislodge American power. The view from inside the Cathedral is one of viewing the world as American territory, with foreign powers seeking to dislodge the hegemon. China may not consider itself the aggressor if it seeks to push the United States away from East Asia; it may act in response to U.S. actions. This is supported by the next point, which claims that the most urgent threats are in the Middle East. There is only one great threat to U.S. security: Russia. Only Russia has the capability and will to destroy the United States. China is a rising power that, based on current trends, will likely one day surpass Russia in power. The longer the U.S. remains bogged down in the Middle East, the longer the U.S. continues to spill its blood and treasure in what will ultimately be a futile effort at maintaining control of the global order, the more inevitable a collapse in U.S. power becomes, at which point war with China becomes more likely because the U.S. will be less willing to fight an all-out war simply to maintain dominance of East Asia at that point.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

The Jim Snow Regime

Occam’s Butter Knife
In the 21st century, however, it’s increasingly the cities that have the largest margin for error—such as Washington, DC (your tax dollars at work) and New York City (your investment dollars at play)—that have most aggressively squeezed out poor African Americans.
It’s almost as if the national media obsesses over Sanford, Florida to distract from how their own gentrifying cities are boosting their personal property values by using Section 8 vouchers, police harassment, housing-project demolitions, and firing black teachers in the name of school reform to drive out black Americans. When the New York-Washington media obsess over how flyover America is a hotbed of racism and incipient Hitlerism, they are only projecting their own feelings about blacks onto the rest of the country.
This is also why urban liberals are so in favor of gun control: because if guns were more widely available, black people would also have more guns. And liberals do not want black people to have guns.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Life Under Jim Snow

A Slow News Week

You never heard of this case until now. It was not a media sensation, simply because it was was not of any utility to the media in their mission to dramatize the fantasies of our liberal ruling classes. Fantasies about evil white proles being beastly to helpless trembling minorities. This, ladies and gentlemen, is life under Jim Snow. Non-black guy shoots black teenager. Months of wall-to-wall TV coverage, marches, protests, Justice Department investigations, comments from the President, trial of the Century! Black guy shoots white teenager? Local story.

Saturday, July 20, 2013

What if Trayvon Had Been White, and the Shooter Black?

Same verdict, with even less legal standing for the defendant! What if Trayvon Had Been White, and the Shooter Black?
We know this because in fact, such an event occurred in 2009 in Greece, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester. Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun. ...Despite the fact that he left his own property, confronted, and shot dead an unarmed white person thought to be committing a petty property crime, Scott was acquitted by a majority-white jury after claiming that the Cervini charged at him, putting him in imminent fear of his life.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Free: The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics

The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics Will Be Free In Kindle Form Next Thursday
If you’re interested in having a record of the total project on a budget, the Kindle version will be available free next Thursday. Just stop by and click on the link in the sidebar or at the top of this post, and you can cruise over to Amazon and grab a download for free. If you don’t have a kindle, they also have a free viewer program for your PC somewhere on the site. I’ll look for the link, and include it in a reminder post Wednesday. In return, I only ask you help the theory spread, and send this viral. Tell friends about the free download so they get a copy, share it on facebook, tweet it, and give it to bloggers – and if you like the book, a positive review on Amazon would also be appreciated. I’ve already gotten my first two bogus Liberal reviews from people who didn’t buy it, so it would be nice to balance those with some rightward reviews, and show the divergence in our psychologies.
Tomorrow is the day. Follow the link above for the link to Amazon.

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Well Done, Well Done

Not the normal fare, but quite hilarious. Some comments under the video try to claim the joke is racist, but it's just plain hilarious. It's sad how leftism causes a loss of a sense of humor. Also hilarious for the fact that the names made it on air and were read with a straight face all the way through. As one comment put it, Anchorman 2 received some great viral advertising.

Friday, July 12, 2013

How The Cathedral Orchestrates Hate

The #1 Hate Group in the United States today is the federal government and mainstream media.
"They just wanted an arrest" to placate protesters threatening violence, Lee told CNN earlier this week, even though the evidence provided no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. He said it was purely a matter of self defense, and he was right.
As soon as the case was taken away from Lee, evidence was leaked to the Martin family and Sharpton and his thugs. They got to hear the 911 tapes and coordinate their stories. Who leaked them? The same person who fired Lee — Sanford City Manager Norton Bonaparte, a member of the National Forum for Black Public Administrators.
Before he sacked the police chief, Bonaparte met in Washington with — you guessed it — Eric Holder. The attorney general had summoned both him and Sanford's mayor to discuss the allegedly "unprovoked hate crime against a black teen."
The evidence is clear that Zimmerman was framed to look like a homicidal racist. It's also now clear there was a larger political orchestration behind the racial rabble-rousing, one that was led from the highest levels in Washington.
The point to drive home again and again, and again and again, and yet again when conversing with conservatives, is that the GOP is 80 to 90% guilty on race issues. Too many conservatives will obsess over Holder's role and try to pin the blame on the Obama administration, when it is the GOP that continues to grow this Leviathan every time they have the power to restrict it. All the Obama administration has done is used the power that exists, power that was created under a Republican president (Nixon) and expanded at every turn.

The entire debate on race exists within a leftist framework. Any conservative who holds a "respectable" opinion on race, including people who would be denounced as racists such as Rush Limbaugh, in fact hold leftist positions on the issue, which is why conservatives fail every time. Politicians operate within the mainstream and while they shouldn't get a pass, they aren't the issue. The right must work to push the Overton window of debate. Stop trying to win the center, which is safely ensconced on the left, and instead stake out positions that can truly change the debate by at worst moving the political right to a position where political compromise then shifts to the right.

To give an example, the latest "controversy" is some Rand Paul staffer who went by the name "Southern Avenger" and supported states' rights and disparaged Lincoln. MSNBC is of course all over this topic, but someone partly responsible for violent race riots, one Mr. Al Sharpton, has his own show on MSNBC. Many conservatives seem to think the world is just and that they can beat the left by pointing out Al Sharpton's past. However, there is no equivalence because what is taking place is political warfare.

The Right can never appeal the Left, it must combat the Left head on because the Left is running on Hate. Not logic, not reason, but only the emotion of Hate. The proper political response to complaints about the Southern Avenger or any other case is to say, "So what?" or "I don't care." Ignore it and move on. Or simply repeat over and over, to answer every question with, "Why is racist Al Sharpton on MSNBC?" This far Rand Paul has held firm, but it remains to be seen if he will eventually wilt under pressure.

 H/T: Sailer

What's the difference between George Zimmerman and NYC Police?

Zimmerman goes on trial when he shoots someone who attacks him.

 Steve Sailer has done a great job drawing the comparison between NYC stop-and-frisk and the Zimmerman case. Hilariously, Bloomberg recently said that the policy isn't racist because 9 percent of whites are stopped, and since they are only 7 percent of criminals, they're being stopped too much!

 Sailer's latest. Zimmerman hasn't proven his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt

Synthesis

Political

Potpourri

Blog Archive