Monday, September 25, 2017

New Liberal Victim Category: "People Of Crime!"

From The Ottawa Citizen, Monday, September 25, 2017, P.#A9, and here:

As the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health discussed the Cannabis Act last week, there has been a lot of chatter about providing expedited – if not free and automatic – pardons to people with simple possession convictions.

This is a step in the right direction, but there are thousands of other people with different kinds of criminal records who are now law-abiding, yet face discrimination as it relates to employment and access to other basic necessities who need similar consideration to become fully contributing members of Canadian society.

SO WHAT?! ALL CRIMES ARE PROSECUTED OFTEN LONG AFTER THE FACT OF THEIR COMMISSION, WHEN THE GUILTY PARTIES ARE NO LONGER CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGERS! THE MERE PASSAGE OF TIME DOESN'T VOID ONE'S GUILT NOT EXEMPT ONE FROM PAYING FOR WHAT ONE HAS TAKEN FROM OTHERS! YOU ARE ONLY TRYING TO DEPRIVE INNOCENT PEOPLE OF THEIR OWN RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THOSE WHO HAVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED PREDATORY INTENT AND ACTIONS FROM THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SHOWN A PROPENSITY TO DO SO!

Thanks to the previous federal government, we have a two-tiered system in place for people who want (and need) their criminal record sealed. Apart from the lengthy wait-times and strict eligibility criteria introduced under the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012, the $631 application fee is enough to deter many from applying for a record suspension (formerly known as a pardon).

There are often other costs associated with the application process that can increase the price to around $1,000 – making it an impossible cost for those living in poverty.

For the most part, people want to apply for a record suspension so that they can find employment. Without a record suspension, employers can access all conviction information which limits access to higher paid and permanent jobs. The reality is that without a job, people cannot save the money required to have their record sealed.

This leaves many individuals stuck in a cycle of unemployment and poverty, and often means they rely on social assistance or break the law to meet their basic needs.

NO, POVERTY DOES NOT CAUSE CRIME; ONE'S CRIMINAL CHOICES CAUSE POVERTY!

To date, there have been successful legal challenges in Ontario and British Columbia with respect to the changes made to the Criminal Records Act by asserting that they infringe upon the charter rights of individuals with criminal records.

WAIT - WHAT?! CRIMINALS HAVE A "CHARTER RIGHT" TO NOT BE IDENTIFIED AS OR CALLED "CRIMINALS," BASED ON THEIR OWN INTENTIONALLY CHOSEN ACTIONS?!

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Heather MacNaughton wrote in her decision that “a criminal record is punishment” and that the changes made by the previous federal government act in opposition to principles of rehabilitation and public safety.

WELL,  NO DUH! OF COURSE A CRIMINAL RECORD IS PUNISHMENT, BUT IT'S A WELL KNOWN AND PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCE OF ONE'S OWN PREDATORY CHOICES!

While these decisions mean that people in Ontario and B.C. can apply for pardons under the pre-2012 system, they are still required to pay the $631 user fee to access protections guaranteed under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In January 2016, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale announced that reforming the Criminal Records Act was a priority for the Liberal government. He acknowledged that the changes made under the previous government were unnecessarily punitive and that the $631 application fee was far too high. In December 2016, Public Safety Canada conducted a public consultation, but the results of that survey have yet to be released.

While many criminalized people wait for action, many individuals and organizations who work with them support a free and automatic pardon process as is the practice in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and in our own youth justice system. A more streamlined record management process would allow people with criminal records to access various social domains such as employment, education, travel, safe housing and volunteer opportunities, and would better support meaningful integration into the community.

YOU MUST MEAN "SELF-CRIMINALIZED PEOPLE." BECAUSE BY DEFINITION CRIME REQUIRES A PREDATORY INTENT AND CHOICE TO ACT ON IT WHEREBY THE PERSON THEREBY CHOOSES TO BECOME A "CRIMINAL" - IT'S NOT A FORM OF INEXPLICABLE ACCIDENT OR MYSTERIOUS TRAGEDY WHICH SOMEHOW JUST HAPPENS TO THEM!

People should not have to pay for human rights protections and continue to be punished well after they have served their debt to society. To continue with the status quo as it relates to pardons in Canada is not only harmful to the criminalized, but to us all.

WRONG! YOUR PLAN WOULD DEPRIVE THE INNOCENT CITIZENS - PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT COMMITTED ANY CRIMES - OF THEIR RIGHT TO KNOW OF AND ASSESS THE INHERENT DANGERS PRESENTED BY THOSE WHO HAVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED - AS IN "WERE VETTED BY THE LEGAL PROCESS" - THEIR OWN CRIMINAL PROPENSITY.

Fundamental reforms to the Criminal Records Act were needed yesterday and the federal government needs to act now.

Samantha McAleese is a PhD candidate in sociology at Carleton University and a member of the Criminalization and Punishment Education Project.

WELL, THAT EXPLAINS IT, THEN! CARLETON UNIVERSITY LOL! THE MOST LEFTOPATHIC OF ALL OF CANADA'S HIGHER-LEARNING MENTAL INSTITUTIONS!

"BUT WHAT UNDERLIES THIS LOCK-STEP AVOIDANCE OF RATIONALITY AND COMMON-SENSE FACTS IN SUCH PLACES, VLAD?" ONE MIGHT WELL ASK ME.

WELL ... It's because all the "soft science" humanities ask Why, not How, we do things. Asking Why posits no free-will conscious choice exists, because we are all merely victims at the mercy of mysterious, unknown and unknowable yet somehow also "inevitable" forces beyond our control. Like this:

Law-abiding Conservatives: "Criminal behavior is an effect of free-will choice!"
Criminal libertines: "But what CAUSED that choice? There's always a cause!"

Their implication is that there are no crimes nor criminals because we're all "victims."

But since rational people get angry with criminals for their predatory choices, and criminals insist they have no choices because we're all equally victims who should therefore tolerate the diverse differences between the kind of "victim" who attacks innocent others first, and those who don't, they must insist pity is always good and anger is always bad. Besides, virtue-signalling one's pity, ("compassion") in stead of showing one's anger, ("hate!") no matter how righteous or justified, is a lot less risky than accusing potentially violent and personally dangerous criminals of their crimes.

So these days, pitying the victims (and the criminals AS victims,) is held up by the cliques of cowards in government, media and education as the highest moral virtue, while being angry or "hateful" towards criminals and crime is held the most vile sin.

But what is really more useful in remedying crime: being angry at criminals for their predatory choices, or encouraging them to commit more crimes by pitying them as helpless victims too? Dynamic, hopeful anger - or static, useless and fearful pity?

The answer is obvious ... but not to any of these mavens of "Higher Education."

CAPISCE?

;-)

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

MI6 killed Princess Diana!

From here:

Former MI6 member Richard Tomlinson claims that Slobodan Milosevic was the target of the British intelligence, which developed a special plan for the purpose.
According to Vecernje Novosti, this plan was later applied to remove British Princess Diana.
The newspaper writes that Tomlinson presented his findings ten years ago before the High Court of Justice in London – but that his claims have again become topical after the recent statements made by retired intelligence officer John Hopkins (80), who claims that he personally participated in “removing” the princess of Wales.
According to Tomlinson’s claims – that also made it to the documentary “Playing Dirty”, dedicated to the dark activities of the British intelligence service MI6 – the former Yugoslav and Serbia president was to be killed in 1993 in a way that was to look like a traffic accident. A tunnel in Switzerland, near Geneva, where Milosevic was supposed to take part in an international conference about the former Yugoslavia, was chosen as the site.
The plan was to cause the accident as Milosevic’s limousine was traveling over the mountain, by turning on strong lights or lasers that would have blinded the driver. It was allegedly estimated that such a scenario would have had the greatest chance of resulting in death.
Eyewitnesses to the tunnel accident that killed Diana, claim to have seen blinding lights before it happened. It’s just one in a series of dreadful coincidences between the Milosevic assassination plan and Diana’s death, Tomlinson is quoted as saying.
He further claims that Milosevic’s liquidation plan had been dropped, but that the scenario was later applied to Princess Diana.

Saturday, September 9, 2017

Germany funds Pali terrorists, lets them run in German elections

From here:


  • Even as Germany is increasingly cracking down on criticism of Islam, it appears prepared to give a genuine Islamic terrorist group the opportunity to win seats in its parliament.
In a remarkable decision taken at the end of August, Germany's Interior Ministry declined to bar the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) -- listed as a terrorist organization by the US, Canada, the European Union, and Australia -- "from campaigning as a political party in the September general election to the Bundestag."

Yes, the PFLP -- on a joint list with the Marxist-Leninist Party -- plans to field candidates in this month's elections in Germany and run for Parliament.

What is the PFLP? Formed shortly after Israel's Six-Day War through the merger of three militant groups -- The Young Avengers (Palestinian nationalists), The Heroes of the Return (based in Lebanon), and the Palestinian Liberation Front (which operated largely out of Syria and the West Bank) -- it is today, after Fatah, the second largest faction in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Described variously as a blend of "Palestinian nationalism with Marxist ideology" and as "a Palestinian nationalist organization with different ideological outlooks at different times (from Arab nationalist, to Maoist, to Leninist)," it has called for Israel's destruction and international communist revolution.

Considered more radical than Fatah, it has, ever since its founding, routinely targeted civilians without remorse. During its early days, it was on friendly terms with Germany's Red Army Faction (the Baader-Meinhof Gang) and received funding from the USSR and China. In recent years the PFLP has been chummy with Iran.

Coming soon to Germany's Parliament?
Pictured: Terrorists of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) in Jordan, in 1969. (Image source: Library of Congress/Thomas R. Koeniges/LOOK/Wikimedia Commons)


Half a century ago, the PFLP specialized in hijacking planes -- it was the first Palestinian group to do so, and the first successfully to commandeer an El Al plane. That act, in 1968, is widely considered to mark the beginning of the modern era of international Islamic terrorism. On a single day in September 1970, its members hijacked three passenger flights headed from European airports to New York. In 1972, a PFLP member took part in the Lod Airport Massacre, in which 28 people were murdered at what is now called Ben Gurion International Airport. In October 2001, it assassinated Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi in retaliation for Israel's killing of its top leader at the time, Abu Ali Mustafa (after whom the group's militant wing is now named).

During the next few years, the PFLP focused on suicide bombings in Israel; more recently, it has kept
busy firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip.

In November 2014, two PFLP associates murdered six people in a synagogue massacre in Jerusalem. On June 16 of this year, it collaborated with Hamas on a fatal attack in East Jerusalem; on July 14, it murdered two Israeli police officers in Jerusalem's Old City and bragged that its "heroic operation" had successfully broken through "the security cordon imposed by the Israeli occupation forces on the city of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, breaking the arrogance of the Zionist security which sees in the city and in Al-Aqsa an impenetrable fortress."

Perhaps the PFLP's most famous operative is Carlos the Jackal, the legendary Venezuelan terrorist, currently serving a life sentence in France. Another high-profile member is Leila Khaled, who has been called "the first woman hijacker in history" and who has been allowed in recent years to enter many Western countries, including Germany, Sweden, Austria, and South Africa, to deliver speeches, meet with fellow communists, and confer with supporters of movements that try to destroy Israel economically.

If it seems exceedingly inappropriate for these countries' governments to afford Khaled such treatment, consider that the UN, the EU, and a number of European countries, including Germany, France, Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, have funded non-governmental organizations with links to PFLP -- among them Addameer, Al-Haq, the Alternative Information Center, the Health Work Committee, Stop the Wall, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, and the Union of Agricultural Work Committees. At least one of the groups in question, according to NGO Monitor, was founded and is run by the PFLP; others have convicted terrorists on their payrolls and/or have abetted PFLP and its members in one way or another. There has, however, been remarkably little media attention paid to the fact that at least some of taxpayer money donated by these Western countries has found its way into the PFLP's coffers, and more than $300 million annually to the salaries of terrorists.

But of all the actions taken by Western governments and international organizations that have benefited the PFLP, none has come as close to legitimizing it as Germany's decision to let it field candidates in this month's elections. "For observers of terrorism in Germany," wrote Benjamin Weinthal in the Jerusalem Post, "it is unclear why the ministry is reluctant to outlaw the Palestinian organization." After all, it is not as if the Federal Republic of Germany has no power to ban parties; it outlawed the Volkssozialistische Bewegung Deutschlands/Partei der Arbeit (People's Socialist Movement of Germany) in 1982 and the Freiheitliche Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (Free German Workers Party) in 1995.

Nor are today's German authorities shy about silencing individuals for holding views they consider inappropriate. Gatestone Institute's Soeren Kern noted in 2012 that German authorities were "monitoring... websites that are critical of Muslim immigration" and were prepared to shut them down. In 2014, Bavarian officials sought to gag critics of a new mega-mosque; in January of last year, the Washington Post reportedthat Germany had "reached a deal with Facebook, Google and Twitter to get tougher on offensive [read: anti-Islamic] content." German police even raided the home of a critic of Muslim refugees.

A German court had given five months' probation to a woman for her online comments "about an alleged rape of a German woman by an asylum seeker." In June 2016, German police raided the homes of thirty-six additional people guilty of "hate posting" online; in July, they raided about sixty more homes.

It is hard not to see this as a strange, ironic, and tragic historical moment. In living memory, Germany was transformed from a fearsome totalitarian power, bent on conquest and genocide, into a cornerstone of liberal democracy. Now, even more than many of its similarly misguided European neighbors, it is plainly headed in a direction that should give pause to every lover of Western freedom: even as it is increasingly cracking down on criticism of Islam, it appears prepared to give a genuine Islamic terrorist group the opportunity to win seats in its national legislature.
Bruce Bawer is the author of the new novel The Alhambra (Swamp Fox Editions). His book While Europe Slept (2006) was a New York Times bestseller and National Book Critics Circle Award finalist
.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

All Religions Are False: Your Gods Do Not Exist!



"THE GODS" are just anthropomorphosized and idolized concepts of "Good" and "Bad;" which are them selves only future-projected, generalized memories of specific damages, pains, fears of those pains, and reliefs from those damages, pains, and fears, respectively.

And the best is the greatest relief, which is Nothingness - God is ALWAYS "Better Than You (and Me, and Us)!" Forever beyond our reach, our rights, and therefore also beyond our responsibility to deal with, to, or for.

The God idol incorporates, incarnates, and embodies the moral high ground - since it alone has all Rights, it alone also bears all responsibility - bearing it as in bearing it for all our sins by bearing all of our pain.

Which is why the Mithrais/Mitra and Jesus images allegedly always have to conveniently die "for us" each time!

That way, they aren't actually around to annoy us, while also putatively simultaneously be working for us, behind the scenes - out of sight and therefore, oh-so-conveniently, forever out of mind, beyond our guilty, weak and fallible responsibility to actively interact with them/it - which would of course be impossible, because in reality either it is behind everything as an all-powerful puppet-master and deceiver or it doesn't exist at all.

It's an excuse for those who don't want to attack first, to not have to do so, ever - to always "Do Nothing!"

i.e: "I know I worship nothing - but it's MY Nothing!"

;-)

The correct God exists by and for not wanting us to do anything - to always Do Nothing, to never attack first.

Any and all other versions - ones which do allegedly impose obligations on us to do things, to DO unto others, are always wrong and evil, enslaving us and worse, as in islam's "allah," forcing us to war against one another.

PAGANISM IS A STRATEGY TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL AND FEARSOME RESPONSIBILITIES TO ANY ONE GOD.

The pagan versions all simply anthromorphosize situational circumstances then divide them into "the gods" to rule over static and idealized impossibilities, like "freedom" and "speed" and "strength" and "war" and "peace" which since they are all abstracted (removed) from their dynamic cause-and-effect TO and FROM circumstances, are null, and the only point of doing so is to forever add more distance between them and us as a delaying shield tactic; divide and conquer, to avoid any consequential responsibility to obey any one version of the nonexistent "god/s!"



FALSE ISLAM SUBMITS TO OUR FEARSOME FEARFULNESS AND INSISTS THAT SINCE IT COULD HAPPEN, SO IT WILL ALWAYS HAPPEN.

And they only exist in our imaginations because, after all - everything does seem to be allowed to happen, both the good and the bad, and as such, they must retroactively have been allowed to happen by the God's "authority."

But even the allah ideal or idol crumbles under the weight of being both unknown and unknowable, because when even the ultimate slaver-god and puppet master is generally behind and so embodies "Everything," it is also then specifically only Nothing - and as existentialism is nihilism, it does not exist. We always invent it and apply it in every specific circumstantial situation, to our subjective selves, and so hope remains forever nebulous, despite also always becoming the static past, as time passes us by as we go on in our permanent ignorant bliss.

Clearly, then, the best and most enduring god-image is that of the Buddha, which has ruled or more accurately presided over the most humans for the longest time, in the most peaceful overall circumstances, in Asia and in India. As their savior figure, it saves us from the endless and pointless dharma (pain fear and false hope) of the endless reincarnating cycle of karma, which is of course equally nonexistent, as all past deeds, all goods and bads, endlessly and eternally balance each other out - once again, existentialism is nihilism, not existing.

And that is both how and why the gods are all always both unknown and unknowable - as they do not really exist.

If in the Zoroastrian binary version, one of them (a 'Devil') only exists to make itself "Better Than You!" to us, by making us "Worse Than You!" while the other tends to condone such behaviour by ignoring it in favour of concentrating on always making its self Better Than Us, then the result is the same - it knows it makes us worse than it. Therefore, either it admits to same in the impossibly static Afterlife, as the Judaic version seems to imply it will, while the Christian version torturously re-kills its Devil and its followers over and over forever or the islamic version is correct where god was never so divided into a god and devil, and nothing ever mattered.

RELIGION IS SUPPOSED TO REMOVE OR AT LEAST INHIBIT EMOTIONS OF JEALOUS GREED AND SO LIMIT OUR PREDATORY MISTAKES.

So, whether the objective beyond the subjective selves is always "Better Than You!" in a hypothetically Good way, whereupon we regard it as "God," or in a Bad way - whereupon it's the delinquent D'evil, doesn't matter: because we know what it wants, because it's always projecting the exact same thing: "I'm Better Than You!" Once we simply realize this objective fact and "Submit" to it, (in islamic parlance) then our subjective frailty doesn't matter; the devil-god can demand no more or less from us, EVER. So if we ignore and thereby also reserve all "I'm Better Than You!" statements to other, external influences beyond our subjective selves, forever, then all that's left for us to deal with is the here and now situational circumstances of our lives, mistakes, and problems. And in fact by and in doing so, we thereby also remove the predatory mistakes called crimes from our existences, too.

We reflect the expansive "I'm Better Than You!" greed like Buddhists or Jains, without experiencing the friction.

Monday, September 4, 2017

Rise Of The Simpletons

THE RISE OF THE SIMPLETONS:
ARGUING WITH LIBERALS


Politicians can only do whatever they want without responsibilities because of low-information voters, and those only exist because the education system consistently fails us. And it only fails us because it, like the judiciary, only exists as window-dressing and theater, to support the Establishment politicians' power.

Their main motto is: "There's No Money In Solutions, so Please Give Generously - AGAIN!" And, failing upwards, "SINCE something COULD go wrong, SO it WILL go wrong, so WE MUST stop you first!" If it ain't broke, we'll fix it!

In education, the system teaches (abuse students with) a single main critical thinking logical fallacy:

Here's how the so-called "soft" sciences aka "humanities" (anthropology, psychology, sociology, and even criminology) really work: They all started off by examining the various symptoms and EFFECTS of human behavior, thinking, group-thinking behavior, and of criminal free-will CHOICES, respectively, but then self-invalidated by looking for hidden mysterious predestined and predetermined inevitable force "CAUSES" of it all, which degraded them all into only one criminal, excuse-making alibi topic: "VICTIMOLOGY!"

So we get these two, permanently opposed philosophical poles:

Law-abiding Conservatives: "Criminal behavior is an effect of free-will choice!"

Criminal libertines: "But what CAUSED that choice? There's always a cause!"

Their implication is that there are no crimes nor criminals because we're all "victims."

In short: they went from studying HOW people CHOOSE to act, to focusing on WHY (ruling out free will choice entirely)! And that "why" PRESUMES a fear of pain will ALWAYS trump rationality! "So" we are all really ever only helpless victims! Asking "why" people ('always') give in to the fear of pain, presumes that: "SINCE anything CAN go wrong, SO it WILL always go wrong, SO we MUST forgive everyone for their mistakes, as being helpless victims!"

But in reality, the real and only reason WHY people commit crimes, is that they still think they can have rights without responsibilities, so they weigh all the risks and rewards in different situational circumstances first!

And they only try to do so in each and every separate circumstantial situation, because they haven't learned that rights ALWAYS only come with responsibilities, causes with effects, and effects with causes, and so they either remain ignorant of, or choose to ignore, the simple Golden Rule of Law moral Principle: "Do Not Attack First."

Bottom Line: there is never any magical, separate or special set of circumstances when is is morally or legally acceptable to attack thereby innocent other people first! But idolaters keep hoping there will be, since when they claim that all is allowed unless and until it is very specifically forbidden in advance, they really only mean it is ALWAYS allowed, whether or not it is forbidden, because we can always vote to change the rules later!

Victimology is extortive slavery because perpetual victims imply permanent oppressors.

Since rational people get angry with criminals for their predatory choices, and criminals insist they have no choices because we're all equally victims who should therefore tolerate the diverse differences between the kind of victim who attacks innocent others first, and those who don't, they insist pity is always good and anger is always bad.

The meaning of life is to fix the mistakes and solve the problems which cause the damage which causes the pains we fear the most. There is no safety or security. Repeat endlessly.

And to do this, one must use one's own natural pattern-recognition software to discriminate and sort through all the various symptoms of principles and all the divide-and-conquer synonyms criminal liars made up to obscure them; aka THINKING.

OR one can give up and become a part of the problem, gaining instant wealth by failing upwards because there's no money in solutions, and popularity because people like to be tempted, coddled and indulged in being poor victims.

Logically all criminals demanding equality of outcome (enslaving their victims) must also demand that other people (their victims) must not hurt the lazy criminal parasites' feelings!

Which leads to a lucrative career in championing "victim's rights" (to remain irresponsibly wrong) by extorting their real victims: honest folks who tell them to stop being lazy & blaming others for their lack of motivation.

Therefore pity is held as the highest virtue, and anger as a vile sin.

Because in order to pose as a champion and extort one's real victims, one must not only play the victim while accusing one's own victims of being the real criminals, one must also insist that there are no real crimes nor criminals, because even if attacking "first and second" do exist, we're still all too stupid to understand cause and effect, and so we're all really only ever helpless victims, entitled to pity, and the only real crime left is to get angry and accuse "another victim" of being a criminal just because they got caught committing some crimes!

People like to dummy down their thinking to a basic binary "Good/Bad" rule emotive level.

This pits the dynamic feeling of ANGER against the static feeling of PITY.

Encouraging delinquency is what ALL criminal and idolatrous leftopaths call "Progress!"

When Conservatives and Libertarians get angry at criminals and demand they make better choices, that's "evil" to the delinquently indulgent criminally negligent leftists who then try to ban that righteous and productive anger as "hate" (the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger at ongoing crimes). They prefer to do nothing in stead of risking themselves, and so choose to pity and coddle all the criminals as victims, and so encourage their bad choices. So in the end, which of us is truly evil? Which is the worse choice - anger, or pity? I think we all know the answer.

So to these thought-killing literally psychopathic idolaters, people who only feel pity towards criminals, are pitiful, and good and so deserve only pity; while those who feel anger towards delinquency are 'hateful,' and so only deserve hate and scorn.

It's the most childish and lazy - and, ultimately hypocritical and masochsitic - stance of tu quoque "projection" they can take.

Many if not most people prefer comforting lies over painful truths.

Most people are instinctive hypocrites, endorsing to and for others what they would never condone being done to them selves. And naturally, this includes most if not all politicians, who want rights without responsibilities.

When confronted by anyone in any situation, being asked if they think ANYONE, ever, is either a criminal or a victim, most people will instantly and automatically choose to virtue-signal "VICTIM!" - because it's easier and less risky than calling a potentially dangerous criminal out by accusing them of their crimes, and it gets to show off to others how tolerant and virtuous one is - all without ever having to take even a second to think!

Whee!

Besides, since the default virtue is to hold everyone as Innocent Until Proven Guilty, they get to pretend to be acting morally and within the law, too! So it's win/win for them, every time! And they don't care that what they're encouraging is granting all criminals a permanent excuse state of " Innocent Until NEVER Proven Guilty," either - because they're not in charge, not authorities, but can still pretend to be!

And unfortunately, this plays into the criminals' Brazen Rule of Chaos, where, since all is allowed unless and until very specifically forbidden (which implies all rules can be challenged, cancelled or abrogated under different circumstances, including the mere passage of time) then the only crime is to try to prevent anyone from doing whatever they want to, to whomever they want to, and whenever they want to. This explains liberal defiance.

VICTIMOLOGY101:

Victimology allows criminals (including SJW politicians) to blame their victims by reversing the onus of proof:

People are easily-manipulated by the most simple, binary emotions.

Since everyone accused must be considered innocent until proven guilty, the criminal left in stead focuses on the victimhood of the accusers, reversing the onus of proof by demanding that the defense has to prove a negative - "We don't have to prove you offended and oppressed us, because you first have to prove that we aren't victims!"

In other words, as long as we're presumed victims, whomever we choose to blame and extort is presumed oppressive!

Works. Every. Time.

i.e: They guilt the politicians by emotively asserting that THEY are accusing them of NOT-being "real" victims!

If the politicians (and here I include the media) had any guts or preference for rationality, logic, and facts, they would insist:

"No, you still have to prove that assertion, with, you know, 'evidence,' not merely extortive appeals to our emotions, too!"

To reiterate: Leftopathic Virtue-Signalling Explained!

I don't want to be angry with criminals for their predatory choices, because that's "hateful!"

I'd rather pity them as fellow victims, as that's less risky and only costs YOUR tax dollars!

The mere emotion of Pity = the highest Virtue.
The mere emotion of anger = the most vile Sin.

Whee.

Black Lies Murder

From here:

The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

Heather Mac Donald
Manhattan Institute

Heather Mac DonaldHeather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She earned a B.A. from Yale University, an M.A. in English from Cambridge University, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers and journals, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Criterion, and Public Interest, and is the author of three books, including Are Cops Racist? and The War on Cops: How The New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe (forthcoming June 2016).

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 27, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

For almost two years, a protest movement known as “Black Lives Matter” has convulsed the nation. Triggered by the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014, the Black Lives Matter movement holds that racist police officers are the greatest threat facing young black men today. This belief has triggered riots, “die-ins,” the murder and attempted murder of police officers, a campaign to eliminate traditional grand jury proceedings when police use lethal force, and a presidential task force on policing.

Even though the U.S. Justice Department has resoundingly disproven the lie that a pacific Michael Brown was shot in cold blood while trying to surrender, Brown is still venerated as a martyr. And now police officers are backing off of proactive policing in the face of the relentless venom directed at them on the street and in the media. As a result, violent crime is on the rise.

The need is urgent, therefore, to examine the Black Lives Matter movement’s central thesis—that police pose the greatest threat to young black men. I propose two counter hypotheses: first, that there is no government agency more dedicated to the idea that black lives matter than the police; and second, that we have been talking obsessively about alleged police racism over the last 20 years in order to avoid talking about a far larger problem—black-on-black crime.

Let’s be clear at the outset: police have an indefeasible obligation to treat everyone with courtesy and respect, and to act within the confines of the law. Too often, officers develop a hardened, obnoxious attitude. It is also true that being stopped when you are innocent of any wrongdoing is infuriating, humiliating, and sometimes terrifying. And needless to say, every unjustified police shooting of an unarmed civilian is a stomach-churning tragedy.

Given the history of racism in this country and the complicity of the police in that history, police shootings of black men are particularly and understandably fraught. That history informs how many people view the police. But however intolerable and inexcusable every act of police brutality is, and while we need to make sure that the police are properly trained in the Constitution and in courtesy, there is a larger reality behind the issue of policing, crime, and race that remains a taboo topic. The problem of black-on-black crime is an uncomfortable truth, but unless we acknowledge it, we won’t get very far in understanding patterns of policing.

*  *  * 

Every year, approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered. This is a number greater than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the national population. Blacks are killed at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. In Los Angeles, blacks between the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean. Who is killing them? Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. The astronomical black death-by-homicide rate is a function of the black crime rate. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic male teens combined. Blacks of all ages commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined, and at eleven times the rate of whites alone.

The police could end all lethal uses of force tomorrow and it would have at most a trivial effect on the black death-by-homicide rate.

The nation’s police killed 987 civilians in 2015, according to a database compiled by The Washington Post. Whites were 50 percent—or 493—of those victims, and blacks were 26 percent—or 258. Most of those victims of police shootings, white and black, were armed or otherwise threatening the officer with potentially lethal force.

The black violent crime rate would actually predict that more than 26 percent of police victims would be black. Officer use of force will occur where the police interact most often with violent criminals, armed suspects, and those resisting arrest, and that is in black neighborhoods. In America’s 75 largest counties in 2009, for example, blacks constituted 62 percent of all robbery defendants, 57 percent of all murder defendants, 45 percent of all assault defendants—but only 15 percent of the population.
Moreover, 40 percent of all cop killers have been black over the last decade. And a larger proportion of white and Hispanic homicide deaths are a result of police killings than black homicide deaths—but don’t expect to hear that from the media or from the political enablers of the Black Lives Matter movement. Twelve percent of all white and Hispanic homicide victims are killed by police officers, compared to four percent of all black homicide victims.

If we’re going to have a “Lives Matter” anti-police movement, it would be more appropriately named “White and Hispanic Lives Matter.”

Standard anti-cop ideology, whether emanating from the ACLU or the academy, holds that law enforcement actions are racist if they don’t mirror population data. New York City illustrates why that expectation is so misguided. Blacks make up 23 percent of New York City’s population, but they commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime, according to victims and witnesses. Add Hispanic shootings and you account for 98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the city.

Whites are 33 percent of the city’s population, but they commit fewer than two percent of all shootings, four percent of all robberies, and five percent of all violent crime.

 These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned to minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects.

Officers hope against hope that they will receive descriptions of white shooting suspects, but it almost never happens.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect.

This is not something the police choose. It is a reality forced on them by the facts of crime.


The geographic disparities are also huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian.

As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge. Every time there is a shooting, the police will flood the area looking to make stops in order to avert a retaliatory shooting.

They are in Brownsville not because of racism, but because they want to provide protection to its many law-abiding residents who deserve safety.

*  *  *

Who are some of the victims of elevated urban crime? On March 11, 2015, as protesters were once again converging on the Ferguson police headquarters demanding the resignation of the entire department, a six-year-old boy named Marcus Johnson was killed a few miles away in a St. Louis park, the victim of a drive-by shooting. No one protested his killing. Al Sharpton did not demand a federal investigation. Few people outside of his immediate community know his name.

Ten children under the age of ten were killed in Baltimore last year. In Cleveland, three children five and younger were killed in September. A seven-year-old boy was killed in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend by a bullet intended for his father. In November, a nine-year-old in Chicago was lured into an alley and killed by his father’s gang enemies; the father refused to cooperate with the police. In August, a nine-year-old girl was doing her homework on her mother’s bed in Ferguson when a bullet fired into the house killed her. In Cincinnati in July, a four-year-old girl was shot in the head and a six-year-old girl was left paralyzed and partially blind from two separate drive-by shootings.

This mindless violence seems almost to be regarded as normal, given the lack of attention it receives from the same people who would be out in droves if any of these had been police shootings.

As horrific as such stories are, crime rates were much higher 20 years ago. In New York City in 1990, for example, there were 2,245 homicides. In 2014 there were 333—a decrease of 85 percent. The drop in New York’s crime rate is the steepest in the nation, but crime has fallen at a historic rate nationwide as well—by about 40 percent—since the early 1990s.

The greatest beneficiaries of these declining rates have been minorities. Over 10,000 minority males alive today in New York would be dead if the city’s homicide rate had remained at its early 1990s level.

*  *  *

What is behind this historic crime drop? A policing revolution that began in New York and spread nationally, and that is now being threatened.

Starting in 1994, the top brass of the NYPD embraced the then-radical idea that the police can actually prevent crime, not just respond to it. They started gathering and analyzing crime data on a daily and then hourly basis.

They looked for patterns, and strategized on tactics to try to quell crime outbreaks as they were emerging. Equally important, they held commanders accountable for crime in their jurisdictions. Department leaders started meeting weekly with precinct commanders to grill them on crime patterns on their watch. These weekly accountability sessions came to be known as Compstat. They were ruthless, high tension affairs. If a commander was not fully informed about every local crime outbreak and ready with a strategy to combat it, his career was in jeopardy.

Compstat created a sense of urgency about fighting crime that has never left the NYPD. For decades, the rap against the police was that they ignored crime in minority neighborhoods. Compstat keeps New York commanders focused like a laser beam on where people are being victimized most, and that is in minority communities. Compstat spread nationwide. Departments across the country now send officers to emerging crime hot spots to try to interrupt criminal behavior before it happens.

In terms of economic stimulus alone, no other government program has come close to the success of data-driven policing. In New York City, businesses that had shunned previously drug-infested areas now set up shop there, offering residents a choice in shopping and creating a demand for workers. Senior citizens felt safe to go to the store or to the post office to pick up their Social Security checks. Children could ride their bikes on city sidewalks without their mothers worrying that they would be shot. But the crime victories of the last two decades, and the moral support on which law and order depends, are now in jeopardy thanks to the falsehoods of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Police operating in inner-city neighborhoods now find themselves routinely surrounded by cursing, jeering crowds when they make a pedestrian stop or try to arrest a suspect. Sometimes bottles and rocks are thrown. Bystanders stick cell phones in the officers’ faces, daring them to proceed with their duties. Officers are worried about becoming the next racist cop of the week and possibly losing their livelihood thanks to an incomplete cell phone video that inevitably fails to show the antecedents to their use of force.

Officer use of force is never pretty, but the public is clueless about how hard it is to subdue a suspect who is determined to resist arrest.

As a result of the anti-cop campaign of the last two years and the resulting push-back in the streets, officers in urban areas are cutting back on precisely the kind of policing that led to the crime decline of the 1990s and 2000s. Arrests and summons are down, particularly for low-level offenses. Police officers continue to rush to 911 calls when there is already a victim. But when it comes to making discretionary stops—such as getting out of their cars and questioning people hanging out on drug corners at 1:00 a.m.—many cops worry that doing so could put their careers on the line. Police officers are, after all, human. When they are repeatedly called racist for stopping and questioning suspicious individuals in high-crime areas, they will perform less of those stops. That is not only understandable—in a sense, it is how things should work. Policing is political. If a powerful political block has denied the legitimacy of assertive policing, we will get less of it.


On the other hand, the people demanding that the police back off are by no means representative of the entire black community. Go to any police-neighborhood meeting in Harlem, the South Bronx, or South Central Los Angeles, and you will invariably hear variants of the following: “We want the dealers off the corner.” “You arrest them and they’re back the next day.” “There are kids hanging out on my stoop. Why can’t you arrest them for loitering?” “I smell weed in my hallway. Can’t you do something?” I met an elderly cancer amputee in the Mount Hope section of the Bronx who was terrified to go to her lobby mailbox because of the young men trespassing there and selling drugs. The only time she felt safe was when the police were there. “Please, Jesus,” she said to me, “send more police!” The irony is that the police cannot respond to these heartfelt requests for order without generating the racially disproportionate statistics that will be used against them in an ACLU or Justice Department lawsuit.

*  *  *

Unfortunately, when officers back off in high crime neighborhoods, crime shoots through the roof. Our country is in the midst of the first sustained violent crime spike in two decades.
(Thanks, Obama!)

Murders rose nearly 17 percent in the nation’s 50 largest cities in 2015, and it was in cities with large black populations where the violence increased the most. Baltimore’s per capita homicide rate last year was the highest in its history. Milwaukee had its deadliest year in a decade, with a 72 percent increase in homicides. Homicides in Cleveland increased 90 percent over the previous year. Murders rose 83 percent in Nashville, 54 percent in Washington, D.C., and 61 percent in Minneapolis. In Chicago, where pedestrian stops are down by 90 percent, shootings were up 80 percent through March 2016.

I first identified the increase in violent crime in May 2015 and dubbed it “the Ferguson effect.” My diagnosis set off a firestorm of controversy on the anti-cop Left and in criminology circles. Despite that furor, FBI Director James Comey confirmed the Ferguson effect in a speech at the University of Chicago Law School last October. Comey decried the “chill wind” that had been blowing through law enforcement over the previous year, and attributed the sharp rise in homicides and shootings to the campaign against cops.

Several days later, President Obama had the temerity to rebuke Comey, accusing him (while leaving him unnamed) of “cherry-pick[ing] data” and using “anecdotal evidence to drive policy [and] feed political agendas.” The idea that President Obama knows more about crime and policing than his FBI director is of course ludicrous. But the President thought it necessary to take Comey down, because to recognize the connection between proactive policing and public safety undermines the entire premise of the anti-cop Left: that the police oppress minority communities rather than bring them surcease from disorder.

As crime rates continue to rise, the overwhelming majority of victims are, as usual, black—as are their assailants. But police officers are coming under attack as well. In August 2015, an officer in Birmingham, Alabama, was beaten unconscious by a convicted felon after a car stop. The suspect had grabbed the officer’s gun, as Michael Brown had tried to do in Ferguson, but the officer hesitated to use force against him for fear of being charged with racism. Such incidents will likely multiply as the media continues to amplify the Black Lives Matter activists’ poisonous slander against the nation’s police forces.

The number of police officers killed in shootings more than doubled during the first three months of 2016. In fact, officers are at much greater risk from blacks than unarmed blacks are from the police. Over the last decade, an officer’s chance of getting killed by a black has been 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop.

The favorite conceit of the Black Lives Matter movement is, of course, the racist white officer gunning down a black man. According to available studies, it is a canard. A March 2015 Justice Department report on the Philadelphia Police Department found that black and Hispanic officers were much more likely than white officers to shoot blacks based on “threat misperception,” i.e., the incorrect belief that a civilian is armed.

A study by University of Pennsylvania criminologist Greg Ridgeway, formerly acting director of the National Institute of Justice, has found that black officers in the NYPD were 3.3 times more likely to fire their weapons at shooting scenes than other officers present.

The April 2015 death of drug dealer Freddie Gray in Baltimore has been slotted into the Black Lives Matter master narrative, even though the three most consequential officers in Gray’s arrest and transport are black. There is no evidence that a white drug dealer in Gray’s circumstances, with a similar history of faking injuries, would have been treated any differently.

We have been here before. In the 1960s and early 1970s, black and white radicals directed hatred and occasional violence against the police. The difference today is that anti-cop ideology is embraced at the highest reaches of the establishment: by former President Obama and by his Attorney General, by college presidents, by foundation heads, and by the press.


I don’t know what will end the current frenzy against the police. What I do know is that we are playing with fire, and if it keeps spreading, it will be hard to put out.

=======

And more, from here:

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Racial Ratios
by Steve Sailer

March 23, 2016

Earlier this month (before her untimely death), John Rivers tweeted out his hope for the future:

"I dream of a world where a mid­level manager in a mid­level company can accurately quote FBI crime statistics on Facebook and not be fired."

We don’t live in that utopia, however, so you should be cautious about mentioning this article at work. But at least accurately quoting government crime statistics is more convenient than ever due to the publication of The Color of Crime, 2016 Revised Edition.

Researched and written in a sober, judicious manner by veteran economic analyst Edwin S. Rubenstein, this is the first update since 2005 of Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance magazine’s venerable report on racial differences in crime rates.

Most of the government data used in the report ends with the year 2013, and therefore generally offers an encouraging contrast to the last report’s use of 2002 as its terminus. From 2002 to 2013, most crime rates fell, and racial differences moderated somewhat.

An epilogue to this 12,000­-word study, however, deals with the alarming spike in homicide rates in 2015 during the Black Lives Matter agitation. The Washington Post reported in January:

The number of homicides in the country’s 50 largest cities rose nearly 17 percent last year, the greatest increase in lethal violence in a quarter century. A Wonkblog analysis of preliminary crime data found that about 770 more people were killed in major cities last year than the year before, the worst annual change since 1990.

It’s tragic but hardly unexpected that the anti­white race-baiting by the Obama Administration, the Soros Foundation, and the national media has led to hundreds more blacks being murdered by other blacks.

“A body with a hole in it demands attention.”

After all, that’s also what happened in the 1960s, the last time liberals grabbed control of the criminal justice system. During the Warren Court era, incarceration was driven way down per crime committed, so, amazingly enough, more crimes were committed. Before that historic mistake was finally rectified, much of urban America had been reduced to depopulating slums.

Rubenstein carefully walks readers through the different sources of statistics about crime and race, such as arrests, imprisonment, and interviews with victims.

All three measures come up with similar racial ratios. On average, blacks commit more violent crimes than Hispanics, who commit more than whites, who commit more than Asians.

The more severe the crime, the worse the racial ratios tend to be. For example, California data is instructive because it carefully breaks out Latinos from whites, whereas federal statistics usually lump whites and Hispanics together. In California, blacks are arrested for homicide 8.6 times as often as whites (down from 9.8 times in 2002) compared with 2.5 times for Hispanics (down from 3.6 in 2002). Robbery, a career that favors the athletic and fleet of foot, is even more of a black specialty, with a black-to-white ratio of 13.4 (down from 15.9 in 2002) versus 2.0 for Hispanics (down from 2.7).

In contrast, in California, blacks are arrested for driving offenses only 1.7 times as often as whites, and Hispanics merely 1.3 times as often.

Or, to use national statistics, blacks are incarcerated 13.1 times as often as whites in state prisons for robbery but only 2.6 times as often for “other property crimes.”

Rubenstein makes the important point that this pattern of lower racial ratios for less vicious crimes is inconsistent with the conventional wisdom that racial differences must be the result of blacks and Hispanics being the victims of discrimination by police and juries:

Almost without exception, the black/white and Hispanic/white arrest multiples are lower for the less serious crimes. Whatever else this difference may mean, it is strong evidence that the police are not making biased arrests. Police have broad discretion as to whether they will arrest someone for forcible touching, shoplifting, or setting off a false fire alarm. If racist police wanted to vent prejudices on non-whites, these are the crimes for which they could most easily do so. They can walk away if someone complains he was spat on, and if they are racist they can walk away if the spitter is white but make an arrest if the spitter is black. Police cannot walk away if someone is lying on the sidewalk bleeding from a knife wound.

A body with a hole in it demands attention.

Interracial violence, contrary to the impression you might get these days from the obsessions of respectable media outlets, is overwhelmingly skewed toward victimizing whites (and Asians):

In 2012 and 2013, blacks committed an annual average of 560,600 crimes of violence against whites whereas whites committed only about 99,400 such crimes against blacks. This means blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites.

The differences in propensity toward interracial violence are noteworthy:

In 2012/2013, the actual likelihood of attack was extremely low in all cases, but statistically, any given black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white and six times more likely to attack a Hispanic than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white than the reverse.

Rubenstein puts “Black Lives Matter” into proper perspective by citing federal murder statistics:

Although most murders are within the same race, [individual] blacks were 13.6 times more likely to kill non­blacks than [individual] non­blacks were to kill blacks.

Of course, the relatively rare cases of whites attacking blacks monopolize media attention for the same reason that “Man Bites Dog” is more lucrative clickbait than “Dog Bites Man.”


Across the country, the incarceration rate for Hispanics is 289 vs. 113 for whites (vs. 709 for blacks). East Coast mulatto Hispanics from the Caribbean appear to be more crime-prone than Sun Belt mestizo Hispanics from Mesoamerica.

The recent decline in Hispanic crime rates in California is striking, especially when compared with the savagery across the border in Mexico during the same years. Estimates of the death toll in the Mexican drug war between 2006 and 2013 center around 120,000.

My guess is that the opposing trends are symbiotic. When my father and I used to drive around Mexico on vacations in the 1960s through 1980s, the crime rate may have been lower in Mexico than in California. Back then crime didn’t pay in semi­dictatorial Mexico but did pay in progressive California, where American­-born Chicanos flocked to join gangs to do battle with black gangs.

Since America lengthened prison sentences and Mexico wrested cocaine smuggling away from the Colombian cartels, though, crime is more likely to pay south of the border. Immigrant convicts who get deported after their sentences are up may now find it more profitable to stay in Mexico to pursue careers in drugs.

Also, America may be getting a less troublesome sort of immigrant from Mexico since the 1996 reforms restricted welfare. Mexicans in the United States increasingly come from the smaller, more docile, more Indian peoples of central and southern Mexico, while the Chicanos of a generation ago tended to be bigger, whiter, and from the more violent lands of northern Mexico.

This doesn’t mean that recent immigrants are all that law­-abiding, but they do tend to attract less police attention. Death rates from heroin overdoses, for example, have skyrocketed in the American heartland since the Mexican drug pushers arrived. Sam Quinones’ award­winning book Dreamland: The True Tale of America’s Opiate Epidemic documents how a Jalisco gang of black-tar heroin retailers has spread overdose deaths by staying off the cops’ radar. Also, they avoid having anything to do with African-Americans, whom the Mexican smack dealers stereotype as being prone to theft and violence. (When accurately quoting FBI crime statistics is criminal, only criminals will accurately quote FBI crime statistics.)

There has been much denunciation by Democrats and the more Jeb Bush-like Republicans of mass incarceration, but The Color of Crime points out that imprisonment is in decline:

The incarceration rate peaked at 788 per 100,000 US residents in 2007 and declined to 730 by 2013.

Until the post­-Ferguson spike in black­on-black crime, it was looking as if imprisonment would begin to fall rapidly as the murderers of the crack era of a quarter century ago began to die off or be released.

Those who rage against “mass incarceration” would be more persuasive if they first apologized for what their ideological predecessors did to America in the 1960s and 1970s, and then explained why, exactly, they aren’t going to do the same thing all over again.

=======

And, as Geoffrey Britain said:

Absent fathers, rampant criminality and a 'black culture' that rejects the cultural virtues of education, personal responsibility, hard work, familial obligations and delayed gratification are what has destroyed the black community.

What is "fiscally unsustainable" is the "$19.8 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) [that America has spent] on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all military wars in U.S. history from the Revolutionary War through the current war in Afghanistan has been $6.98 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars). The War on Poverty has cost three times as much as all other wars combined." Stephen Daggett, Costs of Major U.S. Wars, Congressional Research Service, June 29, 2010.

Nor can everyone share 'equally' in the economy. Merit, the material resources available to us and our 'network' of family, friends and acquaintances determine our 'share' of the economy.

=======

Finally, as per Brigadon's observations:

The thing that is so hard for people to realize is that Black lives really do NOT matter.

If the blacks in America were moved to zimbabwe tomorrow, no services would be disrupted, no progress would be impeded, no important government or private sector work would end ... in fact, our budgetary problems would be dramatically reduced, we could shut down hundreds of prisons, reduce police staffing, and reclaim vast urban wastelands for legitimate businesses.

It may sound brutal, but the fact is, A lot of us would miss Terry Crews, but that's about it. The only black lives that matter are in the entertainment industry. (Am I the only one who thinks Zoe Saldana can't act?)!

;-)

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Muslim columnist: To say Islam isn’t a race is “overly simplistic,” and “Islamophobia” is racism

From here, and as picked up on by Robert Spencer, here:
Amjad: 
Canada must call Islamophobia what it is – racism
Canadian officials were in Geneva this month to answer critical questions about the country’s human rights record.
The appearance before the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination comes every four years and is an opportunity for racialized communities to hold our governments to account for their action, or inaction, on promoting racial equity in a pluralistic society. This year, there was a painful omission.
Canada omitted identifying Islamophobia as a form of racism in its official report. This reinforces harmful narratives that can render Islamophobia invisible.
All too often, when someone perceived as Muslim is discriminated against, assaulted, harassed or disparaged, offenders and their supporters are quick to shrug off accusations of racism, arguing that Islam is not a race.
This is an overly simplistic understanding of the social construct of race itself.
“Since all racisms are socially and politically constructed rather than reliant on the reality of any biological race, it is perfectly possible for cultural markers associated with Muslimness (forms of dress, rituals, languages, etc.) to be turned into racial signifiers,” points out British academic and author Arun Kundnani.
In identifying anti-Muslim discrimination to be the leading form of contemporary creed-based discrimination in Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has noted that visible minorities are sometimes broadly targeted based on outward appearances, and “perceived” associations with Islam.
This helps explain why members of the Sikh community have sometimes been targets of anti-Muslim attacks. It also explains why, according to a poll conducted by the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants and Mass Minority last year, opposition to Syrian refugees was higher among those who held unfavourable impressions of Islam, demonstrating a popular misconception that all Syrian refugees are Muslims.
When a woman wearing a scarf is assaulted on the bus, and told to go back to her country; when a Sikh temple is burned to the ground; when a turbaned man is faced with additional scrutiny at the border, it is the perception of the offending party that serves as the motivation of the Islamophobic, racist action, not whether or not those victimized are in fact Muslim.
And while it may be challenging to understand these complexities, the government must not forsake the complex extrinsic and systemic discrimination faced by racially diverse Canadian Muslims in any discussion of racial discrimination.
Over the past four years, there has been an appalling 253 per cent rise in the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes, according to Statistics Canada. It’s a trend that has been corroborated by the growing number of hate crimes and alleged human rights violations that are reported to our organization on a regular basis.
These numbers don’t take into account the intersectionality of hatred.
Individuals can be attacked for various identities; our statistics must further capture this.
The stereotyping of Muslims as a racially homogeneous group cannot be overlooked. The Ontario government has made progress by establishing an anti-racism directorate and committing to the study and eradication of systemic racism, including Islamophobia.
The Alberta government is exploring similar ways to address the phenomena and the federal government is gearing up to study Islamophobia and other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination in the fall. All governments should make this a key priority.
It has been 13 years since Canada adopted an action plan against racism before the World Conference Against Racism. This unfulfilled plan must be reinstated and adequately resourced to meet these ongoing challenges.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has acknowledged that Islamophobia is a problem in Canada – our government institutions must do the same.
Sehrish Amjad is a former human rights officer at the National Council of Canadian Muslims.
(Wow - a "human rights officer!" My, doesn't that sound official LOL?)!
=======
I live in Ottawa and read the Ottawa Citizen rag daily (mostly against my will, out of a morbid curiosity to see what The Enemy of rationality, civilization and humanity is up to – but it’s like watching a slow-motion train-wreck) and this sort of nonsense is all-too-commonly featured as part of its tiresome and endless globalist anti-white racist propaganda.
1.)
Re: All too often, when someone perceived as Muslim is discriminated against, assaulted, harassed or disparaged, offenders and their supporters are quick to shrug off accusations of racism, arguing that Islam is not a race. This is an overly simplistic understanding of the social construct of race itself. “Since all racisms are socially and politically constructed rather than reliant on the reality of any biological race, it is perfectly possible for cultural markers associated with Muslimness (forms of dress, rituals, languages, etc.) to be turned into racial signifiers,” points out British academic and author Arun Kundnani.”
Let’s excise the relevant part of that screed:
“all racisms are socially and politically constructed rather than reliant on the reality of any biological race”
So these extortionists’ use of their favourite term, “racism,” doesn’t rely on reality. Got it!
2.)
Re: “In identifying anti-Muslim discrimination to be the leading form of contemporary creed-based discrimination in Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has noted that visible minorities are sometimes broadly targeted based on outward appearances, and “perceived” associations with Islam….”
Utter bullshit! The Ontario Human Rights Commission has no legal mandate whatsoever, and is nothing more than a liberal’s wet-dream Frankenstein miscreation designed as a parallel and only quasi-“legal” system to extort those accused by butthurt whiners. It has no due-process whatsoever, so the process is the punishment: The accusers don’t need lawyers or even evidence (because they Commission is run by non-lawyer SJW activists and has no actual Judges on its tribunals to judge people with), while the accused defendants have to pony up thousands to lawyers to defend them selves. Oh, and it also doesn’t abide by any legally recognized rules of evidence either, often only relying on hurt feelings.
So, for them to pretend to “identify anti-Muslim discrimination to be the leading form of contemporary creed-based discrimination in Ontario” while of course ignoring all the muslim-on-Jew crimes, is typically laughable – and public fraud.
3.) Re: ” it is perfectly possible for cultural markers associated with Muslimness (forms of dress, rituals, languages, etc.) to be turned into racial signifiers,”
-Indeed YES, but what he fails to mention is, that in sharia, “muslim” forms of dress are officially FORBIDDEN to all non-muslim infidels, on purpose, in order to turn such “cultural markers” into religious “signifiers” so THE MUSLIMS can more easily discriminate against and humiliate all the non-muslims!

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Trump/Russia Collusion Review 101:

I didn't write this, but it had to be re-published with an easy link available somewhere, so here goes!

;-)

Subject: Russia


Remember when Donald Trump formed a business partnership with the Russian government and his company got $53 million from the Russian government investment fund called Rusnano .....that was started by Vladimir Putin and is referred to as "Putin's Child?”

        Oh wait, that wasn't Trump; it was John Podesta.

Remember when Donald Trump received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow that was paid for by Renaissance Capital, a company tied to Russian Intelligence Agencies? 

          Oh wait, that was Bill Clinton.


Remember when Donald Trump approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium to the Russians while he was Secretary of State giving control of it to Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation? 

          Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.

Remember when Donald Trump lied about that and said he wasn't a part of approving a deal that gave the Russians 1/5 of our uranium, but then his e-mails were leaked showing he did lie about it? 

        Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

Remember when Donald Trump got $145 million from shareholders of the uranium company sold to the Russians?

        Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton & the Clinton Foundation.

Remember when Donald Trump accepted millions in donations from Russian oligarchs like the chairman of a company that is part of the Russian Nuclear Research  Cluster;  the wife of the mayor of Moscow and a close pal of Putin's?

        Oh wait, that was the Clinton Foundation.

Remember when Donald Trump failed to disclose all those donations before becoming the Secretary of State, and it was only found out when a journalist went through Canadian tax records? 

        Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.

Remember when Donald Trump told Mitt Romney that the ' "The Cold War is over?"

        Oh wait, that was President Obama.

Man, Trump's ties to Russia are REALLY "disgusting!"