Politifact’s Lies of Omission About Gun Laws

Via The Gun Wire:

Freedom-hating-foreigner-given-voice-in-American-mass-media Piers Morgan was obsessing over Americans’ excessive freedom again on his show this week:

Politifact: ‘Americans are 20 times as likely to die from gun violence as citizens of other civilized countries,’ says author Lisa Bloom

Politifact, a site with a wide reputation as the arbiter of the truth, or lack thereof, of statements made by politicians, pundits, and the like, gave its “ruling”:

Bloom said, “Americans are 20 times as likely to die from gun violence as citizens of other civilized countries.”

Her phrasing is imperfect (“civilized” countries versus “developed”), and depending on what countries you count you can reach a slightly different figure. But Bloom’s point is well-sourced and largely accurate. The United States has a much higher rate of the [sic] world’s most developed countries. We rate her statement Mostly True.

No, this is mostly a lie. It’s very interesting to me, that a site that has based its reputation on its honesty, and its assessments of others’ honesty, is willing to let this deception via statistical chicanery pass without comment. Politifact is putting its imprimatur of truth on what is essentially a lie.

Leftists always avoid proper context when they’re gun-grabbing. The proper comparison is rates of death attributed to violence, not guns. Then, after correcting for socioeconomic factors, demographics, and other important variables, we could see if our (relatively) liberal gun laws were driving up violence. They’re not. If we compare apples to apples, i.e., the white American population to the white populations of western Europe (or populations of overwhelmingly white western European countries), we see that violent death rates are quite similar, even when comparing with countries with draconian gun laws.

Like this:

European Murder Rates Compared to the United States: Demographics vs Guns

In 2006 the Department of Justice issued a report on violent felons in large urban counties. It covered the period from 1990 to 2002, and included the 75 most populous counties in the United States. The study accounted for over half of all the murders in the United States in the covered period.

Revealed in the study was a simple breakdown of the demographics of the murderers that is not commonly available. Murderers were divided into three groups. Blacks were the most numerous at 46%. Hispanics were next at 27 percent. Non-Hispanic whites were last at 23 percent.

While the study does not account for all murders in the period studied, it accounts for more than half and almost certainly slightly understates the percentages of Black murderers, because the latest FBI statistics (for 2010) show that when all the murders in the U.S are taken into account, the percentage of Black murderers is over 53 percent.

[…]

Where does that lead us? If we take the 23 percent figure for non-Hispanic whites to be representative for the entire population (remember, it is likely a good bit lower), then the number of murders committed by non-Hispanic and non-black people in the United States for 2010 would be 2989.

The population of non-Hispanic whites for 2010 was 196.8 million. Applying the 2989 murders to this population gives a murder rate of 1.52 per 100,000 population. We cannot get a more precise figure unless we have more demographic data than that given. Asian-Americans, for example, have historically had very low murder rates, but we do not have the data. The 1.52 per 100,000 murder rate is right in the middle of the murder rate of developed European countries. Add the Black and Hispanic numbers back into the mix and apply to the entire United States population, and the murder rate goes up to 4.8 per 100,000. Guns or gun control simply do not correlate to higher murder rates, particularly when you consider that non-Hispanic Whites own guns at much higher rates than do Blacks or Hispanics in the United States.

More:

Vox Popoli: Why US gun deaths are so high

Audacious Epigone: White Murder Rates by State

Audacious Epigone: Blac Homicide Rates by State

Leftists want to create an association between liberal gun laws and high violent death rates because they don’t like guns, and they’re upset about black and brown violent crime. Sorry, but we patriotic Americans can’t let you trample our rights, especially not based on a lie: America’s violent crime problem is a black and brown violent crime problem. White Americans living under liberal gun laws are no more likely to kill one another, or be killed, than western Europeans living under draconian gun laws are.

Politifact is giving grist for the mill to any conservative who doesn’t like their site, or its reputation as the arbiter of truth. The truth is, “gun homicide rate” is a useless statistic. Let’s leave aside the fact that it includes suicides, accidental shootings, and lawful self-defense homicides; the fact remains, aside from agenda-driven gun-grabbers and Constitution-haters, no one really cares if a homicide is committed with a gun, or with a knife, baseball bat, improvised bludgeon, household tool, or fists. Dead is dead, and limiting the conversation to only death by gun is tendentious and deceptive.

Of course, Politifact’s refusal to allow comments is probably exhibit A in how interested they are in truth, or fact-finding.

P.S., note that “Bloom” is a Jewish surname. Ever notice how often Jewish surnames are attached to freedom hating, Constition-hating, 2nd-Amendment-hating gun-grabbers? I do, but that’s a topic for another post.

The Things That Work to Curb Gun Violence – Response to Gov. Dumbpaddy

The Things That Work to Curb Gun Violence

While different states and cities might look to different strategies for protecting public safety, we all can agree on this: we lose too many American lives to gun violence.

No, you Irish jackass, we don’t all agree. I find the phrase “gun violence” stupid and offensive. It insults my intelligence. Because it actually manages to insult criminals’ intelligence; it tacitly asserts that criminals are too stupid to pick up a knife or a bat, or even just use their hands, if they don’t have guns.

It suggests that violence is okay, but “gun violence” is not. Or at least, that the latter is worse than the former. It’s a feeble attempt to conflate violence and guns that I find stupid, partisan, and cheap.

As a City Councilman, Mayor and now a Governor, I’ve attended too many line of duty funerals. I’ve looked into the eyes of too many moms and dads whose children were gunned down in their own neighborhoods. I’ve heard the cries of too many young boys and girls who’ve lost an older brother or a cousin to gun violence.

As a taxpayer and law-abiding citizen, I’ve seen too many hate-ins for guns and gun-owners. I’ve looked into the eyes of too many bitter gun-grabbers who hate America. I’ve heard the wails of too many statists who want to infringe on the rights of millions of law-abiding citizens.

Who can watch the sad pictures of Tucson, Auora, and Newtown, and honestly say that we’re doing enough? Who can sit back as our towns and cities are torn apart by violence, and be content with the status quo?

Who can watch the sad display on CBS, NBC, and ABC, and honestly say these people care about core America? Who can sit back and watch the bitter grabbers dismantle the America left to us by the Founders, and be content with the status quo?

The children that were lost in Newtown were our children. The children that are lost to gun violence in neighborhoods throughout America are our children. And the lives that we can save tomorrow are our children’s lives.

The children that the bitter grabbers are trying to disarm and leave defenseless are our children. The children who will grow up without an intact 2nd Amendment are our children. And the lives that we can save tomorrow are our children’s lives.

In the City of Baltimore and throughout the State of Maryland we’ve been able to drive down violent crime and homicide not with ideology, but basic strategies that are proven to work: effective policing, DNA, monitoring repeat violent offenders, digital fingerprinting, license plate readers, preventing the perpetrators of domestic violence from obtaining guns.

You forgot book-cooking, stat-massaging, and de-policing, your honor.

Between 1999 and 2009, the people of Baltimore achieved the greatest reduction in crime of America’s largest cities. Statewide in Maryland, we have driven violent crime and homicide down to three decade lows. There are 426 more people alive today in our state, because of the actions we have chosen to take together.

This is important, life-saving progress, but there is more that we can and must do. Lives are at stake.

Something tells me that if “gun control” legislation had been enacted during that period, his honor would have put his cards on the table and said so. In fact, that he has not said so strongly suggests that there was no new “gun control” in MD during that time; whether it had anything to do with the drop in crime or not, I think we can rest assured that, had MD actually enacted any “gun control” legislation during that time, his honor would be telling us it was the key to said drop in crime (stats). If I’m wrong and MD did enact “gun control” legislation during that period, then I feel it’s safe to conclude that his honor is the thickest-skulled mick to ever sit as chief executive of an American state.

Yesterday, our State Legislature passed common sense gun safety reforms. Strategies that work. Strategies which have been endorsed by Chiefs of Police, hunters, clergy, parents, advocates for public health, advocates for victims of domestic violence, citizens from all walks of life.

I think it’s safe to say that his honor doesn’t have a clue that his strategies are ones “that work.” I don’t care what liberal politicians, groups, or advocates endorse. I happen to have been paying fairly close attention to the kinds of things liberals endorse for more than ten years now, and have come to the conclusion that an endorsement from a liberal is like the Sicilian Kiss of Death as far as sanity is concerned.

One of these strategies is requiring a license and gun safety training to purchase a handgun. States that have similar licensing provisions have substantially lower gun death rates than states that do not.

Suddenly, a liberal knows what a “rate” is, again? A bona fide miracle. Usually, when I bring up black crime rates, liberals say “all races commit crime, not just blacks,” like they’re uneducated boobs incapable of 5th grade math.

But correlation is not causation, your honor. E.g: people who have black skin have substantially lower IQs, rates of education, taxpaying, and scientific or economic achievement, than people with non-black skin. And people who have black skin have dramatically higher rates of crime (including a rape rate 6.5 times the white rate) and welfare use than people with non-black skin.

See how tricky “correlation is causation” can be?

I should also take a moment to belabor my initial point about “gun death rates” and “gun violence” and other such nonsense. Nobody in the grave gives a shit if he died by the gun or the sword. People who talk in earnest about “gun death rates” are morons. They are effectively taking a dump in the public square, ruining the discussion for everyone else.

Practical experience has taught us that in places across our country where licensing is required, fewer guns make it into the hands criminals through “straw-purchases”–whereby, people buy guns only to hand them over to criminals, who then use these guns to kill or commit other crimes.

Practical experience here is code for “I have no scientific or empirical evidence for my claim whatsoever.” Here’s how to use phrases like “practical experience” in a way that doesn’t make one look like an ass: practical experience tells me that the sort of people putting guns into the hands of America’s (overwhelmingly black) murdering class through “straw purchases” will take about 2 seconds to move into “straw theft” mode, where they turn their backs and just happen to miss seeing their thug buddies “steal” the guns in question, the same thugs who coincidentally “give” them sizable wads of cash right around the same time.

Practical experience tells me that the likelihood that the deliberately-obtuse mick governors of the world actually enacting and enforcing a law criminalizing the failure to report a crime (in this case, a “stolen” gun) is roughly nil.

The bill we passed bans military-style assault weapons. These military-style weapons are designed for the battlefield. They do not have a place on the streets or neighborhoods of Maryland or for that matter any other state in our country. Since the federal ban expired, at least 461 Americans have been killed by military-style assault rifles. At least 35 of these fallen neighbors were police officers.

The bill thick-skull mick passed bans the kind of weapons that are used in none of the crime he’s referred to. The kind of weapons that kill fewer Americans every year than bee stings and lightning strikes. The kind of weapon that are much beloved of law-abiding, rural white Americans in their millions, but used in less than 1% of all murders.

The evidence suggests that banning high capacity ammunition magazines also works to save lives. It is another part of our legislative package. Today four states ban these high capacity magazines. These four states also have some of the lowest rates of gun deaths in America.

Suddenly, a liberal knows what a “rate” is, again? A bona fide miracle. Usually, when I bring up black crime rates, liberals say “all races commit crime, not just blacks,” like they’re uneducated boobs incapable of 5th grade math.

But correlation is not causation, your honor. E.g: people who have black skin have substantially lower IQs, rates of education, taxpaying, and scientific or economic achievement, than people with non-black skin. And people who have black skin have dramatically higher rates of crime (including a rape rate 6.5 times the white rate) and welfare use than people with non-black skin.

See how tricky “correlation is causation” can be?

I should also take a moment to belabor my initial point about “gun death rates” and “gun violence” and other such nonsense. Nobody in the grave gives a shit if he died by the gun or the sword. People who talk in earnest about “gun death rates” are morons. They are effectively taking a dump in the public square, ruining the discussion for everyone else.

The mental health component of our legislative package does more to keep guns away from people who have been determined to be dangerous to themselves or others as a result of mental illness. Nearly half of all mass shootings are perpetrated by individuals who are mentally ill.

Governor, after witnessing your thought processes and those of people like you, I have no faith at all in your collective ability to judge who is and is not mentally ill or fit for gun ownership.

I think his honor managed to pen a single paragraph that I didn’t feel obliged to object to. That might be a record.

Many American White Men bla bla bla Oy Vey

Many American White Men bla bla bla Oy Vey

Many “American” minorities hate and fear white men because of their sense of racial inferiority.

Liberal Jewish men already feel physically, aesthetically, and sexually inadequate next to white men. Add in their own self-inflicted gelding in the name of metrosexual urban politics, plus their disproportionate predilection toward sodomy, and, well…

The death rate of the Rwandan Genocide far exceeded the death rate of the Jewish Holocaust

Hi folks. No, I’m not dead. I just don’t really have a “blog.” The only pieces I ever seem to really want to write up are the kind I keep having to type anew in comments to other blogs over and over. Like this one. Enjoy.

(Preamble: if you don’t know what “rate” means, please go look it up before you proceed. Hint: it doesn’t mean “total.”)

I got tired of having to paste this into comments at Sailer’s, so I’m putting it here. It’s proof that the Hutus kicked the Nazis’ ass at genocide:

Rwandan Genocide; estimates of total dead:
500,000/800,000/1,000,000

Duration: “Over the course of approximately 100 days”

Daily death rates: 5,000/8,000/10,000

Jewish Holocaust; estimate of total dead:
6,000,000

Duration: As is usual with the Jewish holocaust, getting a concise answer to a simple question like “when did the mass murder begin?” is not a quick affair (the Jewish holocaust Narrative seems to be more about “me talk, you listen” than a question and answer session), so I’m going to have to make a snap best guess at the Narrative here. If you don’t like it, suggest an alternative. I’ll go with two ranges:

4745 days (1933-1945 (A Timeline of the Holocaust (1933 – 1945 being roughly the accepted duration of the Jewish Holocaust)))
2555 days (1939-1945 (1939 being first mention of mass murder in timeline linked above))

Daily death rates: 1,264/2,348

So you see, even the highest estimates for the daily death rate of the Jewish holocaust are less than half of even the lowest estimates for the daily death rate of the Rwandan genocide. Hutus managed to (at minimum) double the vaunted efficiency of the Nazi holocaust against the Jews. In all likelihood, they were far more successful than a mere doubling; the proper figure (if we’re being ANTI-SEMITIC!!! and assuming the Jewish Holocaust wasn’t nearly as long a period as mainstream historians maintain, and go with 1939-1945 instead) is probably more like 2,350 daily rate, vs. 8,000 daily rate. Which is 3.4 times as efficient, not a mere doubling.

If the Nazis had been as efficient as the Hutus, there would be no Jewish Holocaust survivors today. In fact, they’d have finished the job and killed all 9,000,000 Jews in Europe in only 1125 days, or roughly 3 years, start to finish, using nothing more sophisticated than an SMG. Hitler should’ve hired a Hutu to consult.

Principles vs. Narratives

This is where people get confused. They think because they have principles (plural), libtards must have them, too. They don’t. They have a Narrative, like with most religions. Just as a Hebrew around 1k BC would tell you that God destroying the people of Sodom right down to the babies in their cribs was a good thing because the Sodomites were wicked and depraved, and everything God does is good by definition, a 21st century libtard will tell you everything they do is good because their Narrative says so..

To someone who operates via principle, wearing a button that says “vote black” when you’d go apeshit if you saw a button that says “vote white” marks you as a racist. Someone who operates via Narrative has to crack the book, and the book says, “blacks have been held down by whites so it’s okay to have double standards with regard to the races.”

To someone who operates via principle, supporting race-based institutions for everyone but whites, and opposing them for only whites, marks you as a racist. Someone who operates via Narrative has to crack the book, and the book says, “whites are oppressors, everyone else is the victim, so it’s okay to have double standards for whites and non-whites.”

To someone who operates via principle, condemning an executive team for being too white, but never condeming an executive team for being too yellow, brown*, sepia, or Jewish marks you as a racist. Someone who operates via Narrative has to crack the book, and the book says, “whites are oppressors, everyone else is the victim, so it’s okay to have double standards for whites and non-whites.”

This is why libtards must control history and culture; they have to make sure their Narrative is the Narrative. If they don’t, the whole thing falls apart.

Also, obsessing about race is great protective covering for white libtards; if everyone is paying attention to the NAMs crying about white overrepresentation, no one is paying attention to the white southerner crying about Yankee overrepresentation, white Christians crying about Jewish overrepresentation, etc. They keep upwardly-mobile whites in check by pretending to give a shit about AA sinecures.

*Remember, “hispanics” are automatically “brown.” I didn’t make the rules.

Anarcho Tyranny – USPS “SureMoney® (DineroSeguro®)”

(This is pretty cute. VDare and others saw it before I did but I found out about it independently, from the USPS website.)

If you’re a citizen of the United States of America, and you want to walk into an office of the United States (of America) Postal Service, and wire money to another office of the USPS, so a fellow US citizen can show his ID and pick up the cash, all within 15 minutes, well, you’re shit out of luck. The USPS offers no such service. You’ll have to settle for sending cash through the mail.

But if you’re a criminal infiltrator (AKA, criminal alien*) who crossed the border into the United States of America illegally, and you want to walk into an office of the United States (of America) Postal Service, and wire money you earned illegally to a post office in Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, or The Dominican Republic, so someone can show his bogus ID (e.g., Matricula Consular card) and pick up the cash, all within 15 minutes, well, you’re in luck. The USPS has a tailor-made service that is just right for you: SureMoney® (DineroSeguro®)

This is anarcho-tyranny; the criminal infiltrator is provided a service that the law-abiding, tax-paying citizen is not; the law-abiding, tax-paying citizen has less freedom under this regime than a criminal infiltrator.

*:I stopped referring to illegal infiltrators and illegal aliens as illegal infiltrators and illegal aliens after I heard a libtard screech “people are not illegal!” The man had a point. Lawbreakers are not illegal; they’re criminals. Thanks libtards!

For more anarcho-tyranny, check out in-state tuition for criminal aliens

Prediction: a number of libtards have defended this by saying US citizens have the same right to send money to “Latin America” as anyone else, so there’s no “anarcho-tyranny” here, only a single standard. Prediction number two: at least one of those libtards has criticized the “ban on gay marriage” on an equal rights basis, despite the fact that homosexuals have always had the same right to marry as anyone. Prediction number three: I’ll keep this one to myself for now.

How to save your conversations from the Orwellian Disqus thought police

This morning I saw a recent story at Amren about the ongoing racist Israeli immigration scandal:

Exodus: Israel to Drive Africans from Holy Land

So, naturally, I jumped in to correct the callow swimmers in Amren’s kiddie-pool. I was interested to see how many (if any) of my comments the moderator would delete, so when I was done I saved the page. When I returned a few hours later I was surprised to find that he’d nuked the entire conversation and closed the page to comments. I say “surprised” because based on our previous discussion of Amren’s censorship policies, he’d given me the impression that it was uncivil behavior, and not civil discussion, that caused him to nuke previous threads on these topics. Well, it’s now clear to me that he just doesn’t want people expressing opinions outside certain boundaries, and it’s about ideas, not whether they’re expressed in a civil fashion.

Well, on to the point of this post: Disqus really is the perfect medium for censors like Amren’s mod. Get this: when I opened the HTML file I’d saved on my computer in Firefox, the page started loading, the comments appeared, and then they disappeared! You cannot make this shit up. My browser talked to Disqus for a few seconds, and then bam, comments nuked – on the local copy on my computer! Just…can’t…make…this…shit…up. I reloaded the page and the comments didn’t appear at all.

So I opened the file in Notepad++ and scrolled down through the contents, and sure enough, the comments were all there, but I couldn’t get Firefox to show them. I tried setting Firefox to work offline and then reloaded the page, no dice. Then I did a search/replace in Notepad++, substituting “FUCKdisqust” for “disqus” and saved it to disk. That did the trick, preventing Firefox from talking to MiniTru as it loaded the page, and the comments showed up (you have to save the new HTML file in the same place as the original if you want it to look right when it loads, otherwise you get “naked” HTML). Protip: you can ditch all the files in the subfolder Firefox creates except the CSS files and it’ll load fine.

If you want to see what the Amren moderator considers an uncivil flame war deserving of deletion, see here:

Exodus: Israel to Drive Africans from Holy Land

Keep in mind that the discussion was apparently fine with the moderator until I got there this morning. And since the discussion was there for 10 days with no problem, I think we can safely conclude that he deleted the thread because of me; in all likelihood, there were only a couple of replies to my additions, if any, because I did my thing around 8 this morning and by 11 or so the comments were gone.

Message to the Amren censor: get used to this. I’m going to continue to contribute my views on Jews and Israel in a civil manner, just as I did in that thread. I’d rather have you nuke every single thread touching on Jews or Israel than have you direct the conversation on these subjects to suit your agenda. The rest of us will manage the conversation, instead. I’m also going to continue to pants you by posting the conversations online.

Trayvon: please stop calling him a “child.”

Team Trayvon (the “mainstream” media, libtards, leftoids, Blacks, assorted goofballs) are fond of referring to 17-year-old, 6-foot-plus Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” Martin as a “child.” A “child” who brings pot and bags of stolen jewelry to school, wears a “grill” (removable gold teef), makes fight club videos of himself, calls himself a “made nigga,” etc.

(It’s funny how when 17-year-old Blacks act out in a group, they’re “youths,” and when they’re left alone by their parents to prowl around a strange neighborhood, they’re “children,” but when it comes to sex they’re “young adults,” no?)

I suppose that Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” is a “child” to the degree to which his father is guilty of child neglect for having left him alone without any supervision.

According to parent.net:

Here are some things to consider when deciding if your child is old enough to be home alone without a sitter:

You child needs to be responsible. Age does not matter, if your child is not responsible enough to know that he needs to sit down and start on his homework rather than playing video games. Additionally, does your child have good judgment and reasoning abilities, making it possible for him to remember not to open the door when the doorbell chimes, or not let a stranger on the phone know that you are not there?

Epic fail. EPIC. Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” wasn’t responsible enough to know not to bring pot and hot jewelry to school, or to get himself suspended from school several times a year, much less responsible enough to do his homework. His judgment was nowhere near the level of responsibility needed, according to these guidelines.

Is your home safe? If you live in a safe neighborhood, your windows and doors are in good repair, and your child knows how to work the burglar alarm and call the authorities if necessary, you could say that it is by and large safe for your child to be home alone. On the other hand, if your home is near to venues that attract unsafe characters and if your neighborhood is prone to gang violence, leaving your child home alone is unwise.

Epic fail. EPIC. The neighborhood was a high-crime area, and Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” Martin couldn’t even be trusted not to prowl around outdoors.

Have you trained your child in proper safety procedures? In other words, does your child know what to do if there was an attempted break-in, a fire, or other emergency?

Epic Fail. EPIC. Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” was so devoid of knowledge of self-preservational procedure that he thought circling around to confront (and attack) the stranger following him was a good idea. The idea of going home was too complex for him.

Do we know if Mr. Martin, Sr., did any of the things recommended in that article, before he ditched his son (who was visiting from out of town) and went off to dinner with his girlfriend? And shouldn’t we wonder what kind of father brings a “child” to stay with him, and then ditches that “child” to go off to dinner with his girlfriend? Was Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” Martin so much of an anti-social thug that dad didn’t want to take him out to dinner? Such a burden, that he’d rather leave him at home than spend time with him? Remember, he was just visiting. He had just come to stay with dad, but dad was already ditching him for dinner with the girlfriend. Or maybe, it was Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” Martin’s decision? Is that the kind of decision a child makes?

In Mr. Martin, Sr.’s place, would you feel completely comfortable leaving Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” Martin alone in your home? Would you feel he was up to the responsibility? That he had proven he had his head screwed on straight? Would you even feel halfway comfortable?

And why isn’t the media asking Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” Martin’s parents any of these questions? Why haven’t they asked Mr. Martin, Sr., WTF he was thinking leaving his violent, law-breaking, rule-breaking, anti-social, budding young thug of a son home alone?

Would Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” be in the ground right now, if his father hadn’t left him at home alone?

Would he be in the ground right now, if his mother had kept him at home with her, rather than send him to stay with his father?

Ben Tillman on Derb’s “The Talk.”

Funny, I haven’t blogged in quite a while, and when I do, I’m talking about the Derb again:

Ben Tillman posted this comment about Derbyshire’s The Talk at Sailer’s blog:

Ultimately, the Derbyshire controversy boils down to the following question: Do Blacks own non-Blacks?

If you have a problem with what Derbyshire wrote, then you have answered the question in the affirmative.

Suppose that Derbyshire’s daughters and other non-Blacks followed Derbyshire’s advice. What would be the result? Only that Blacks would be deprived of the presence of non-Blacks and the positive externalities they produce.

If you object to this result — if you think this is wrong — you are asserting that Blacks have an ownership interest in non-Blacks that obligates non-Blacks to be where Blacks want them to be and to share with Blacks what they produce.

Interesting. I wonder what substantive answer Libtards could, or would, give to this. That might be a bit like asking “I wonder what non-libtard answer libtards could give to this,” I suppose. They’d probably just change the subject, or argue over semantics, or lean on their old standby, feminine shaming language:

“The problem is Derb’s hate-speech”

“Laws against discrimination are not slavery.”

“Racist!”

I think they’d just stick to talking about how indecent it was of Derb to say what he said. But that raises the question: why are libtards so comfortable ignoring criticisms leveled against them? Why are they so uninterested in acknowledging, much less correcting, their obvious moral and ethical failings? Is it just as simple as conformity? I.e., they wouldn’t get a “buzz” from going against the grain of their groupthink and moving to higher moral and ethical ground because they only get a buzz from the groupthink?

John Derbyshire – Moral Cretin?

Something’s Rotten in the Republic

As the story line goes, a secretive cabal of elites, insufficiently stimulated by our nations’ inadequate diversity, or irritated by their demands for better wages, or shocked by their insistence that their interests trump those of foreigners, has decided to replace them with as much stealth as such a project can muster.

I wish I could believe it. Being allergic to conspiracy theories, I can’t. Being also at an age when I can regard the future beyond the next few summers with calm indifference, I think if the root stocks of Britain and America—nations blessed with representative government—were so stupid as to let wily elites drive them to minority status in their ancestral lands, the fools deserve the race war that’s probably coming to them.

Ever notice how it is only the scoffers like Derbyshire who use terms like “a secretive cabal of elites”? I call this the “Joo mind control rayz lulz” technique; in academic circles, it’s known as a straw man argument – an argument your opponent creates out of whole cloth and attributes to you as if you made it, but chosen for its stupidity because your opponent is better at refuting the arguments he invents for you than the arguments you actually make. It’s a tell-tale sign of weakness.

But that’s not what I really find salient in John’s piece. What I find remarkable is that John thinks little old ladies taken in by confidence men deserve bankruptcy. His response to the plight of victims of fraud goes beyond the decadence and cowardice of indifference, to the open malice of schadenfreude. There’s really no way to make that kind of statement, and object to the crime of fraud, and remain morally consistent.

Hey, to each his own, I suppose.

John refers to a segment about unemployment that “dragged its weary length for over 12 minutes while I howled at the monitor: “Mention immigration! Go on, at least mention it! Tell us about the H-1B scam!”

Why would they mention it? If they did, by Derbyshire’s lights, it should only be to note how much they deserve their plight. Even more curious, why would John “howl” at the television?

I do feel some mild regret on behalf of my kids, who I suppose will spend some of their adult years in a continent-sized version of 1970s Lebanon or 1990s Yugoslavia or 1960s/70s/80s/90s/00s Congo/Sudan/Somalia/Ethiopia/Zimbabwe, but at least I’ve taught the little Derbs (him and her) how to use firearms.

If John’s kids were full bearers of his ancestral legacy (instead of only half-bearers), he’d feel twice as much regret on their behalf. So that’s one up side to miscegenation – half the regret contemplating your children’s doom. Miscegenation and national ruin sound like the best match since “hey, you got your peanut butter in my chocolate!”

John notes that the Office of Refugee Resettlement “is now running three years late with these reports. Gosh, you might almost think there’s something they don’t want you to know about refugee resettlement, mightn’t you? Such as, oh, that the whole shebang is fraud-addled and that genuine refugees are a tiny minority of those resettled.”

But John’s already signed off on fraud. Fraud victims deserve their fate. Is this sort of thinking indicative of the logic they teach in British public schools?

If you think I’m being too hard on the old lemon-stuffer, consider his articles on Kevin MacDonald’s work. This “fraud victims deserve it” line isn’t a new one for the Derb. It’s a consistent one.

Yes, I’m turning. CBS; the administration; Congress; the Associated Press; there’s something going on here.

Better late than never, I suppose. Maybe if more White men “turned” before they’re out to pasture, we’d have a decent shot at turning things around.