By on

Karl Marx is purported to have said “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” I have been thinking about this quote since I heard that Putin is drafting more Russians to fight in the Ukrainian war. I am no military expert but is seems like a pretty bone headed move.

Putin plans to draft 300,000 thousand very unhappy men, some of who are fleeing the country to avoid the draft or protesting against the war, and then sending these less than enthusiastic solders to the front where they will be greeted by an already demoralized Russian army who have been floundering in the Ukraine since February. This seems like a mighty desperate roll of the die.

He is betting that any warm body given a gun and pointed in the right direction is enough soldiering required to win a war. If it works, Putin is a genius and I will take it all back. But if his best trained professional troops aren’t able to beat the Ukrainians, why would adding a large group of badly trained draftees be more successful? And, if Putin is wrong, and his disaster in the Ukraine keepings getting worse, he has a large group of angry men with loaded weapons directly on the Russian border facing an already weakened Russian military.

Perhaps this would be a good time for Putin to review the history of the Russian Revolution. The first revolution in February of 1917 was started by mutineers in the Russian army — unhappy with their defeat at the front and unwilling to fight a losing war any longer. The Bolsheviks came later in the year. For some reason, I keep thinking that this farce is about to get worse. Yes, I admit, it might be amusing to watch the evil fuck Putin take a fall but I do fear what might come next.

By on

As someone who considers himself a part of Western Civilization, I ask this question because people are always carrying on about the success of the West but, it seems to me, that the basis of that success was the departure of millions of people from Europe to other parts of the world. These migrations were so large that the majority populations in three continents (North America, South America and Australia) have changed from a majority indigenous population to a majority immigrant population. The other 5 continents, at least until recently, didn’t find it necessary to send their excess population across the oceans in order for their people to make a decent living. The European world did. And why is this seen as a success?

Over 70% of the population of the United States has European ancestors. They left, by and large, because they were poor. They saw little chance for themselves or for their children in the old country. They left the world they knew to take a treacherous trip across the ocean, bringing precious little with them and landing in a new world. Many immigrants didn’t speak the language of the country they were going to or know anyone who could help them when they arrived or have any money to invest in their new country. They still left family, friends, and their known world. Imagine how bad it must have been for millions of people to take this risk.

Americans have a tendency to glorify this mass movement of people and, because it has been the driving economic philosophy of the time, capitalism as a success story. Poor people were given a chance to succeed in the new world, a chance they didn’t have in the old one. But it begs the question, if the western world and capitalism were so successful why did so many people have to leave Europe, the home of Western Civilization, in order to make it happen? Europe certainly had a problem sustaining the population it had. What would have happened in Europe if the New World had never been discovered? Also troubling is the way the immigrants took the land from the indigenous people. It was less a cash transfer from seller to owner and more outright theft of property. This certainly is the antithesis to how capitalist ideology is designed. How successful would the immigrants have been if they had to actually pay for the land they took?

What bothers me here is that there is this unquestioning assumption about the success of Western ideas in general and Capitalism specifically. It is highlights freedom, personal initiative and courage and forgets the despair the drove the emigrants and the elimination of indigenous cultures. Neither of which speaks well of capitalism, at least, capitalism as it is supposed to be practiced and hardly should be considered a smashing success for Western Civilization.

By on

I thought Rod Dreher’s column about race would cause more of media storm than it did. He worries that whites are ignoring the dangers of black criminals because they fear being labeled racist. Whites needlessly are walking into danger because they are ignoring their own instincts regarding dodgy black men. He calls these criminals animals unworthy of sharing society with the rest of us. The implication here is that people need to be prejudiced in order to be safe from the rampant criminality of young black men.

The crimes he describes are horrible. But what is his solution — more judicial leeway for the police and avoiding groups of young black men. He only sees the black criminal and not the police. One of the factors in Black/Police relationship is that many in the Black community don’t trust the police. The don’t believe that the police are there to help them. How does Dreher’s thinking address this perception? Furthermore, how does a person distinguish between Black criminals and rowdy Black teens? Or is Dreher’s default setting for young black men hoodlum? What does Dreher think about White criminals? Both the Littleton theater shooter and the Sandy Hook school shooter were White. Does this make a gang of young White men animals as well? As far as I can tell, he is only worried about young Black men.

This makes it easy for Whites to retain their prejudices and believe that criticism of the police are based on isolated incidents that doesn’t represent the actual experience of a Black person in the criminal justice system. Most cops are not racists. How can that be when Dreher documents accounts that support his view of black criminality. He thinks that people need to protect themselves whenever they see Black teenagers. He then admits that Whites already have a preconceived notion of the Black teenaged male as hoodlums but stifle this prejudice because they don’t want to be seen as racists and because they are ignoring these gut instincts they are making themselves fodder for the heartless Black criminal.

If people have this knowledge regarding young Black men then how can Whites working in the criminal justice system be free of this prejudice? There are a numerous accounts of judicial system employees with racial bigotry and instances of their unfair treatment of Blacks. How can Blacks trust a Louisana judge who uses the N word? Or policeman who use the N word, and here, and here and here and here? Or their jailers and here and here? Or policeman who beat them for traffic violations? Or police that are so afraid of young black men that they shoot unarmed black men within seconds of seeing them with toy guns or no guns– see Amadou Diallo, Tamir Rice, Donovan Lewis, and John Crawford III. Or how are they supposed to trust the justice system when innocent kids were railroaded into convictions for the rape of the Central Park jogger? If you remember the Central Park jogger rape, you will also remember that the defendants were called animals. Some of these public officials were absolved for their errors and still retain their government position. How does that engender trust within the black community?

There are an awful lot of isolated incidents here too. If you look at the volume, you might even suspect a systematic problem in the criminal justice system. But, OK, for the sake of argument, I will view these as isolated incidents and not a systematic one. Then, Dreher has to do the same thing with the crimes he is talking about it. He describes some horrible crimes with Black culprits and, from these isolated incidents, draws a general conclusion regarding Black criminality. Or, if he is unwilling to give up his prejudice regarding Black men because people’s lives are at stake here, then how can he ask Blacks to surrender their beliefs that the justice system is filled with prejudiced people who are afraid of Black people and treat Black people differently because of that fear.

Most mystifying in Dreher’s commentary is that he complains that these victims of Black crime are not given the same attention from the press as the Black victims of the police. There is a big difference and that Dreher is unable to see this difference is troubling. I think everyone would agree that people who shoot convenience store employees are criminals and deserve prosecution. There isn’t a question or a debate on what happened. On the other hand, when policeman on duty murdered Floyd, there was a debate regarding what happened. If not for the press attention, this crime might very well have been swept under the carpet because the police, at first, tried to paint Floyd as responsible for his own death. This is a very different situation to the murders Dreher describes. I am not sure what Dreher finds missing from the Press coverage of these terrible crimes. The only thing I can think of was that the press didn’t highlight that Black hoodlums were going around murdering people. How is this helpful to the bigger problems here? Oh, I know, it reinforces the Dreher’s belief that Blacks are criminals and don’t deserve to be with the rest of us.

There is no easy solution, particularly not the one the Dreher chooses. I wish there was. Dreher wants to blame Black criminality as the problem. If only Black people would behave better than White people could begin to let their guard down. But right now Black crime is running rampant and until then Whites have every right to worry about young Black men. The problem with his thinking is that there is no way to stop all Black criminals. Ever. We know this to be true because we still have plenty of White criminals. If White people can’t stop White criminal behavior how do we expect Black people to be successful? It is an impossible standard. What needs to be done is for the police to work with Black communities so show them that police are on their side, that working with the police will make their communities safer and better able to handle and lessen the impact of the criminals within their community. This is a much more difficult task and I don’t see Dreher offering much in the way of a solution.

By on 2 Comments

Speaking of dicks, I read the following article about Prince Andrew being heckled while walking in a funeral procession for his mother.

I don’t have a great understanding of royalty and why they are necessary in the modern world but if the British want to keep them, it is none of my business and they can do whatever the Hell they want to. However I found this incident irksome. A heckler spouted some choice insults about Prince Andrew while he was walking in a funeral procession for his mother. The heckler was, of course, arrested and charged with breaching the peace while Prince Andrew carried on marching in the procession.

I could have lived with the police removing the heckler from the street because, I suppose, there was a case that the heckler was in danger from the other members of the crowd and removing him was for his own safety. Charging him, however, seems petty given that Prince Andrew is guilty of more serious crimes and he got away with them. He avoided prosecution and criminal charges through artful use of lawyers and his mother’s money while also calling his accuser a liar when she was telling the truth. But then he is a prince.

I thought that the Queen arranged with Prince Andrew a withdrawal from public life. Walking down the street behind the hearse of the most famous woman on earth is about as public as it gets. But it is his mother, you say. Yes and if she was regular old Elizabeth Windsor living in Croydon I would say the heckler was out of line but again his mother was the queen of England — a very public figure. He has forfeited his public role and that means he shouldn’t participate in any aspects of her public funeral. He can mourn her in private.

He has behaved shamefully. He should be ashamed about it. He should be hiding out in some castle while his more law-abiding relatives bury his mother. More importantly, he should have had the good sense to know this without being told. Even more importantly, and a bit shocking because it didn’t happen, is that since he didn’t have the good sense, somebody else in the family should have explained it to him. That nobody told him shows a terrible lack of judgement from the new royal family.

By on

Aurora Snow, porn star actress, wrote an eye opening article regarding white men’s sexual fears. Apparently the White boyfriends of porn actresses are understanding about their girlfriends having sex with other men as long as they aren’t black. She claims this is because they believe the following three things:

Black Men have bigger dicks.

Women prefer men with bigger dicks.

White women will abandon White men for Black men because they have bigger dicks.

There is so much wrong here I don’t know where to begin.

First and foremost most male porn stars have big dicks. It is in the job description. So if White men are worried about big dicks than almost any male porn star would be a potential threat. Are White men with big dicks somehow less threatening? If so, why? There is something else going on here and it has nothing to do with big dicks.

Then there is the notion that women prefer big dicks. This may be true. Women also might like a hairy men, tall men, younger men, daddys, rich men, nice men, patient men. That these men focus on dick size as a woman’s most desired male trait suggests a pretty shallow understanding of female sexuality. It boils down to the bigger the dick the happier the woman. So much for romance and foreplay.

Then there is women will leave them for the bigger dicked black male. The good news here is that there simply aren’t enough Black men to go around so, unless your woman moves fast, you are probably safe. You, however, might think about getting a penile implant and spending some time on a tanning bed to play it safe. The bad news here is if your woman will leave you because of the size of your dick, you must be a pretty poor catch in the first place. Your dick size is the least of your problems.

The casual racism and sexism revealed in this article is mind boggling. It also explains why racism is so hardy in the USA. You can give a man countless pictures of black men with average and small dicks and it wouldn’t matter. He would still see big dicks . You could have a man listen to thousands of women saying that dick size has no effect on arousing her and he wouldn’t hear them. There is no amount of sensitivity training that will change a man who fears that another man has something his woman wants and he doesn’t have. It is primal. It is irrational. And that it is also why it is extremely dangerous.

By on

A seven-year old in Arizona brought guns and ammunition to school the other day. The case is still being investigated but it looks like the only person who is going to get punished is the seven year old. Yes, the boy is getting the book thrown at him while the parents, apparently, are going to walk away scot free. As what happened is still under investigation, this may be the correct decision.

No matter how the investigation turns out this is a troubling incident because is yet another incident of a child getting a gun. If it turns out to be the parent’s unsecured gun then I think the parents need to explain how their child was able to get the gun, smuggled it into his backpack and bring it to school. They are both responsible for the gun and for the child. If they were negligent, they should be prosecuted. If the child obtained the gun from another person other than his parents, then that person is responsible. Rights carry with them responsibilities. If adults are not upholding their responsibilities to the community, then the law must intercede.

I find situations where underage children obtain guns and then accidentally kill themselves or someone else the most unforgivable of crimes. Of course, it is also devastatingly sad. Nobody wanted this to happen. Because of loss of a child is so horrible, there is this tendency to forgive the adult involved because they have suffered enough. What good is sending them to jail going to do when they are already beating themselves up worse than any court can ever do. I get that. I just don’t know what to do then. If parents can’t secure their guns to protect their own children, what can we, as a society, do to encourage them. Right now, all I have is a stiff fine and/or a jail sentence.

But let us also be clear, a child getting a gun is not an accident, it is negligence and criminal negligence needs to be addressed, if for no other reason it is an example for other adults with unsecured guns and children.

By on

Should somebody be allowed to say anything they want even if it is offensive to other people in the community or, more importantly, is offensive to people within a hearing distance of the speech? I am Free Speech absolutist. Say whatever you want. There is, however, a down side to speaking your mind freely. Someone who hears you is free to think you are an asshole. If they think you are an asshole, they can boycott your business and encourage others to boycott your business as well. I am perfectly fine with Free Speech practiced in this way.

A lot of Free Speech advocates are critical of what they see as Cancel Culture. They think that they can say anything about Trans People, as an example, without consequence. They think that good people just speaking their mind are losing jobs because Cancel Culture advocates disagrees with what they are saying and fight back. So what? What is wrong with trying to stop someone who disagrees with you. It certainly is their right to disagree and to organize against you.

But, then, Cancel Culture is stifling free speech. Only if you agree to shut up about it. This is what is so great about Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais. They continue to speak their minds freely even though there are people who passionately disagree with them. So far, both comedians are still in business even though they are being heavily criticized for what they are saying. Now, if you think that what you are saying is going to stop people from attending your shows or hiring you at comedy clubs, you are at choice. Stop saying what you are saying or continue to face the wrath. But, I’m afraid, you are also a really a bad advocate of Free Speech because you don’t like what people are saying about you because you practiced your right to Free Speech. That’s just not the way Free Speech works. Free Speech means saying what you want even though you know you are going to make people angry and still deciding to say it anyway. Complaining about Cancel Culture, however, makes you look incredibly lame.

By on

Nancy Davis wanted the baby she was expecting. Then she discovered her baby would either die in her womb or die soon after birth because the fetus didn’t have a skull. She decided to abort but, unfortunately she lives in Louisiana which restricts abortion access. Because the law was vaguely written, the doctors at her hospital were confused whether an abortion would be legal in this case. The hospital opted to tell Davis she needed to go to another state where the procedure was legal.

A 16 year girl in Florida wants to get an abortion so she can continue her education. Since she is 16 and parentless, she had to go to the Florida courts to determine whether she could. The judge decided against her — saying she was too immature to make such a decision. Yes. You heard it right. The girl is too immature to make a decision to abort but is mature enough to take over full time care of a baby.

This is a horror story for a variety of reasons.

  1. The woman’s choice is overruled by lawyers and judges. The court can make a decision that ignores her wishes completely.
  2. Doctors aren’t going to risk their careers by breaking the law. If they are afraid to act, they won’t. This could create a deadly medical crisis for the woman in an emergency situation.
  3. The law creates needless delays in treatment while a lawyer or a judge is consulted. This is especially important in states where there are more stringent time restrictions for abortions. The clock is ticking on her access and any delay could cause her to miss this deadline.
  4. Poor women are in a particular bind. They may not have access to lawyers and may have trouble coming up for both an abortion and the travel to Pro-choice state. She will have fairly grim choices — waiting for the fetus dies in her or to be born dead, get an illegal abortion or spend money she doesn’t have to travel to a state where she can get an abortion.
  5. The ability to travel to Pro-choice states makes abortion restrictions meaningless. All that you are doing is making abortion inconvenient for those who can afford to travel.
  6. The state is making an already difficult circumstance even worse for the woman. Instead of getting the abortion where she lives, working with the medical professionals she is familiar with, and going to back to her home after the procedure, she has to figure out where abortion is legal, find a doctor to perform the abortion, travel hundreds of miles away from home to get it. All this additional stress just so the state doesn’t have the abortion performed within its boundaries.

Who actually benefits from any of this? Certainly not the pregnant woman. The state has taken away her power of choice so that the state can act as if they are morally superior to the mother. In the meantime, most women will slip off to another state, or obtain an illegal abortion, or quietly slip into poverty with a child now in tow.

What a mess.

By on

Of course, that’s what everyone wants and, without any effort from anyone, over 90% of the children will eventually turn out that way. They won’t read books. No one will guide them to heterosexuality. Somewhere around 13, nature will take over and a heterosexual child will appear. The process just sort of happens without anyone doing anything.

The path to homosexuality or trans identification is much the same experience however a lot of people don’t believe that. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% of the children will find themselves liking the same sex or not wanting to be the gender nature assigned them. But, since so few children end up with these different identifications, a lot of people are suspicious on how the child turned out different. They think that some adult has interfered with the child and nature to create this difference.

Science is still searching for a reason why most 13 year old boys wake up one day wanting to see pictures of naked women and another, much smaller percentage, wants to see pictures of naked men. There is no answer why but there is a great deal of suspicion that the child has somehow been tampered with and needs fixing. This becomes the problem for the child. Parents and religious leaders reject that the child has somehow freely became interested in this minority sexual identification. How can an innocent child know about homosexuality or transsexual identification?

How does a young boy know to be interested in naked women? Nobody tells children to be interested in the opposite sex either. It happens though and nobody notices because that’s what people are expecting. It doesn’t even come off as sexual to anyone. It is the normal process of boys and girls realizing who they are. Isn’t it sweet, Johnny is playing the Dad, and Suzy is play the Mom. Those little scamps Johnny and Suzy are playing doctor. This little game of children playing with heterosexual identification goes on without mention or worry.

It is only when Johnny wants to dress up as a woman that things get messy. Why would he want to that? Who could have given him that idea? The thinking here is that there is no way a child could think outside of normal heterosexual behavior on their own. So now instead of continuing to help these kids who think differently, the focus switches to who is grooming them to have such outrageous ideas.

What is to be done? First, and I can’t say this enough, most children are on the heterosexual track. There is no way that gay and trans friendly teachers or books changes this. I mean why would a child choose a Gay or a Trans sexual identification when heterosexual identification is more socially accepted and just as sexually pleasurable. There is no advantage in abandoning heterosexuality for homosexuality. Protecting the straight child is beside the point and meaningless. They are going to be just fine. The lesson they could learn from all this is that there are people who have different sexual identifications and that these people are just as worthy of respect as they are.

But protecting the different child is important because they are in an incredibly vulnerable position. They may not have parents who they are able to talk with. Other kids may be bullying them. They are confused about why they are different from most other children. No amount of heterosexual grooming is going to turn them around. The past three thousand years tells us this is true. Children have been guided to the only acceptable sexual identification — heterosexuality and still, despite all of the of the negative repercussions of homosexuality, still choose being gay. They choose homosexuality even if there are heavy legal and social penalties for being gay or trans. They choose it even if they loose the love and protection of family and friends. They choose it sometimes even if they are faced with death. It has nothing to do with grooming.

If grooming becomes the concern then the different child will be abandoned. Grooming encourages parents to go after the groomer and ignore the child who couldn’t possibly becoming up with these strange sexual ideas on their own. They look for someone to blame instead of helping their child through a difficult time. They might try to make their child normal with torturous psychiatric procedures instead of finding the best way to accept his difference. How is the child supposed to view their differences if people don’t want to talk about it, don’t want any teacher or book to deal with the subject? I am is so horrible that people can’t even talk about it. What is a straight child going to think of these differences that can not be discussed in school? If people can’t talk about these differences, how is he supposed to know that it is all right for people to be different, that anybody different deserves respect even though they think differently about sex?

The goal of the schools should be about making more understanding heterosexual kids and protecting the Gay, Lesbian, and Trans kids from abuse and bullying. But lets be clear no one knows how to create heterosexual children or homosexual children for that matter. It happens without any grooming or guidance from anyone. Stopping teachers from talking about it or banning books that might explain it isn’t going to to stop children from choosing differently. It might, however, cause them to look outside the school for help and there they might actually encounter a groomer or a pedophile. Is that really what we want?

By on

Oakland Athletic’s outfielder Skye Bolt apparently got sick during a baseball game the other day.

However, why this is worth precious new’s space is baffling. There is no news there. He barfed. It isn’t funny. It didn’t impact the game. There was no daring rescue to get him off the field. The poor man quite simply barfed and walked off the field afterwards. This is not news.

But, for some reason, it is making the news. Whenever the news media complains about they are just doing their jobs and they are under attack for reporting the facts, I always think of instances like this. Yes, true enough this happened. In a world of billions of people, someone is going to be barfing. There is probably someone barfing this very moment. Why is this man barfing important to me?

The media has surrendered their lofty perch when they opted to reporting the sensational. They have a lot of discretion on what appears in their papers and in their news programs. Apparently vomiting athletes brings in viewers who want to see the gory details. Sadly it says a lot about their audience and it demeans journalism that they can’t restrain their lust for ad revenue to feed their audiences prurient interest.