Thursday, December 27, 2018

Monday, December 24, 2018

Friday, December 21, 2018

Q & ...

A meaningful set of questions that a serious country might give its people would be something like: 
1) Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst? To people whose first principles exist in opposition to your own? To people who think that it’s the duty of the native population to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around?

2) What are the unifying principles of the post-national state going to be? How will its diverse peoples smooth over differences of opinion and forge forward in building the future? What will unite them in times of poverty and famine, and keep the state from fracturing along ethnic lines, as many multi-ethnic states have in times of trouble? What will get two people who have no ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities beyond “Diversity is our strength” into a foxhole together to defend against an enemy that threatens the post-national state?(As an aside, most liberals in 2018 confirm the enduring bonds of ethnicity whenever they bitch about having to go to Christmas or Thanksgiving with their MAGA uncle. They put up with it because people will tolerate things from their family that they would never put up with from anyone else, and ethnicity is basically a big extended family)

3) Do you want to leave for your descendants a future where they live as a despised minority, with their continued existence totally at the mercy of a majority who are conditioned from birth to believe that every misfortune or inconvenience they experience is ultimately the work of whites?

4) Do you really believe that you have the right to make such a choice for future generations?

5) If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?

Thursday, December 20, 2018

Blowback

The grim joke going around now is Trump won't deliver his wall but at least he's going to release thousands of felons with his criminal "reform" bill.

After all the noise and fury from both sides, tax cuts for capitalists and criminal justice reform for socialists constitute his emerging legacy after the media and state combined to contain his administration through investigations and propaganda.

But Trump's increasingly likely failure might prove to be the least of it. It isn't as if things will simply reset to the political dynamic of 2013 after, say, he's voted out of office (or quits out of exhaustion by not running or resigning); no, a radicalized, energized, bigger, militant and vindictive left has formed like a tumor in response to the invasive cell that is Trump.

The effect of a massive propaganda campaign to paint Trump's support as fascist has been to radicalize the opinions of the average normie and swell the ranks of genuine radicals like antifa. It's increased anti-white animus. None of this can be expected to subside after they've taken him down.

The Resistance has also been profitable, breathing life into cable news and transferring money from rubes to various activist organizations adopting it. Like the cable news outlets who've found a second life pushing anti-Trump propaganda, antifa and the broader social justice industry are booming. If the political rage doesn't keep it going post Trump, money will.

The Daily Caller just exposed a DC activist who works with Congressional liberals by day as an antifa leader behind riot club Smash Racism DC and the targeted harassment of Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson.
Joseph “Jose” Alcoff works with congressional Democrats as part of his day job as a manager with a DC-based advocacy group. But he spreads socialist and communist propaganda when going by the name “Jose Martin.”
Alcoff does not lack for cunning. He didn't need Trump to radicalize him. He and a thousand others are turning this crisis into opportunity. The Caller:
“If we’re wrong, if [Trump] is just George W. Bush somehow … then at minimum, what we’re doing is building the infrastructure that builds space for other forms of resistance — for resistance against everyday white nationalist and white supremacist policies,” Alcoff said as Chepe on Radio Dispatch in December 2016.
Trump's policies and would-be policies hardly constitute a hard turn to the right, and are only successfully featured as such because the public dialogue on immigration up to now has been free to range all the way from Ellis Island kitsch to demonization of the Border Patrol. No, the image of Trump as a rightist racist dictator is built entirely on that demonization and his rude comments about Mexicans.

Just as a tape of him talking about "pussy" prompted a whole movement with its own television series, in which it is alleged Donald Trump, of all people, wants to restore sexual order and put women in habits. If only.
As Trump hasn't yet offered white sharia legislation or anything like it to specifically oppose, for Planned Parenthood et al resistance bucks come as a windfall. They can build their war chests, and no doubt someone, somewhere is building a guest house right now with a little bit of that largesse. Doing well by doing right. Hysteria is made profitable by politics.

Cooler heads prevail higher up to guide those hysterics.
“And we don’t stand to lose if we’re building that infrastructure,” he continued. “That’s what we should have already been doing, even if [Hillary] Clinton had won and even if Trump is not a fascist.”
Pity Donald Trump. He's going to have to be crushed to save America, between the Wall we demand and the hammer of the Poz.

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Twitter User

(took this from yesterday down because it was a mess, and re-posting now; and "Twitter User" is a better name)

Ann Coulter dared describe the Democrats' current absolute state of white absolution, in their own words sans the sentiment, on Twitter:
"Dems don’t want people to notice that their base is composed of diametrically opposed groups. RESULT: Anti-Semites founding the Women’s March; Trannies screaming at vagina-centered [the Indy 100 article linked here put a "SIC" after this] Feminists, Hollywood dumping Kevin Hart."
And Twitter's voluntary auxiliary thought police rose as one, like zombies answering a witch doctor's conjuring, providing the content for a host of articles such as the one linked above, outrage-listicles for lazy journalists.

But I realize "Florida Man", a catch-all phrase for Floridians engaging in reckless redneckitude , has a counterpoint-counterpart, Twitter User. Just as "Florida Man" gets his name from news reports ("Florida Man Creates Lawn Chair Airboat, is Eaten by Alligators"), likewise Twitter User ("Twitter User Responds to Ann Coulter and it's Glorious!").

Twitter User is Florida Man's opposite. Where Florida Man's lack of judgement makes him as unpredictable as the outcomes of his various schemes, Twitter User seeks out predictability, as a virtue. And he invariably finds it.

Whereas Florida Man lacks awareness of his connection to society and his effects on it, Twitter User is obsessed with it, and has an aggrandized notion of his place in it--yet seeks ever more prominence. Twitter User is as engaged as Florida Man is disengaged, yet he appears to have even less self-awareness. Florida Man may be led by his impulses, but Twitter User is led by someone else's.

Twitter User repeats from a small store of platitudes, and prides himself not on some new insight, but on a more inventive and amusing way of repeating those platitudes.
Such a reaction as this could be any Twitter User responding to any Twitter Bait, for instance:
This has to be one of the most racist things ever said on television. Advertisers, are you really going to support this?’ one Twitter user wrote.
 Who will achieve self-awareness first, AI or the NPC? It's almost as if the former is progressing toward it at the same time humanity regresses away from it.

Crypto-normality

Steve Sailer likes to invoke the weak form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (strong version: language determines behavior; weak: language influences it), defining it as "...having a term for a reality or a concept makes it easier to notice that reality and easier to think about that concept, while not having a term for it makes thinking harder."

This concept itself would qualify as just such a useful concept laying fallow. But it came to mind yesterday as I was introduced to the word "cryptonormativisim", which may sound like a pretentious jumble but is highly useful in understanding, just for starters, the inscrutable blob of mercury that is critical theory.

Joseph Heath on critical studies:
A long time ago, Habermas wrote a critical essay on Foucault, in which he accused him of “cryptonormativism.” The accusation was that, although Foucault’s work was clearly animated by a set of moral concerns, he refused to state clearly what his moral commitments were, and instead just used normatively loaded vocabulary, like “power,” or “regime,” as rhetorical devices, to induce the reader to share his normative assessments, while officially denying that he was doing any such thing. The problem, in other words, is that Foucault was smuggling in his values, while pretending he didn’t have any. A genuinely critical theory, Habermas argued, has no need for this subterfuge, it should introduce its normative principles explicitly, and provide a rational defence of them.
Cryptonormativism is everywhere, claiming the moral high ground on bases ultimately so obscure they can't be challenged. It travels well with its companion--the image of the  secular "liberal" as high social status versus the low social status "conservative."

I would add to the hypothesis the creation of false concepts. Not only are we limited, in Orwellian fashion, from naming and identifying useful concepts for understanding society and our world, we are loaded up with false ones that cause misunderstanding of it--racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia...more every day.

Broadcast Schedule

Hey kids, don't watch that crap, watch this!

Wednesday, 12/19, tbd
Saturday 12/22, 9PM Pacific
Sunday 12/23, 7PM Pacific

My YouTube channel

Monday, December 17, 2018

Intersectional Pile-up

Vanity Fair's expose on the Women's March movement is lit, and this devil is happy:
Mercy Morganfield, a longtime activist and daughter of blues legend Muddy Waters, has been one of the leading voices in calling for accountability from the co-chairs. For Morganfield, a former spokesperson for the Women’s March who also ran the D.C. branch, the various problems that people have had with the Women’s March—ideological, managerial, fiscal—should be seen as all of a piece. She recalled being startled earlier this year when Mallory—already a nationally recognized leader of the Women’s March—showed up at the Nation of Islam’s Saviours’ Day event.
“When all of that went down, it was my last straw,” she told Tablet. “You are part of a national movement that is about the equality of women and you are sitting in the front row listening to a man say women belong in the kitchen and you’re nodding your head saying amen! I told them over and over again: It’s fine to be religious, but there is no place for religion in its radical forms inside of a national women’s movement with so many types of women. It spoke to their inexperience and inability to hold this at a national stage. That is judgment, and you can’t teach judgment.”
Does that go for mainstream Islam? Or just for the "Black Muslims" of the Nation of Islam?
“They don’t have a clue what they’re doing,” Morganfield told Tablet. “They were chosen for optics—for the image they brought to the march. They believe that being in the right place at the right time for this march and this movement made them the founders—but it didn’t.”
These people presented as national leaders are really just co-opting genuine grass roots movements started via social media. They are frauds. You didn't really think Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour are talented organizers, managers, leaders?

But they do bring value as figureheads, and this is very much a racket:
The Women’s March was obviously on its way to becoming a valuable brand, receiving millions of dollars in donations and raking in millions more worth of merchandise: T-shirts, pins, bags, mugs, and more. It began coordinating with a merchandising partner, The Outrage, which describes itself as a “female-founded activist apparel company.” (The Outrage also has a line with actress-turned-activist Rose McGowan, complete with #RoseArmy merch.) 
And in March of 2017, Women’s March Inc. filed a federal trademark registration for the Women’s March with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It was met with much opposition. As Refinery29 reported, 14 separate organizations opposed the mark. “You do not trademark a movement,” Shook told us. “The Women’s March should belong to all of us. The sister marches don’t get a dime. They’ve been asked to be transparent over and over.” Keep in mind the people jockeying for position in these fund-raising entities are relying on the volunteer true-believers, as is pointed out earlier in the article.
But whatever concerns were popping up were ultimately no match for the steamroller of the event’s progress. And when the day came, the reality far exceeded expectations. Estimates for the March on Washington range between half a million and a million people, giving the city’s metro system its second busiest day in history. Estimates for all the Women’s Marches that took place in cities across the country, had between 3.6 and 4.6 million people participating. In terms of attendance and publicity, the event was an enormous, iconic success. It took the swirling, latent energy of the country’s broad political opposition to Trump and turned it into a dramatic showing of strength.
Like a gold strike the March attracted prospectors, speculators and con men.

Sunday, December 16, 2018

Sunday Stream



My YouTube channel

Reading from "Children of Ted; Two decades after his last deadly act of ecoterrorism, the Unabomber has become an unlikely prophet to a new generation of acolytes," in New York Magazine:
"The second point was that technology’s dark momentum can’t be stopped...
We doze off while exploring a fun new thing called social media and wake up to big data, fake news, and Total Information Awareness. 
All true, Jacobi thought. Who the hell wrote this thing? The clue arrived in section No. 96: “In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people,” the mystery author wrote. 
“Kill people” — Jacobi realized that he was reading the words of the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski..."

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Fantasy Island

GitHub has a helpful site, "Pronoun Island", introducing us to the host of new pronouns for biological-nonconformists:



The site should have a long life, with the introduction of new pronouns coming at a steady clip. They list "known" pronouns:


Oh brave new words!

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

The Siege

An indifferent freeway dissects Forlaine down the middle from east to west, embracing it at each end in its curving, tendril-like on and off ramps. Main Street intersects the freeway at forty-five degrees, spreading out on either side a gaudy leg tattooed with fast food franchises and chain stores standing out against the rustic remnants, some authentic, of the town's logging past.
That past was truncated by the creation of the national park to the east, a ban on clear-cutting in the state and the ensuing contraction of the regional logging industry.

Sprawl saved Forlaine in the nineties. An hour and a half round-trip commute to the city became less onerous as real estate grew prohibitively expensive there. New housing developments went up along with the price of real estate and tax revenue. Two classes of newcomer arose, one working class primarily from the defense contractor in the city, the other, smaller group, yuppies. They stood out from each other as well as from the original Forlainers. These divisions were rarely mentioned out loud but always there, in the background.

Two new schools were built. One of the state's main mountain passes, featuring a ski resort, was just as near to the east as the city was to the west. In the early twenty-first century things were looking up in Forlaine; five new developments were in some stage of planning/execution. Then the housing market fell apart in 2008.

Still, the city could have done worse. Most development made no longer feasible was left in the planning stage. One large development had gotten way out ahead of itself, leaving behind a ghost neighborhood of over a hundred houses, most of which had not yet sold. Among the rows of unsold  (or abandoned) homes were scattered homes occupied by the unfortunate few who bought just before the bubble burst. Here's where the federal government stepped in to help, leasing entire blocks for the purpose of housing migrant refugees.

Misty Handringer considered her role in this with some pride as she rode her bicycle up Main Street. She resisted the creeping, familiar sense of dissatisfaction she always felt upon a project's fruition. She fought but couldn't help returning, like to a sore tooth, to the equally familiar sense of resentment that was forming.
Just for starters she had raised nearly half the funds (most of that her own money) for the welcome center, but she hadn't been invited to speak at the opening, yet. She had envisioned giving an address to the newcomers. She determined that if she had to suggest it herself she would. 

Dare she attempt a phrase or two in Somali? She conjured what they would look like, the women in their colorful garb (as she imagined; she had no idea what they wore; she determined to look it up online), their faces weathered, wizened with what that ineffable African understanding of which westerners are not capable; she could see them looking up at her with awe. Was this racist of her? Was she only engaging in what her ex-husband had called vain condescension? Why had this, of his many complaints, stuck? Oh well, he had nothing to say now how she spent her money; he would have to complain to his new wife about how she put the small fortune of her divorce settlement to good use, she thought, with a slight rise at the corner of her mouth.

As she addressed the incline ahead her front wheel yawed violently back and forth reacting to each deliberate, labored pedal-stroke; each of these looked to be the last she could manage before gravity overtook her, but no, another followed just as she seemed about to topple, just as laborious but no weaker. And they followed one after the other dependably up the long slope.

A passing pickup gave her a wide berth. She scowled—as if she needed all that room!—but did not look up. She returned again to a less satisfying project, an off-ramp for Main Street. Businesses on the main drag could use the traffic--her bookstore could use the traffic, though she honestly didn't care.
Losses had been halved with the addition of a barista; it hardly cost her anything to keep the store open now. Still, it would be nice to turn a profit, she decided, if only because of the unendurable condescension of other local business owners, and her ex.

 And thus she made her way, her front tire swinging steadily back and forth like an errant needle on a dial: north, south, north...

(to be continued)

Sunday, December 09, 2018

The Ghost of Comedy Past

Retroactive justice came to collect Kevin Hart the other day, for making gay jokes years ago on Twitter
NEW YORK (AP) — Just two days after being named host of the Academy Awards, Kevin Hart stepped down following an outcry over past homophobic tweets by the comedian.

Capping a swift and dramatic fallout, Hart wrote on Twitter just after midnight Thursday that he was withdrawing as Oscars host because he didn’t want to be a distraction. “I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past,” wrote Hart.

Hart, who is in Australia for a comedy tour, also tweeted Friday morning: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. Martin Luther King, Jr.”
Hart's invocation of MLK suggests he recognizes this all as a contest between the gays and blacks for leadership of the ruling diversity coalition. The gay faction presents itself as diverse, putting forward flamboyant minorities in its propaganda, but its elite is overwhelmingly white (sometimes I think the big LGBTQ push right now is largely a surreptitious way to keep whites and Jews in charge of the coalition of the fringes)
Earlier Thursday evening, the comedian had refused to apologize for tweets that resurfaced after he was announced as Oscars host on Tuesday. In a video on Instagram, Hart said the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences gave him an ultimatum: apologize or “we’re going to have to move on and find another host.”

“I chose to pass on the apology,” Hart said. “The reason why I passed is because I’ve addressed this several times.”
Anyone who refuses to apologize has to be commended for it, but I suspect Hart was only too glad to quit while he was behind. Doing the show after grovelling would be like second helping of grovelling--a show we can expect to be heavy on the LGBTQ propaganda. Participating in it after getting smacked down would have been too much humiliation for anyone capable of feeling it. It's that and more for someone whose audience is disproportionately straight black men.

Hart was there to satisfy the "Oscars so white" hustle but ran afoul of the gay mafia. Now they'll have a second chance to throw a sop to the "me too" shakedown. But a female host will likely be a disaster. Of course the Academy can be reassured by the fact it won't be seen because no one watches the show any more
It’s not the first time an Oscars host has been derailed by anti-gay remarks. Ahead of the 2012 Academy Awards, producer Brett Ratner, who had been paired with host Eddie Murphy, resigned days after using a gay slur at a film screening. Murphy soon after exited, as well. 
That year, a tried-and-true Oscars veteran — Billy Crystal — jumped in to save the show, hosting for his eighth time. This time, speculation has already been rampant that few in Hollywood want the gig, for which few win glowing reviews.
Oh, I suspect there'll be many "glowing reviews" for various performers in the near future--glowing craters marking careers nuked by pc outrages.

Host of the Oscars becoming the honor no one wants is sweet irony. You can expect the scrutiny normally reserved for a Supreme Court nominee, an army of volunteer censors combing through your past. It's getting harder to cast this part. I imagine the various creative ways people come up with to turn down the job.

They seemed to have done well with the Kevin Hart pick too, finding someone who satisfied the diversity demand and is actually somewhat talented. That just got that much harder.

Of course there'll always be lesser artists dying for the job. Via Steve Sailer, here's my pick. Go long, Academy:
  Notice how miserable the audience of women (all outfitted to meet the demands of the thirsty male gaze, I'll add) look until that priceless finish when a young woman sees herself on a monitor (or something). Behind her another claps without enthusiasm, as grim-faced as her delighted friend was a moment before, before being distracted (by her own image, maybe) and falling out of character.
We are fated to navigate between the feminine extremes of inconsolable resentment and unquenchable vanity represented here:


If the revolution won't be led by the sexually frustrated perhaps it will be led by the comedically frustrated.

Thursday, December 06, 2018

Commercial for Brand Globo-Homo Diversiplex

Diversity is actually kind of boring in and of itself, I've decided. YouTube's "Rewind 2018" showcasing creators for 2018:

 

Wednesday, December 05, 2018

Transgression's Transition

Seems to me the term, once so beloved and useful to leftist critics, "transgressive art", has nearly vanished in the Current Year.

A quick Google ngram search shows the phrase was unheard of before the sixties, emerged from complete obscurity in the eighties and rapidly entered the lexicon in the decade of leftist consolidation of the universities and the rise of pc, the nineties.



And after rescuing us from Mom and apple pie, it went away. The bottom falls out in the oughts.

In its early guise through the eighties it was more literal, including its application to art that wasn't overtly political or that might even be hostile to leftist sensibilities. John Waters described himself in his early years making transgressive films as an anti-hippie. Punk rock and style was transgression, but wherever a band wasn't overtly political it felt more fascist than anything else, a rejection of pacifistic,liberal rock and black pop. Whatever the case, it was far too white to ever be allowed to happen now, thank God.

Of course you never heard the phrase until it was popularized by the left, and that spike in its usage also represents its capture--along with the concept of transgression in art--by the left. The meaning of both changed, to become contextual--transgression itself was the thing when there was an actual white patriarchy, but once the transgressors supplanted it, they restored the realm of the sacrosanct, replacing God, Family, Country with Diversity, Inclusion and Equity.

That which was transgressive is now that which cannot be transgressed.

Take for an excellent example Ru Paul's description of his work as a "big fuck you to male-dominated culture"; it remains just that, only now it is respectable, unassailable and part of a broader transsexual movement that won't stop until every last masculine male has been chased into the weeds.

We seem to be inexorably working our way to a world where the only thing you can mock is white men, and only for being white men. Via Steve Sailer I see the Columbia Spectator reporting on a student group evidencing the sort of confusion of which we an all expect much more, soon:
Saturday Night Live writer and comedian Nimesh Patel was pulled from the stage by event organizers after telling jokes that were criticized as racist and homophobic during his performance at cultureSHOCK: Reclaim, an event held by Columbia Asian American Alliance on Friday night.

Patel, 32, was the first Indian-American writer for SNL, and has since been nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing. Patel has previously performed on Late Night with Seth Meyers and opened for comedians such as Chris Rock.

During the event, Patel’s performance featured commentary on his experience living in a diverse area of New York City—including a joke about a gay, black man in his neighborhood—which AAA officials deemed inappropriate. Patel joked that being gay cannot be a choice because “no one looks in the mirror and thinks, ‘this black thing is too easy, let me just add another thing to it.’”
About 30 minutes into Patel’s set, members of AAA interrupted the performance, denounced his jokes about racial identities and sexual orientation, and provided him with a few moments for closing remarks. Compared to his other jokes, ones specifically targeting sexual orientation audibly receive less laughter from the crowd.

Patel pushed back on the officials’ remarks, and said that while he stood in solidarity with Asian American identities, none of his remarks were offensive, and he was exposing the audience to ideas that would be found “in the real world.” Before he could finish, Patel’s microphone was cut from off-stage, and he proceeded to leave.

cultureSHOCK, an annual charity showcase featuring a fashion show, productions by various student groups and a famous performer, aims to provide a platform for Asian American artistic expression and breakthrough harmful stereotypes.

Pozzland Dispatch for 12/5/18: Transgressions


Live at Nine PM Pacific.


Tuesday, December 04, 2018

Plundering for Justice

We're in the redress and appropriation phase of the civil rights movement, wherein the wealth and culture created by history's putative monsters, white Americans, is being redistributed among non-whites.

The tenets of the post-religious dispensation are Equality and Diversity. Together they posit a natural order, lost to white supremacy, wherein material wealth and power are equally distributed among a peaceful, racially diverse population, and between men and women. If not for white racism and patriarchy this natural order would take hold and humanity would (will) be saved.

The left is so far gone now it's suggesting this Utopia did in fact exist (Britain was always diverse, Beethoven was black, etc). It's patent nonsense, but these tenets hold. We can fully expect leftist historical retconning like this in the future on behalf of transsexuals.

These tenets imply economic commandments: go forth and make right white pilferage of black (for one) American wealth. Thus we have an economic growth industry that can masquerade as social justice, as the clever and cynical (or delusional, doesn't matter) are encouraged to create new ways to effect that transfer of wealth out of white hands.

Team Diversity is the global mafia, and everywhere the Narrative wants its cut, from film roles to the "resources" being denied blacks by selfish whites retreating to the suburbs--loot and pussy foremost, judging from our long sorry experience with integration.

Meanwhile non-whites seem to be divided between the cynical and those who genuinely believe the con--that they're only taking what's rightfully theirs somehow.

The lefty journalist and/or activist now is like a pirate granted sanction by the religious order to go forth and plunder. The hobbyists of what Steve Sailer calls the voluntary auxiliary thought police are akin to crusaders, promised absolution and crashing through the countryside leaving a wake of ruin behind.

As a game black civil rights is rigged, because we can't consider black outcomes have any connection to black people. The extent of the ruin they inflict on the whole as a result of criminality and sloth becomes the measure of our guilt.

As there's money in this game, this means black dysfunction is a cash cow. For a long time of course it's been a way to extract wealth from the whole through social programs. Despite being large, this is a boring  business, akin to retail banking. The civil rights industry is moving into more creative revenue streams now.

The Washington Post, "How White Racism Destroys White Wealth":
There are a lot of reasons that home prices tend to be lower in black neighborhoods than in white ones. Decades of racist policies put in place by governments and private companies — segregation, redlining, deed restrictions, exclusionary zoning, the deliberate hollowing out of urban cores — have had the net effect of eroding the quality of life in many majority-black neighborhoods nationwide.
As the authors of a new Brookings Institution-Gallup study note, Zillow data shows that the median listing price of a home in a majority-black neighborhood in a major metro area is around $184,000, while the median listing in a neighborhood where blacks make up less than 1 percent of the population stands at over $341,000. 
The violent ethnic cleansing of white urban America allowed blacks to take over some of the nation's best real estate. That first great pillaging didn't lead to Detroit becoming Wakanda, but becoming Detroit. Now we're expected to pay at the other end for the fleecing.

Another way of looking at this is a measure of the extent blacks destroy real estate values. There is a cost, it just flips either way depending on whether or not you believe the Narrative. The real cost is likely huge, but we'll never be allowed to consider it at this rate: the opportunity cost of losing major cities to black pogroms, necessitating the suburbs and still all manner of adjustment to accommodate black malice.

But the raiders aren't letting up--they have the hard ground of religious sanction, the Narrative, under their feet.
They're putting prices on stuff now:
They wanted to isolate the effects of racism alone — to peel off all the other explanatory variables until they could “detect how much racism depletes wealth from black homeowners,” as they put it. In the end, they were left with one number: $48,000. 
That’s the amount the average home in a majority-black neighborhood is undervalued, relative to an identical home in an identical all-white neighborhood once you properly adjust for all the other structural and neighborhood characteristics that could plausibly affect that number. That’s the “cost of racial bias,” as the authors put it, “amounting to $156 billion in cumulative losses” accruing to black homeowners.
There was a bit in the old National Lampoon magazine about black reparations, wherein white America consents to reparations but then presents black America with a bill for charges against those reparations, tallying up everything from the Club auto theft device to penis enlargement operations.

Meanwhile, the authors of the "study":
“If we can detect how much racism depletes wealth from black homeowners, we can begin to address bigotry principally by giving black homeowners and policymakers a target price for redress,”
Feeling down, black America? Call your doctor and ask about Reparations!
“Laws have changed, but the value of assets — buildings, schools, leadership, and land itself — are inextricably linked to the perceptions of black people. And those negative perceptions persist.”
The stones themselves are imbued with our racism.

Monday, December 03, 2018

Broadcast Schedule

Livestream on my YouTube channel on Wednesday evening, time tbd.

Also Sunday at 9pm Pacific

If you'd like to come on the stream contact me at eladsinned@gmail.com
Suggest any topics you like below.

Saturday, December 01, 2018

Afinidad Nationalismo

Did AMLO just give Trump's inaugural address, in Spanish?
 MEXICO CITY, Dec 1 (Reuters) - Veteran leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador took office as Mexican president on Saturday, vowing to see off a "rapacious" elite in a country struggling with corruption, chronic poverty and gang violence on the doorstep of the United States.
Backed by a gigantic Mexican flag, the 65-year-old took the oath of office in the lower house of Congress, pledging to bring about a "radical" rebirth of Mexico ("make America great again") to overturn what he called a disastrous legacy of decades of "neo-liberal" governments.

"The government will no longer be a committee at the service of a rapacious minority," said the new president, who is often nicknamed AMLO. Nor would the government, he said, be a "simple facilitator of pillaging, as it has been."
Trump: "For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost."
Making 16 references to "neo-liberal" policies in his speech, he vowed to abolish the "regime" he said it had created...
"January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."
Pena Nieto sat impassively two seats to the left of Lopez Obrador during the sustained attack on his economic legacy, at times touching his face, wiping his brow with his hand and taking occasional sips of water.
Our Los Pena Nietos:

Dennis Goes to Eleven

According to the Intersectionality Score Calculator my privilege score is eleven, which is more privileged than seventy six percent of humanity.

The social cachet associated with the score varies wildly depending on social context, of course.


 

Hate in the Afternoon

Talking about the status of the Purge and its next steps.