Entire country of Liberia to relocate to Washington State

Emmanuel and Oretha Roberts, blind refugees from Liberia, are conducting a singing campaign in order to have their loved ones join them from Liberia. A headline from The Columbian reads “Survivors sing to help others escape.” The article, describing the horrors the Roberts had endured in Liberia, concludes:

“America is a good place, a wonderful country,” said Emmanuel, who took the test and the oath and became an American citizen last year. What he likes best about it, he said, are the programs and services for disabled and blind people like himself. It’s a humane government that provides such opportunities — as well as food for the poor, he added. Emmanuel is hoping to become a radio broadcaster, he said, so he can continue sending the gospel of hope out to listeners who don’t need sight to get the picture.

Yes, America is a good place – and Liberia is a shitty place. So why not help all those unfortunate Liberians escape that shitty place and come here. There are just shy of 4 million people in Liberia and the state of Washington is considerably larger. It can easily accommodate those extra people. Also, since Liberia is practically 100% African American, it would bring much needed diversity to the State of Washington. With a fertility rate of about 5 children per woman, it wouldn’t be long before the State of Washington was 100% diverse.

Yes, the State of Washington can now look forward to a rosy future. As for the people of Liberia, they will no longer have to deal with the shortcomings of their homeland. They will no longer have to endure beaches covered with human waste, rampant AIDS and drug use, out of control crime, cannibalism or torture – because they’ll all be Americans.

They took the test and the oath – and they’re smiling, so what could possibly go wrong?

 

The plastic recycling crisis

Via blogragu, I found this article about China’s recent refusal to accept American plastics for recycling. According to Quartz:

The drop-off in Chinese demand, and the lack of immediately accessible alternatives, could hit American cities hard, says Quartz’s contact in the industry. “Cities are going to have a huge problem on their hands because they don’t know what to do with this stuff,” she says. “They have made commitments saying it’s recycled—but they didn’t say how or where.”

Not that the US couldn’t open new plants. But sorting trash to be recycled is labor-intensive, and therefore expensive. (The US’s failure to sort it properly is why China is turning US trash away.) And while optical sorters exist, those are expensive too. And either will raise costs for US cities.

At the same time, the U.S. government is spending a ridiculous amount of money on various welfare programs. According to various sources, around 110,000,000 Americans receive some sort of welfare from the government. The total cost, to taxpayers, is staggering. Since we’re spending huge amounts of money in charity, and since we now have a huge need for unskilled labor (sorting recyclables), wouldn’t it make sense to put some of those people to work doing the sorting and processing? If they’re physically incapable of working for 8 hours, make them work for 2 or 3 hours a day. If they can’t stand up, let them sit down as they work. If they lack the mental capacity to follow complex instructions, have them do the simple, repetitive, work.

If somebody objects that making people work for their money is “slavery”, then I’d like to know what you call it when the rest of us are forced to work, four and a half months, for the government.

 

We pay for diversity with our freedom

Tom Cushing is up in arms because Sgt. Ed Mullins of the NYPD has opined that we must prove we’re innocent or be presumed guilty, and that this is the price we pay to live in a free society. Cushing writes, in Techdirt:

In a recent Christian Science Monitor article dealing with “teenagers, terrorism and social media” (focusing on the recent Cameron D’Ambrosio arrest for making “terrorist threats” via some improvised rap lyrics posted to Facebook), Sgt. Ed Mullins of the NYPD shows up to make some very disturbing statements about your rights and responsibilities as a (mere) citizen. It starts with the worst kind of “policy” and goes downhill fast.

Using a zero tolerance approach to track domestic terrorists online is the only reasonable way to analyze online threats these days, especially after the Boston Marathon bombing and news that the suspects had subsequently planned to target Times Square in Manhattan, Mullins says. The way law enforcement agencies approach online activity that appears sinister is this: “If you’re not a terrorist, if you’re not a threat, prove it,” he says.

“Zero tolerance” is never “reasonable.” It never has been and it never will be. In fact, it’s the polar opposite. Zero tolerance policies simply absolve the enforcers of any responsibility for the outcome and grant them the privilege of ignoring mitigating factors. It allows them to bypass applying any sort of critical thinking skills (the “reason” part of “reasonable”) and view every infractions as nothing more than a binary IF THEN equation.

Mullins goes even further than this, though, asserting that the burden of proof lies with the person charged, not the person bringing the charges. This flips our judicial system on its head (along with the judicial systems in many other countries) and, if applied the way Mullins views it, puts accused citizens in the impossible position of trying to prove a negative. This is just completely wrong, and it’s a dangerously stupid thing for someone in his position to believe, much less state out loud. (Mullins also heads the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the second-largest police union in New York City.)

Believe it or not, Mullins is not done talking. What he says next doubles up on the “dangerous” and “stupid.” “This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It’s just the way it is,” Mullins adds.

Cushing’s objection is well-founded; it doesn’t make sense to defend freedom by taking it away. But the discerning reader will notice that the real issue isn’t misguided police sergeants at all. The police have been doing what they must do in order to protect the citizens of New York. The real root of the problem is brought up, in passing, shortly thereafter in the article:

… The NYPD has been harassing young minorities at the rate of 500,000 impromptu stop-and-frisks per year for the better part of the last decade. For the past 10 years, the NYPD has been regularly trampling citizens’ civil liberties simply because they attend a mosque. The NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg have worked ceaselessly to make New York the most-surveilled city in the U.S.

It’s no secret that “young minorities” are the main perpetrators of crime in New York. Even the New York Times acknowledges this, as we see from an article by Heather McDonald back in 2010:

Allegations of racial bias, however, ignore the most important factor governing the Police Department’s operations: crime. Trends in criminal acts, not census data, drive everything that the department does, thanks to the statistics-based managerial revolution known as CompStat. Given the patterns of crime in New York, it is inevitable that stop rates will not mirror the city’s ethnic and racial breakdown.

CompStat embodies the iconoclastic idea that the police can stop violence before it happens. The department analyzes victim reports daily, and deploys additional manpower to the places where crime is increasing. Once at a crime hot spot, officers are expected to look out for, and respond to, suspicious behavior.

Such stops happen more frequently in minority neighborhoods because that is where the vast majority of violent crime occurs — and thus where police presence is most intense. Based on reports filed by victims, blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crime in New York in 2009, including 80 percent of shootings and 71 percent of robberies. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of reported gun assaults. And the vast majority of the victims of violent crime were also members of minority groups.

Non-Hispanic whites, on the other hand, committed 5 percent of the city’s violent crimes in 2009, 1.4 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies.

If we allow large numbers of crime-prone people into our communities, then we are faced with a choice: Either protect the citizenry by ruling with an iron fist or permit the criminals to operate freely and allow death and mayhem to prevail. If we take the latter choice, we send the message that crime is tolerated in our communities – and the violence will eventually spiral out of control. If we take the former choice, we will lose civil liberties. The only way to avoid this Morton’s Fork scenario is to prevent crime-prone demographics from entering our communities in the first place. This would be a sensible immigration policy.

Unfortunately, those who make the decisions regarding immigration live sheltered lives and do not have to live with the consequences. Whatever their true intentions might be, they have succeeded in convincing a large segment of the population that “diversity” is a goal to be pursued – and that our immigration policies should reflect this goal. When I say “immigration,” I refer not only to the movement of people from one country to another, but also from one city to another – or from one neighborhood to another. When those in power discover a community that is “too white” for their tastes, they force it to accept large numbers of non-white immigrants. The community is ultimately destroyed, and the individuals within it lose their liberties as well.

In conclusion, Cushing is barking up the wrong tree. Instead of defending “young minorities” against police harassment, he should be demanding that more peaceful populations (whites and Asians) be allowed to live separately from those minorities so that they may retain both their safety and their liberty.

As for minority populations responsible for the crime, liberties such as the 4th amendment are alien to them anyway; they would know nothing about them had whites not taught them. As societies, they can have either safety or what we call “liberty”, but not both. The Constitution was intended for a highly developed society. When we are forced to live with savages, the Constitution can no longer apply. We have sacrificed our liberty on the alter of diversity and the only way to get it back is to dismantle said diversity.

 

Reactionary posters…

… by Radish Magazine. Formerly known as Unamusement Park. Good work Radish!

Click here.

 

Background checks for tasers? Bad idea

Portland has its share of crazies; it has a visible undertow of drug addicts, including meth addicts, that blights the downtown area. It also has many homeless people whose mental health is dubious. Add diversity to the mix and the need for some form of protection becomes obvious.

I’d put off getting a taser for years. I wanted to get the type that can fire from several feet, but they’re rather expensive. A couple of days ago I finally made the leap. The young man behind the counter, at the gun store, explained that he would have to run a background check on me for the purchase.

“A background check? No problem” I thought. After all, I have no criminal history and nothing to fear. So why should there be a problem. But requiring background checks for tasers is a problem – when you consider that the taser won’t even work until it’s remotely activated by the manufacturer following a successful background check. I may be wrong, but it would appear that this would make it very difficult for a criminal, or an ex-convict, to acquire a working taser. Guns don’t need to be activated. Anybody can get a gun; if he can’t get one legally, he can buy one on the black market or steal one – and the gun will still work.

Taser International has this to say:

We at TASER International live and work to “Protect Life.” One of the ways we do live is by doing all we can to keep our life-saving devices out of the hands of criminals. We will not activate any TASER CEW without a clear felony background check. It’s the right thing to do because it protects all of us.

There are many decent people who have criminal records. People who were falsely accused and forced to take plea bargains. People who have mended their ways. People who made stupid mistakes or broke laws that make no sense. These people have the right to defend themselves and their families. It would make a lot of sense for them to have tasers. That way, they can do so without using lethal force. As it stands, since they cannot get tasers for this purpose, their only realistic alternative is a gun. You’re more likely to kill somebody with a gun than with a taser. You’re also more likely to end up with a long prison sentence and eat up valuable public resources in the process. There’s a lot more fallout if you use a gun against an intruder than if you use a taser.

While it’s true that a gun can be fired several times before it needs to be reloaded, while a taser has only one shot, there’s no reason we should not have both weapons in our arsenal. It doesn’t make sense to create a situation where a segment of the population has the option of using guns, but no option of using tasers. Just my two cents on the matter.

 

 

Cobwebs, change of state and Aspergers

Lately I’ve been thinking about an incident that occurred years ago. I was attending a college course and the professor, who we were told was very qualified for his position, was explaining the solid, liquid and gas states of various elements. At some point I raised my hand for a question regarding the transition, of silicon, from liquid to solid. I referred to this transition as “freezing.” The professor quickly corrected me, claiming that since the silicon was still very hot, it couldn’t “freeze.” I tried to tell him that any time a substance gets cold enough to solidify, regardless of our own preconceptions based on water, it is “freezing.” For some reason, he couldn’t wrap his head around this concept. I didn’t persist in arguing with him. It bothered me that a professor could hold such ignorant views.

Yesterday I walked into my living room and the sun was gloriously shining in. As I turned around and faced the interior of the house from the glass sliding door, I noticed hundreds of small cobwebs on the ceiling. How long had they been there? Why had I not noticed them? Standing next to the glass door, they were obvious. But as soon as I moved away from the door, they were all but invisible. I wondered how many other things would be obvious in my life if only I had the right perspective.

I also remembered the clueless professor. I realized that there are many others like him. People who live their lives away from the door. They never venture away from their mental comfort zone – and so they cannot see the things that are obvious to the rest of us. When I say “the rest of us,” I am referring to Aspergers people and our sympathizers. We tend to see things naked as they are, without the clothing of convention. To us, if something is wrong, it’s wrong. It doesn’t matter if it’s impolite to point it out, or if saying so can get you in trouble. The truth is the truth and it’s a treasure to be shared. Some of us learn, over the years, to refrain from blatantly insulting people. We learn to hold our tongues for the sake of our careers. But these are compromises. But even Asperger people develop mental comfort zones. We create our own conventions to clothe, and hide, the truth.

It’s been said that drugs such as LSD, which change our mental state, allow us to see deeper truths. To stand near the door so to speak. There’s probably some truth to this claim. This was certainly the case with me when I tried a special mushroom years ago. The mushroom moved me toward the door for a few hours and, at the time, the revelations seemed so obvious. If you can reach that sort of state through meditation, all the power to you I say. It’s important to move around in life, both physically and mentally. If you don’t, you’re missing out. If you’re of the ruling class, you’re imposing your own deficiencies upon the rest of us.

 

How brazen can the multi-cult be?

A friend, who wishes to remain anonymous, sent me this photo he took:

If it’s now a tradition to portray black males with white females, wouldn’t that mean that academia is “conservative?”