Back in 1996, 35 people were gunned down in Tasmania. As a result of this tragedy, the Australian government instituted new gun-control laws. Among them was a compulsory buyback program. Since then there has been much debate over how this affected violent crime rates in Australia.

Gun rights advocates have, for the most part, been claiming that violent crime actually increased after the buyback. Anti-gun advocates argue that such claims are flawed, and that violent crime went down after the buyback. Each side accuses the other of using flawed, or meaningless, statistics.

If we are to address the issue of post buyback crime rates at all, the burden of proof must fall on the anti-gun crowd. Regardless of what the Australian Constitution says, or does not say, about gun ownership, people have a natural right to defend themselves. Our natural rights are not contingent upon any government-issued piece of paper. The right to defend oneself against violence is primal. Therefore, if we are to argue that the Australian government was justified in its theft of its citizens’ firearms, the burden of proof is on us to show that such a measure is necessary and effective.

But we cannot simply point to a decrease in violent crime and assume that it’s due to the buyback. Correlation does not equal causation. Similarly, we cannot assume that an increase in violent crime is due to the buyback. There are many, constantly changing, factors that influence crime rates. I would argue that the very complexity of the issue renders such claims (on either side) practically meaningless.

I would also argue that, even if it could be shown that gun confiscation does decrease violent crime, this still does not give people the right to steal guns from other people.

Consider the case of motorcycles. Why not make recreational motorcycle riding illegal? Such a law would certainly save lives; there’s no doubt about it. While it’s true that the person most at risk, with motorcycles, is the rider himself, the same could be said about guns. Suicide rates are much higher than homicide rates.

Most people understand that we must accept certain risks if our lives are to worth living at all. If it’s worth risking our lives for fun, how much more so for self-defense.

My brother just got back from a prolonged trip to Australia. He tells me that the Australians he spoke to were very pleased with their strict gun laws. There seems to be an assumption that living in Australia makes one an expert on Australian crime and gun laws. Thinking back on my own visit there, I don’t think this is the case. My impression is that many, if not most, Australians are heavily indoctrinated by their left-leaning government and press – the same as Americans and Europeans.

I recently overheard a conversation between two of my friends. They were talking about the recent shooting in Troutdale, Oregon. I’m familiar with Troutdale, since I often visit that area during the summer. It’s only about 45 minutes from my house. My friends were citing this incident as justification for gun-control. It’s funny because Troutdale was also the scene of a “wilding” a couple of years ago. Here’s a video of the incident:

 

… but I don’t remember calls for diversity-control after that. Perhaps this is because of selective reporting by the corporate-owned media. People hear about lone gunmen, but they’re less likely to hear about black mob violence. I would wager that the average American is much more likely to become a victim of black violence than he is to become a victim of a lone white gunman – but the powers that be, in order to serve their own political agenda, aggressively publicize white gunmen (even if they’re only part white) while ignoring black violence as much as possible.

Ethnic diversity leads to a degradation of our culture. Hence, even when the culprit is a white high school student, some of the blame can be laid at the feet of “diversity.” What we need is diversity-control, not gun-control.

In South Africa they all it “black empowerment,” and it appears that this policy has been yielding its natural outcome: Death.

If it were only white babies who were dying, it might be seen as a benefit. But apparently black babies are dying too, and some are people are not pleased. According to Yahoo news:

Cape Town (AFP) – South Africa’s policy of race-based affirmative action is “killing babies” and must be scrapped, the country’s Institute of Race Relations said Friday.

The institute, which spoke out against racial discrimination under apartheid, said black empowerment policies had seen unqualified people appointed to positions where their incompetence hit poor and vulnerable communities.

It pointed to the deaths of three babies aged between seven and 13 months in Bloemhof in North West province this week, apparently caused by drinking contaminated tap water. Scores of others were also hospitalised.

“The Bloemhof municipality ‘lost its capacity’ to maintain the sewer plant,” the independent think-tank said in a statement quoting its Chief Executive Frans Cronje that accompanied its paper entitled “Killing Babies”.

“There is no doubt that the officials responsible for these deaths were appointed, at least in part, on grounds of race-based affirmative action and that a direct causal link therefore exists between the policy and the deaths.”

black baby

That racial preferences would lead to such results is obvious. There’s no telling how many people have died or been injured due to affirmative action over the course of the several decades it’s been in place. There’s no way to know how many innocent people sit in prison due to incompetent lawyers, how many wrong medications were prescribed, how many operations were less successful, how many businesses failed – because competence took a back seat to “diversity.”

While it’s encouraging that such concerns are now being aired publicly, I doubt they will lead to meaningful change. Instead, the powers that be will, at best, try to replace the least competent affirmative action hires with slightly less incompetent ones.

A recent article, in American Renaissance, makes me question any future travel plans I might have:

Thousands of potential FAA air traffic control trainees, with College Initiative Training (CTI) degrees or previous military experience, have been told by the federal agency they are no longer eligible for job interviews. Instead, the FAA has decided to accept less qualified applicants, apparently to satisfy concerns that the agency needs a more diverse workforce…

The initial hurdle for all applicants was based solely on a new, online biographical questionnaire that gave test takers instant results.

“It didn’t ask me anything about my college experience, my grades, my scores, (and) my ability for the actual job. It asked me what sports I played in high school. What was my least favorite subject in high school. Nothing related to aviation,” remembered Meryhew.

“I get a big red ‘X’ when I applied saying I’m not qualified, but no reason why,” explained Annie Keinholz. “Biographically ineligible.”…

“I believe that the FAA’s motivation is to gain more diversity in the hiring pool,” said Kuhlmann. “But they won’t say it in that way. They will not say it. Even on the teleconference. They’ll just say, ‘We’ve engineered the biographical questionnaire in a way that we think will promote diversity.’”

How can we fight this? I’d like to suggest a course of action. We need to make sure that every flight in the U.S. has at least one black baby on board. That way, when the inevitable midair crash occurs, we can point to the dead black babies and say: “Affirmative action kills babies!” and we can include photos of those babies for added effect.

 

Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, upon hearing of the recent killings in California, shook his head and stated:

What a waste! If Mr. Rodger had come to Nigeria, he would have made an excellent Islamic soldier – and he would have no problem finding a wife; he would simply kidnap one!

Recent conflicts with government forces, and vigilante groups, have left Boko Haram short on soldiers. Shekau had already contemplated tapping into the vast pool of frustrated white and Asian males in America. In a recent video, he had mentioned that it would be a win-win situation. Boko Haram would gain much-needed extra troops, and frustrated American men would have access to Nigerian women.

In an appeal to America’s lonely, desperate, men, Shekau pointed out that:

Islam is today’s dominant religion. If you attach yourself to Islam, and swear allegiance to Allah and his prophet Muhammad, you will no longer have to sit at the feet of more fortunate males, waiting for some crumbs to fall your way. The power of Allah, and his word, the Holy Qur’an, will infuse you with the authority and strength that women respect. And if they fail to respect you of their own free will, it is not a problem; you will take what you want.

Regardless of your color, we in Nigeria will welcome you with open arms. We shall show you the path to true manhood. If you fight for us, we shall fight for you!

There is no denying that this offer resonates with many American men – and U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have voiced concern that Shekau’s appeal may strike fertile ground. Some fear that Boko Haram may even develop an American chapter.

Abubakar Shekau

Abubakar enticing lonely American men with sweet promises

I spent a few days in Miami recently, and chose to use the bus service from the airport to my hostel. As I got to the bus platform, I saw that my bus was there and ready to go. As I ascending the steps, the black bus driver gruffly told me I needed exact change. Unfortunately, all I had was a $20 bill. I was directed to the ticket-selling machine a few yards away. It took me only a couple of minutes to get my ticket – but the driver left without me.

I sat down to wait for the next bus. It ended up being a half-hour wait. Over the course of that half-hour, numerous buses passed by, and several stopped for passengers. I couldn’t help but notice that every single bus driver was black.

According to Wikipedia, Miami is only 22.7% black. I have been unable to find any online resources that address the apparent discrepancy between Miami’s overall black population and their apparent dominance of the bus system. There don’t seem to be any statistics that break down Miami’s public employees by race or ethnicity. However, if Miami follows the trend in other places, such as Washington DC, then blacks are grossly overrepresented in government jobs, especially transit jobs.

Eventually my bus did arrive, and the black female driver was polite. This is what I saw next to the front seat:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

I have submitted a request, to the Miami-Dade transit authority, to provide me with racial statistics of their employees. I’ll let y’all know if they respond.

I saw this on Amren and thought I’d share it with y’all.

Last night I watched an old science fiction movie. The plot revolved around a group of scientists who sought to put an end to war by creating an enemy common to all Mankind. They reckoned that if all nations had a common enemy, they’d cease fighting among themselves.

They reasoned that such a common enemy would motivate the nations of Earth to unite and form one world government.  By their reasoning, such unity would mean an end to war.

Perhaps, if any one government became powerful enough to control the entire world, there really would be no war as we know it. Strong men, such as Tito and Saddam Hussein have been able to suppress ethnic hostilities. If this is possible in regions such as Yugoslavia and Iraq, then in theory it could be done throughout the world as well.

But at what cost? As diversity increases, within any given area, our liberties diminish. If a given area is defined as “the world,” then our liberties would be few indeed. We would have reached maximal diversity – and minimal liberty.

We often hear it said that our soldiers “died for our freedom.” Yes, I think they did. They died for our freedom because they helped perpetuate a world of rival nations, of rival interests and rival governments. Only in such a world can we enjoy individual liberty. Given human nature, it seems to me that there are but two paths we can take: 1) A multitude of nations – and regular warfare or 2) A united world with no large-scale warfare. With option number one, we suffer the horrors of war, but we might enjoy a measure of freedom. With option number two, we are slaves to a remote and unseen master.

To be sure, there are times when we enjoy both peace and liberty. But such peace is inevitably punctuated by war. The fact that these wars tend to occur about once every generation implies that, horrific as they may be, they serve some functions. One of these functions is to reinforce our divided world of rival nations. Perhaps this lack of unity is a necessary ingredient for liberty. Since such wars cannot be fought without soldiers, we do indeed owe them our gratitude.

They died for our freedom. For this I thank them.

 

I’ve finally had a chance to settle in from my recent trip. Here are some photos from the conference. Better late than never!

 

John Derbyshire delivers his talk about Chinese culture versus Western culture.

I wish they’d get rid of that cardboard placard, and replace it with something more substantial and permanent-looking.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERASam Dickson presents Jared Taylor with a Confederate shot glass

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 134 other followers