Uncategorized

Spare Me the Hate Crime Rubbish and Stop Blaming Conservatives

Left-wing ingrates over at the Huffington Post, and presumably everywhere else, are now telling us to hold our sympathies for the Orlando massacre victims. Evidently, conservatives are to blame, and Omar Mateen’s homicidal rage was merely (or mostly) the product of an Evangelical-influenced, homophobic culture. Hogwash. That this deluded claim has even been proffered just goes to show how far gone the LGBT community really is, and I fear that we’ve nearly lost a whole generation of them to this tortuous, intellectual violence.

The reason many haven’t called this tragedy a hate crime is quite simply because it is not yet clear that it was a hate crime at all. After all, how can we draw any serious conclusions without being given clear motives? The killer’s professed allegiance to ISIL strikes me as more disingenuous than authentic, and biographical reports from those who knew him suggest that the real cause in all of this was internally psychiatric, rather than externally psychological. To the extent that outside influences did play a role, it would appear that the enigmatic Miguel has more to say than all of the pundits combined: “this crazy, horrible thing he did was for revenge.” That Omar was a semi-closeted homosexual now looks to be beyond doubt, and it hardly seems reasonable to suppose that a gay man can demonstrate a hostile bias or “group animus” towards other gay men. Thus, we’re left with the story of a deranged and jilted lover who is no more guilty of a hate crime than Christina Grimmie’s shooter, Kevin James Loibl. The biggest difference: In an opportunistic turn of events, Mateen took advantage of his Muslim heritage and sought to identify himself with the largest Islamic group known for mass homicide.

Given the gay community’s persecution complex, however, it’s only natural that they are now seeking to pin the blame on a rival community whom they have lately come to despise for reasons which only betray their vast ignorance of religion, morality, history, and politics. More telling is their strange obsession with hate-oriented language, which, if the old, Freudian projection theories hold true, probably reveals more about them than it does of their opponents. Consequently, it would be their own inner demons that drive them with such vitriolic fervor to castigate, incriminate, and ultimately castrate any other group that might show signs of even the most benign disapproval. And conservative Christians are at fault? Spare me. Coming from a faction who still considers Matthew Shepard the poster child for LGBT victimization, this is hard to believe.

Should we choose to damn any party for the vile atrocity perpetrated in the Pulse nightclub, it seems far easier to lay the guilt upon those who have belligerently continued to fan the flames of social unrest and to construct straw men in an ill-founded effort to radically alter the nature of reality. If you declare war as enthusiastically, don’t be surprised at the collateral damage. But even this seems a stretch, and we have to admit that this was neither terrorism proper nor a typical crime of hate, at least insofar as Mateen was a part of the ostensibly hated group. It was the vengeful act of an emotionally disturbed lunatic that came about with very little outside prodding. Those of us who are level-headed enough to see this will continue to offer our sympathies, whether they’re appreciated or not.

Advertisements

Multiculturalism and America’s Broken Body

By the time it reached St. Paul, the metaphor of a body and its members had become a well-worn proverb. From its Aesopian origins to its later use by Menenius Agrippa, the essential theme had always been the same and still remains clear enough today: “a house divided . . .” to invoke the words of Jesus. And how could it be otherwise? It’s hard to believe that anyone could seriously question the theoretical basis of this statement, and yet the mass of multicultural fanatics seems bent on ignoring such a fundamental tenet of political theory. For sure, the old fable assumes a measure of diversity in its use of various limbs and organs, though never so much as to undermine the ultimate unity coming about through this diversity. E pluribus unum. Now, however, we have imbecilic leftists touting the virtues of their steroidal pluralism, striving not only to further the coexistence of various cultures and belief systems (an ideal as American as apple pie), but to convince the general populace that all of these cultures and belief systems are equally valid and true. Is it any wonder that Donald Trump has secured the Republican constituency?

Not a day goes by in which some version of this rancid filth doesn’t permeate the news outlets, usually with regard to gender identity or sexual orientation in some manner, though very often in relation to heritage and nationality: quite possibly the more dangerous of the two. Far from it being acceptable any longer simply to live and let these individuals exist in peace, standing equally before the law as they should, we’re progressively being forced into embracing their proclivities and worldviews as virtually no different from the more traditional values and frameworks which have so far defined this country. Leaving us with a mongrel bastard of their own peculiar ideology mixed with civil rights legislation, the philosophically-minded activists who ended up raping our college humanities departments have turned the political left away from all semblance of reason and have constructed a reality in which an infinite number of realities exists. Thus, it is not any more simply a matter of treating the human and his religion or ancestral customs with the dignity and impartiality they deserve in a free land, but a matter of coercing universal assent to those religions and customs with a stern caution that to do otherwise is “hateful.”

The problem with this radicalized relativism is that in the absence of a dominant culture society becomes little more than a weak confederation of only semi-unified groups that neither trust nor support each other, which isn’t far off from the well-publicized observations of Robert Putnam. But more to the point, when assimilation is discouraged, the people suffer and a country disintegrates. Shouldn’t this be obvious? Yet evidently it is too difficult for a large segment of our population to grasp, despite the tragic drama playing out before their own eyes. What’s worse is that they continue to spew forth their horrific nonsense by proposing more diversity training and more legal action in a misguided attempt at fostering unity when they are, in fact, doing nothing more than dislodging the very rational and Enlightened foundations on which the United States stands. Some have suggested that the collapse of America’s so-called “first city,” Cahokia came, not from environmental assaults or shortages of food, but from the internal strife which was a product of mass immigration and presumably a failure of these immigrants to acculturate themselves with Mississippian society. If such was our beginning, just imagine the end.

Liberals Hate Fat People (Or Just Don’t Understand Medical Science)

Stomaching the hackneyed slogans and trite buzzwords vomited out by the constituents of modern-day pop-culture is becoming more of a challenge every moment, especially when those tools are employed by the left-wing propaganda machine to advocate for some sort of nonsensical lunacy as if it were a noble cause. “So much this!” they say, and “this so much!” It all makes me shudder, and I’ll be damned if I use the word “why” in a title or subtitle ever again. One can only handle reading the same formulaic headings over and over: “why you should do this,” “why you should do that.” Excuse me, but I’ll do as I please, thank you very much. That’s if they don’t “shame” me into compliance.

It’s difficult to understand how the masses fail to see the growing ineffectiveness of their overused catchphrases, and yet this is, by and large, the same crowd that can hardly maintain a firm grip on reality itself. I guess it all makes sense. As a reactionary measure to so-called “body shaming” we’re now being told by some that fat studies is a legitimate academic discipline as a part of the wider fat acceptance movement, which one can easily see influencing body positivity notions that are becoming all the rage, because, you know, western beauty standards are so passé. #HereIAm In other words, obesity is just the new normal because hey, being 65 lbs. overweight never killed anybody. That’s what my doctor says too.

I almost feel guilty for being so crass, but I hardly mean any disrespect. In fact, one might say that, in reality, I’m showing more respect to these individuals by pointing out the cold, hard truth: some people shouldn’t feel comfortable in their body. Maybe that’s a bit of an overstatement, but a needed corrective nonetheless. For sure, one ought to be satisfied with their best efforts and shouldn’t excessively ruminate on those physical aspects that just can’t be changed. (There really is something to be said for courageously accepting what is after all that can be done has been done — a challenge we must all face.) Neither should anyone be despised or ridiculed for their weight or any other feature for that matter. But let’s not act like we can ignore or avoid the numerous health issues that can and do arise from holding excessive weight, as if these issues are merely “social constructs” which we can simply wish away. Please. If anything should be considered “offensive” it should be the farcical deception of liberal buffoons which could easily cost people their lives. I kid you not. Look them up.

All of this reminds me of, and, at bottom, is exactly the same as that horrific and disgusting neurodiversity movement which ultimately does more harm than good by seeking to keep millions enslaved to their own psychiatric illnesses. You’re depressed? You just think differently. You have autism? It’s a gift. Schizophrenia? Just a variation of normal. Never mind the observable degradation of brain tissue. So far has the left come with their Frankfurt-esque, post-structural bullshit that even something as basic as physical and mental health is made subservient to their neo-Marxist fetish with power struggle and diversity, which is ironic considering that this, in fact, turns them into the very oppressor they despise, or at least makes them accessories. It just goes to show how little regard many of them have for your life and your health, and how little confidence they have in your ability to change.

The Futility of Gun Control: Sometimes “Common Sense” Doesn’t Make Much Sense

When 28-year-old Martin Bryant walked into the Broad Arrow Cafe on one early afternoon during the Australian autumn of 1996, few people undoubtedly had any idea that they would find themselves staring down the barrel of an L1A1, semi-automatic battle rifle wielded by a blonde-haired Tasmanian devil who would then go on to slaughter 35 innocent people in cold-blood, and injure 24 others in what would come to be known as the Port Arthur massacre. As protocol dictates when such tragedies occur, widespread debate on the merits of gun ownership could be found on the lips of politicians, quickly prompting the Howard administration to implement some of the strictest gun control measures not only within the Commonwealth but within the entire world, outlawing such weapons as semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns, all the while keeping a strong grip and a close eye on those who wished to buy other, less dangerous firearms.

 
There is something admirable in a leader’s wish to protect his citizenry from the destructive effects of gun-based violence, and one would be hard-pressed to prove that any such motives were, in fact, prompted by a conspiratorial program meant to disarm the general populace for nefarious political ends. Keeping mentally ill and criminally-inclined hands off certain forms of weaponry seems reasonable enough. And, as expected, firearm-based massacres declined in the years following Australia’s legal reforms. Howard’s gun control was a success — if by success we mean only three fewer mass killing fatalities in the 18 years following its institution as compared with the 18 years preceding it. True, this includes the Snowtown murders, which were drawn out over a period of seven years, starting in 1992 and ending in 1999, which make this incident of a somewhat different sort. But even excluding these particular statistics, we’re left with 71 massacre fatalities before and 62 after — a difference of only nine. And this difference, while no doubt significant in its own right, can easily be attributed to the declining homicide rate, which, I might add, had already been declining in the years prior to 1996 as demonstrated by the Australian Institute of Criminology’s own data. What’s more, firearm homicides began their downward trend all the way back in 1969 and continued despite the proliferation of military-grade rifles throughout some regions of the continent. In short: nothing changed since the adoption of the National Firearms Agreement, and more violent-minded individuals have since turned to burning retirement homes and stabbing children to satisfy their macabre desire to inflict harm.

 
The United Kingdom has fared similarly. With strict gun legislation already on the books, the Prime Minister decided to ban nearly all personal handguns at the prompting of Lord Cullen and due to the tragic shooting of 16 Dunblane school children in the spring of 1996. We’re now told jubilantly by some that the control measures must have worked since the British lasted 14 years before another firearm-based massacre took place, as if this means anything at all. Within the 14 years prior to Dunblane there had only been one firearm-based massacre and apparently none in the 14 years prior to that. Guns were rarely a problem in the Isles and one may, of course, argue that this dearth of gun violence is a product of the draconian regulations that had been implemented, beginning in the 1920s and strengthened in 1937 and 1968. This is fair. Be that as it may, however, such regulations can hardly be considered satisfactorily successful when the homicide rate has virtually been increasing ever since and, after a sharp rise in the early 2000s, has finally evened out to a level not showing any drastic improvement over those seen prior to 1997. Whereas for Australia we could say that nothing changed, for the Kingdom, if it hasn’t gotten worse, it hasn’t gotten much better either. And the British disgruntled sure seem to have a peculiar affinity for explosive devices.

 
In 2003, a CDC task force reviewed the scholarly literature on gun control in an attempt to ascertain the efficacy of such legislation and was ultimately forced to conclude that there existed no actual evidence that any of the policies theretofore instituted worked. One year later, the National Academy of the Sciences essentially agreed after reviewing hundreds of documents, writing, “despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms.” Both publications rightly urge caution, noting the lack of research on a number of questions that would be relevant to the topic. But I still find myself asking, “if, after all of this, the effectiveness of such policies is so hard to discern, how effective can they be?”

 
The greatest difficulty one encounters in combing through the research is the persistent emphasis on gun availability and gun-based violence, which, to my mind, means very little. Most people, after all, don’t care all too much if they die in a shooting, bombing, burning, or stabbing since they die anyway (although, for my money, a bullet through the spinal cord would probably be best). To whatever extent authors have focused on firearm legislation and overall homicide rates as opposed to just one particular form of homicide, the conclusions seem to be virtually unanimous: little to no impact exists at all. Which just goes to demonstrate that all this talk about gun control as if it can adequately make a substantial difference in curbing American violence is just empty conversation with no basis in reality. Banning assault rifles and mandating restrictive licensing requirements might appear to make a good bit of sense, but at the end of the day, it really doesn’t, since too many other factors drive people to kill and since the deranged have proven themselves quite capable of causing widespread devastation using just about any method.

Pass the Salt, Please

I suppose there’s room for doubt and skepticism since this study seems to be the first of its kind; but even so, one can’t help but find it somewhat interesting. Unfortunately there still isn’t any surefire way to increase one’s IQ, and this seems to be more of a developmental improvement rather than an actual increase in one’s genetically determined intelligence quotient, much along the lines of reducing lead exposure to infants, and so forth. Nevertheless, one can still remain hopeful that psychology and neuroscience will eventually find a method of improving cognitive ability indefinitely.

I Wonder What Voltaire Would Think

Facebook is a publicly-traded company, owned by its stock-holders, which means that it really has no obligation to abide by the first amendment, so what they’ve done is not at all illegal nor can it definitively be considered an action of the company itself so much as it has to be considered a particular action of one or perhaps some employees. The whole thing does reflect a growing trend, however, of an increasing level of intolerance and an unsettling spirit which says, “say what you want, so long as I agree with it”.

This quote by John Stuart Mill that I came across online is certainly a relevant and thought-provoking one: “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”