Reflections From a Murky Pond

Consider this – In this modern and woefully (mis)educated age the greatest and some of the most pernicious examples of injustice have been and are being perpetrated for the sake of abolishing the perceived inequalities of outcome of certain protected individuals and groups. Properly blind justice has been sacrificed on the alter of forced egalitarianism.

Criminals, especially the low-order thugs specializing in- and limited to violent crimes, make and repeat poor choices in their lives. Inherently, this poor decision making capability is why they’re criminals in the first place.

Remember, however, that there is a difference between poor choices in the context of long-term success or failure and wrong choices in the context of immediacy.

While there’s a whole lot wrong with these videos – this is to be expected from commercials – there’s a whole lot right about them as well. They show citizens, either law enforcement personnel or normal civilians, making a criminal’s poor choice a wrong choice as well.

Evolution In Action

It’s really odd and frustrating that the Liberals and Progressives are so dead-set against the citizenry being armed and able to ensure that criminals’ poor choices are also very wrong choices with heavy consequences. They claim to be staunch advocates of Darwinism and evolution but fail to understand that evolution of sophants is, by and large, a case of intelligent design. Society far more than natural effects determines and individual’s fitness for survival and breeding.

Removing a criminal, especially a violent thug, from society either through extermination or lengthy incarceration followed by lasting social disapprobation and stigma goes a long way towards removing unsuccessful and atavistic genes from the race, either directly and immediately through extermination or secondarily through eliminating or sharply curtailing the thugs’ ability and opportunity to reproduce.

Civic Responsibility

I will also posit that, while an individual does not have a responsibility or duty to improve the race through culling the defectives within it, he or she does have the civic responsibility and duty to protect themselves from harm rather than to solely rely upon others to do so.

It is simply not right for people to demand and enjoy the privileges of a society while willfully refusing to discharge the basic responsibilities of a member of that society. Those who do willfully refuse to do so are not members of their society; they are parasite upon it.

Presented for your interest and possible education – An Equality Parable:

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said, “Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I’m pregnant again. I don’t want kids so close together. “

So the doctor said, “OK, and what do you want me to do?”

She said, “I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.”

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady, “I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.”

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request. Then he continued, “‘You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.” 

The lady was horrified and said, “No doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child! “

“I agree”, the doctor replied. “But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.”

The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that’s already been born and one that’s still in the womb. The crime is the same!

The only horrific possibility that this parable conjures up is that some creatures who mock Mankind by mimicking our physical form believe that murdering the newborn infant should be allowable as well.

Fortunately, for right-thinking people’s ammunition budgets if nothing else, such subhumans are quite rare. Even the vast majority of Feminists don’t publicly claim that killing their born children is an acceptable practice.

Sadly, many people do make the distinction between the born and unborn and do not think of unborn babies as being humans who are supposedly protected by law from being murdered.

If it wasn’t so depraved and evil it’d be funny how these sorts, most of whom are very big into “minority rights,” have decided that they can make the decision as when someone is and isn’t person. They, when it suits their agenda, conveniently forget that we made those decisions in the past and little that is now considered good came of it.

So to do they forget that every qualifiable and/or quantifiable argument that they put forth in favor of exterminating unborn babies for any reason or no reason at all beyond the female’s convenience can and has been used to justify the extermination and/or enslavement of those minorities that they claim to support.

One must always remember that lamestream priorities are quite different than American priorities. America’s domestic enemies and their media pundits have far different priorities than Americans do and apply vastly different standards to their own vs. Americans.

Lamestream Priorities – Water! Pedophilia & Prostitution, Not So Much

Yes, the Left and their media are far, far, far more concerned about Senator Marc Rubio’s (R-FL) pausing to drink a glass of water during a speech than with Senator Bob Menendez’s (D-NJ) repeated venting his pedophiliac lusts into child prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.

Odd; looking at Menendez, I’d have thought that he was White enough to be a “White Hispanic” and held to White standards by the Liberals. I guess I was wrong.

But hey! What a little, or far more than a little, fornication with- and sodomization of Dominican girls in the grand scheme of the Left – as long as Menendez votes for higher punitive taxes, gun confiscation, Obamacare, and other Liberals and Progressive causes? Senator Rubio’s thirst is much more important.

It’s all a matter of understanding Lamestream priorities. 😉

In the wake of the tragic Newton School Massacre the gun grabbers are in the forefront of America’s news media again. This always happens whenever there’s a shooting that viscerally impacts the Middle Class’ sensibilities. Immediately after any such a tragedy various Liberal and Progressive elements start calling for sundry forms of bans upon weapons and ammunition in an attempt at supposedly mitigating gun violence in America.

Americans, of course, are at least equally invested in mitigating gun violence in America. Their chosen means of doing so just radically differ from those of the Liberal and Progressives. Both schools of thought, however, are horribly flawed insofar as probable long-term effectiveness are concerned.

Perhaps a truly utilitarian approach is needed in these circumstances, one that actually addresses gun violence in America.

The rare but well-publicized spree killings aside, you cannot truly address gun violence in America without addressing the “Black Community.” Hence, that is where any real, pragmatic efforts need to be focused and enacted. Any other measures are absolutely assured of failure.

It’s a simple fact that Blacks make up only 12 – 13% of the US population but account for 56.4%% of the murderers who used firearms to kill in the country and 50.9% of the victims of murderers who used firearms.

The above statistics are an aggregate of homicides between 1976-2005 and quite clearly show where the problem is and what demographic is consistently and disproportionately to their numbers causing it. They also clearly show that, if one wants to dramatically reduce homicides in general and firearm-related homicides in specific, then we have to address the problem of the “Black Community” instead of firearms.

If we took the utilitarian approach and exterminated, enslaved, sequestered, or exiled the Blacks, we’d immediately reduce homicides, especially firearm-related ones, by over 50%. Other crime statistics, unemployment numbers, and poverty rates would drop in similar manner.

If the wholesale remove of the Blacks from America is too extreme, given that many Blacks pose no threat to themselves or others, we could just exterminate, enslave, sequester, or exile the “scary looking” Blacks. This, while having a lesser salutary effect upon homicide statistics, would likely address the worst parts of the situation and eliminate the worst of the homicides.

An even less extreme methodology would be to simply sterilize, i.e., geld, all the Black males in America. While this wouldn’t address the problem in our times it would ensure that our children and our children’s children would not have to contend with the homicide statistics that our generation has to deal with.

NOTE: I’m not being sexist. It is simply that, as veterinary medicine has proven, neutering males is far cheaper and safer than spaying females.

Any of the above measures would curtail American homicides, especially firearm-related homicides, far more effectively and surely than any other measures that could be considered. That’s the primary advantage of the utilitarian approach; it’s results oriented and solely focused on providing the greatest good to greatest number of people.

Nor can there be any valid Constitutional argument against the extermination, enslavement, sequestration, or exile of the Blacks, in whole or in part. Our Founding Fathers and our later forbears never envisioned what the state of America would be with free Black population of any size living within her borders. The Constitution was designed as a “living document” to be amended and revised to reflect the changing circumstances of the country.

Read the rest of this entry »