Wednesday, August 16, 2017

How Anti-Mass Incarceration Happens Without Legislation

The long play for the Black Lives matter and protest-riot series from 2014 to mid-2016 was to push the meme for police and prison reform. Police would need to be under federal control, policing would have to change, and this would help the number of innocent Democrats in jail. Jail itself would need reform too, with a changing in sentencing. Maybe the Hillary appointed Warren Court 2.0 could change federal sentencing laws. That was the low being paid to create an on the ground visual for the high wanting to create chaos and scare the population for more centralization.

It did not happen. This did not stop all of those media outlets that discussed the harm of school to prison pipelines, jail being awfully mean, jail being racist, jail hurting the black family, and other narratives to equate it with slavery or worse. The solution presented was never bring back wider execution practices and bring back exile. There was never any agency placed in the criminals and their families souls. The solution was preselected and presented to you for future legislation.

It did not quite happen, but this does not stop the entire system from on the edges but at ground level fighting mass incarceration, which is a made up problem by the Left. A judicial system is still only as good as its administrators and our system is staffed with plenty of good progressives. Good progressives not just wanting to keep their job but to advance and slide to political office is necessary. They want to be good progs.

This is where the religious aspect of progressivism comes in. These progs want to be good ones and want to be holy for future advance in the church hierarchy. They see the signal from up on high that something, something, must be done about mass incarceration. Shucks, legislation is not going to happen, but they can do something, even if small, they can do it.

America does write its laws down, but the rule of law is long since soured. Simply look at family court. A man and woman divorce, the children are considered her property but legally a man can petition for custody. The courts are legally suppose to hear argument, albeit arguments that a man has to pay a lawyer for because the default is mom has the kids. The underlying belief held by the system is to preserve the mother-child bond. We need not even start on children of unmarried parents, as it takes years to settle if dad dares to want his child. The system is in the hands of those that execute the laws and they are guided by who trained, educated and molded them.

They immediately start pleaing things down. No legislation needed for the people already with the editorial power to pick and choose charges. This already happens anyway but gets even worse as DAs, young ADAs and public defenders now actively look to plea things down to misdemeanors and other crimes that carry lower minimum sentences. DAs then strike deals for lesser time in jail. They even recommend lower time at all sentencing no matter the crime, violent felony or not. Judges on the bench get the signal, too.

This is why the Reagan Tokes rape/murder matters in the far bigger picture. It reveals the lie of these weepy penal reform advocates. Golsby robbed two women, assaulted them, kidnapped them, raped one, but did just six years. Golsby did six years in jail for robbery and attempted rape. The prosecutor plead that sucker down in 2011. Not only that, the prosecutor sold it to both victims that six years was a good idea for an armed robber who rapes women in front of their two year olds. What do you think a prosecutor is going to do to sell someone on a plea deal with the blaring horn and giant red flag from the left's clerisy to be softer on crime?

This lets everyone out earlier. Not everyone, but those from the disadvantaged populations mentioned in the media propaganda. No legislation needed. All within the perfectly okay boundaries of the judicial system as already encoded. All they needed was the proper flag to be run up the pole by the priest class and they would execute on it. All the progressives needed to be told was that this is a good thing.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Monday, August 14, 2017

Venezuela Insecurity Creates Repeating Motions

When I wrote about Chavez and Maduro funding the colectivos, it was to point out how the clique that they represented needed to route around existing power infrastructure to secure more loyal foot soldiers. Having a politically reliable security system and pipeline for political operatives is necessary for any takeover. Some people are pointing to President Maduro's moves now as a wild rewrite and farce. It's not. It's the same thing Chavez did when he took power.

The only change is that the situation in Venezuela has changed. Chavez was elected into power and then immediately pushed the momentum to have a new constitution to sweep out the old corruption. This was passed enthusiastically in 1999 in Venezuela. I was 1999. No one knew the damage Chavez's mafia would inflict on the nation, and their PR kept the poor validating it with electoral victory after electoral victory.

Maduro right now is simply copying the Chavez approach to cement his sponsors' and his clique in power. Earlier this summer, the bold prosecutor in Venezuela tried to stop his call for a new constitutional assembly. Maduro's clique's cronies were in the judiciary and sided with him. She had been a pro-Chavez administrator. The media reports her holding a copy of their constitution and calling for integrity. Muh Constitution is global. She was holding up a document that was the sham socialist paper from not even twenty years ago.

Maduro's clique holding the media megaphone blasted for voting in the July 30th referendum for a constitutional assembly. NPR, ever the neutral outlet, said the new assembly could, could, increase Maduro's clique's powers. Maduro needed that public validation of his rule for legitimacy because Chavez died before he had succession locked down and as the money ran out. The vote passed as it nearly always did for Chavez when he ruled. This new constitutional assembly is considered the highest authority in the land with wide ranging powers.

What does the assembly immediately do? Threats of liquidating any civic institution. Attacks on the old assembly that is in the hands of the opposition (but powerless). Oppositional figures continue to flee in anticipation of their moves. The new assembly sets up a truth commission. This is full on into the Soviet political kangaroo court mode. This commission would be to go after political opponents all the while Maduro's cronies on the new assembly write a new constitution to cement his power.

The new constitution will be rolled out, and then Maduro or a hand selected successor (who will keep Maduro + cronies wealthy) will be trotted out to run for the new presidential position. Power will present what it wants and then the people will magically approve of it in what will be contested elections but an offering to the god called Democracy.

Venezuela is in this odd political spot because Chavez died before turning 60. Maduro feels the need to secure himself as Chavez did in 1999 rather than take an approach like Chavez and he did for the colectivos. A wide range of newly formed government bureaucracies could have been created to truly control Venezuela, just as the judiciary + new security force locks control for the Maduro gang now. Maduro nearly lost an election where his side harassed opponents and stuffed the ballot boxes.

Maduro is insecure because of the system. He is also insecure because he is the new Big Man with impaired legitimacy even within the Chavez clique. Beyond that, the steady thread throughout all of the news articles is simply that Maduro is insecure because there is no food. Maduro cannot formalize what the ruling mechanism in Venezuela is because he cannot feed enough people.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Social Matter - Moving Away From GDP As A Metric For Civilizational Well-Being

New essay up at Social Matter. There has to be a better way to evaluate how a ruling class is handling their nation. Stewardship of a nation goes beyond GDP. GDP is a weak measure. There must be indirect measures of health, and maybe we can better formulate arguments for the direction of society if we only had a way to discuss the issue properly.

Friday, August 11, 2017

Google Reminds Us AIACC + SM Review-Preview 100

Google reminded us all that America is a communist country. It was this week's reminder that pseudonyms are a good idea as the neomaoism gets closer. It was this week's reminder of the essay The Power Of The Powerless, aka Havel's Green Grocer essay. You live in occupied territory by progressive colonists.

There is talk of James Damore's chances with a lawsuit at his former employer Google, but there is one major problem. There is somewhere in the Google employee handbook code of conduct for employees and gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc. harassment. This is Google's out.

The problem with the insanity of the left's academic priests is how it eventually molds our society's laws and codes. I've written before how harassment begets lawsuits for the progressive coalition voting blocs. These are merely transfers of wealth. This is their payoff for believing in the bullshit. To expand who gets paid and to add in the capability for class action lawsuits, it must get defined down to environmental and systemic situations so the shakedowns get bigger.

Harassment is now defined way down from 'have sex with me or lose your job'. All that is required in this day and age is that one says/types things that would create an uncomfortable environment. Inadvertent comments can become problematic and must be investigated for malicious intent. The corporation has to cover its ass to prevent lawsuits for creating a terrible environment.

But what Damore typed was calm and with facts? Doesn't matter. Microaggression and outrage culture have encouraged one side to overreact to anything and to express trauma and stress at it. Their overreaction, even as fake as it is, becomes the groundwork for employees feeling scared, victimized, hurt etc and voila, there is the cause for termination of employment.

The belief matters. They need to be religious progs to matter. They have to hear, read or see inadvertent or neutral, reasonable things and go to HR and go to lawyers. We all hear offensive things at times or get sexts of coworkers, but only some of us report it as a problem. We just aren't on that team for the people in power, and it is their country to administer.

-----------------

Last week I covered the decline of the rule of law. Weimerica Weekly was on the Reagan Tokes murder. How much faster do rapists have to be released from jail compared to the 6 years that her murderer/rapist got for his first rape?

This week's essay will consider measuring society beyond GDP. Weimerica Weekly has multiple candidates, and I need to read up on them.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

WW1 - Muddy Passchendaele

 
One hundred years ago this week, the Battle of Passchendaele kicked off. I was the end of July and the Brits wanted to push their luck to secure the Belgian coast. Now all of this was happening after the horrendous months long battles of the Somme and Verdun. France was just pacifying their troops who had mutinied and nearly ended the war themselves. The Brits really could not rely on anyone else.
 
They charged ahead. Haig got what he wanted, but the coordination between the artillery and the infantry was hampered by poor weather. As seen in these pictures, mud was everywhere and pretty deep due to the inclement weather. This costly, horrendous war would roll on for another whole year.


Wednesday, August 09, 2017

Remember 67 + the Gay Agenda's Victory

The Brits live under Big Brother. What was a fantasy dystopia has become reality as people are arrested for words and social media posts. This is one element of the mental prison. The other is the never-ending stream of propaganda. Advertising, art, BBC series or BBC nonfiction videos, it never stops and sucks in more government money. Why not combine most of those and flash billboards of radical '60s gay propaganda? The Brits see this on their commutes and walks around the emerging caliphate.

Martin Firrell is the artist behind it, and he is standard issue lefty. The trick lies in the media coverage saying that he is the force driving it. No. He may be the simple artist putting the images and words together but big media is giving him billboard space and allowing him to broadcast his message in the place of advertisements. It is clear, "Remember 1967 has been supported by media brands Clear Channel and Primesight." Those big media firms are sacrificing billboard revenue to push the message.

What is that message? Remembering the 1967 change in British laws that legalized male homosexuality in merry old England. It's not even new art as he is recycling old slogans. Firrell is working with the the Tatchell Foundation, which is all about gay rights, civil rights and human rights. These rights all seem to center on gays, but can be cloaked as human rights brilliantly confusing normal people. Who would ever defy the Human Rights Watch or deny human rights? Only an evil, sinister character. It is the same message you hear today because the true goal is still out there.

This is all to destroy the traditional family unit. The Tatchell in Tatchell Foundation is connected to the Gay Liberation Front from the '70s. The GLF wanted to overturn society so that gays could be themselves and be fully free to live their lives in the open. Admirable to have liberation without anxiety as a tiny sexual minority, but let us read their manifesto to see why the Left was so eager to use them.

What is the crux of their problem? Not fitting into the norms of the society they live in. This is their giant anxiety. One that if they paused a moment and thought, they would see that there was a wide spectrum of roles and behaviors for both men and women, it is just that they sit in odd spaces of the spectrum. On top of this, there was no safe way for them to approach someone for sex without the huge risk of exposure and ruin. What gets them so mad, though, in their own words?

But gay liberation does not just mean reforms. It means a revolutionary change in our whole society. Is this really necessary? Isn't it hard enough for us to win reforms within the present society, and how will we engage the support of straight people if we get ourselves branded as revolutionaries? 
Reforms may makes things better for a while; changes in the law can make straight people a little less hostile, a little more tolerant-but reform cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, at worst a sickening perversion. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society's most basic institution-the Patriarchal Family. 
We've all been brought up to believe that the family is the source of our happiness and comfort. But look at the family more closely. Within the small family unit, in which the dominant man and submissive woman bring up their children in their own image, all our attitudes towards sexuality are learned at a very early age. Almost before we can talk, certainly before we can think for ourselves, we are taught that there are certain attributes that are 'feminine' and other that are 'masculine', and that they are God-given and unchangeable. Beliefs learned so young are very hard to change; but in fact these are false beliefs. What we are taught about the differences between man and woman is propaganda, not truth. 
The truth is that there are no proven systematic differences between male and female, apart from the obvious biological ones. Male and female genitals and reproductive systems are different, and so are certain other physical characteristics, but all differences of temperament, aptitudes and so on, are the result of upbringing and social pressures. They are not inborn.  
Human beings could be much more various than our constricted patterns of 'masculine' and 'feminine' permit-we should be free to develop with greater individuality. But as things are at present, there are only these two stereotyped roles into which everyone is supposed to fit, and most people-including gay people too-are apt to be alarmed when they hear these stereotypes or gender roles attacked, fearing that children 'won't know how to grow up if they have no one to identify with', or that 'everyone will be the same', i.e. that there will be either utter chaos or total conformity. There would in fact be a greater variety of models and more freedom for experimentation, but there is no reason to suppose this will lead to chaos. 
By our very existence as gay people, we challenge these roles. it can easily be seen that homosexuals don't fit into the stereotypes of masculine and feminine, and this is one of the main reasons why we become the object of suspicion, since everyone is taught that these and only these two roles are appropriate. 
Our entire society is build around the patriarchal family and its enshrinement of these masculine and feminine roles. Religion, popular morality art, literature and sport all reinforce these stereotypes. In other words, this society is a sexist society, in which one's biological sex determines almost all of what one does and how one does it; a situation in which men are privileged, and women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise. 
Since all children are taught so young that boys should be aggressive and adventurous, girls passive and pliant, most children do tend to behave in these ways as they get older, and to believe that other people should do so too.
They require a revolutionary upheaval of the family structure. This does not make sense, especially with the end of the manifestos requests (gays can hold hands and kiss in public). If you contrast this with the simple things they supposedly want at the end of the manifesto, this radical revolution in the family makes zero sense. Strung throughout this manifesto are words like privilege that are thrown around all over modern liberal discourse today.
What could possibly be the aim of the group that feels they can never conform? It sounds familiar to what you see today.
The long-term goal of Gay Liberation, which inevitably brings us into conflict with the institutionalised sexism of this society, is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. This can only be achieved by eliminating the social pressures on men and women to conform to narrowly defined gender roles. It is particularly important that children and young people be encouraged to develop their own talents and interests and to express their own individuality rather than act out stereotyped parts alien to their nature. 
As we cannot carry out this revolutionary change alone, and as the abolition of gender rotes is also a necessary condition of women's liberation, we will work to form a strategic alliance with the women's liberation movement, aiming to develop our ideas and our practice in close inter-relation. In order to build this alliance, the brothers in gay liberation will have to be prepared to sacrifice that degree of male chauvinism and male privilege that they still all possess.
This sounds slightly familiar, maybe even very familiar. Here is a quote from a disgusting activist from today, Masha Gessen, stating some truths about gay marriage.

Gay marriage is a lie... Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we're going to do to marriage when we get there... It's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist... I don't see why they shouldn't have 5 parents legally. I don't see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.

It is the same story that never changes. In fact, reading the GLF manifesto, the finals goals they wanted are tame compared to what we see now. The very phrase gay agenda was something comedians could laugh at the right for being wary of, but it never was the gay agenda. The gay agenda was a cover for the deep progressive agenda of destroying the family unit.
In the manifesto, the gays themselves cite being post-family and cutting edge for the change needed. What change? Change in all of society? Who could possibly want that instead of the more humble recognition that gays exist at all and deserve to be treated as humans? No one stopped to ask how liberation had to be tied to the destruction of historical roles common in every society.

Gays are merely the means right now for the progressives to attack the family, gender roles, sex practices and gender itself. Women and bastards were the means fifty years ago. If pedophilia and polygamy are to be the next steps, watch how Muslims and their cultural norms and practices become the hammer the progressives wield to push more degeneracy. The goal of eroding Western normative traditions stays the same.
This Remember 67 project is not a reminder of the '67 legislation. It is not even an edgy meme transmission. This is a commemoration or the victory lap of the gay agenda. They won not because of their power but that it overlapped with the needs of the progs. The danger was always the progressive agenda. The gays simply are the convenient tool to destroy norms because they are the antithesis of healthy, family formation for cultural continuity.