Archive for the ‘Dystopia’ Category

GPS Ankle Monitors are Redundant in Era of Ubiquitous Smartphones

February 21, 2019 3 comments

Sometime ago, I came across an article which documented how smartphones can now perform many functions which once required physically separate devices. For example, smartphones now universally have acceptably good video and sound voice recording capabilities- thus replacing the still camera, camcorder and pocket voice recorder, at least for non-professional users. The same can be said of their ability to access GPS and other radio-navigation data, making it unnecessary for most users to own a dedicated GPS receiver. While I am fine with technological advancement and convenience, I am also cognizant of their downsides and potential for abuse.

As many of you know, one of the many peculiarities of what passes for “law enforcement” in USA is its strong attraction for technological “solutions”- especially if someone who is already rich can make more money from it. That is why, for example, the carceral and borderline third-world state of USA is by far the largest user of GPS ankle monitors. It occurred to me that this is one more device that has been made redundant by smartphones. See.. Google, Apple, almost every single one of your smartphone apps and internet monopolies such as FakeBook are already spying on everyone 24/7, and this includes geolocation. Why keep using an old technology such as GPS ankle monitors when people will pay to buy the latest smartphone and privacy-invading apps?

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on Continued Existence of the Black Misleadership Class

February 18, 2019 14 comments

Regular readers of this blog know that I have written more than a few posts about the topic of race in america- specifically as it relates to factors behind continued and systemic racism against black people. And yes, they are were and are discriminated against because of their (relatively darker) skin color and ancestry rather than the continent of their origin. For all those people who want to keep using the term ‘African-American’- let me remind you that Elon Musk is technically African-American. Anyway.. in some of my previous post on this subject, I have written about why the quest for respectability and acceptance by whites was based on a flawed idea, how the willingness of blacks of accept white narratives about them has been super problematic and why conversion to Christianity was the second worst thing that happened to black people in USA.

And this brings me the topic of this post, or more precisely, how I came up with idea of writing it. Over the past few years, I noticed something interesting about the response of almost all of the so-called ‘black leadership’ types to large protests about police brutality against black people. To make a long story short, even though they acknowledged the existence of this problem almost every single one of them did nothing beyond push for a few cosmetic measures and make long speeches. And this includes that black neoliberal president aka Obama. In other words, they took great care not to upset the status quo while using those events to cynically get more black people to vote for them in elections. When I looked at this issue in more detail, it became obvious that we have not gone past the level of change achieved by the civil rights moment of 1950s-60s.

Which is a nice way of saying that black ‘leadership’ since the 1970s has largely been about pretending to fight for equality for their constituency while simultaneously supporting the status quo and getting rich. As a recent example, Stacey Abrams (one of the alleged new non-white stars of democratic party) was supportive of republican gerrymandering to reduce the power of black voters in Georgia as long as it consolidated her own position. You might also remember that in 2015 it was revealed that Chicago police operated a “secret” site for disappearing mostly black people, and this occurred in a city that has been democratic control (and significant non-white presence in local government) for decades. The point I am trying to make is there is something peculiar about the black leadership class in USA which makes it unusually willing to screw over its own people while pretending to care about them.

Contrast that to what you see in politicians from other ethic groups, who either simply pretend to be “honorary” whites (Booby Jindal, Nikki Haley) or are actually involved in taking effective steps to benefit both their constituencies and ethnicities. Most black political leadership types, on the other hand, build their careers and rise to power via strong support of black voters but then conveniently go along with narratives and policies which perpetuate systemic racism and discrimination against their own people. You might remember how enthusiastically many members of the congressional black caucus (including frauds such as Maxine Waters and John Lewis) supported Hillary Clinton during the 2016 democratic primary. Which is funny since legislation passed under her husband, Bill Clinton, to reform the criminal and welfare system screwed over the lives of millions of black people. Also, HRC tried to become popular with white voters in the 1990s by labeling young black men as super-predators.

Moving on.. why did people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have such long careers in the public spotlight? Can you think of two more ineffectual “leaders” for the “black community”? It is as if they were supported from outside to bamboozle their own community. More importantly, what did they achieve other than getting themselves in the news by making speeches? Can you think of one major problem (even at the local level) which these two conmen helped solve, over their multiple decades in the public spotlight? How can these people be even presented as semi-authentic leaders? There are, in anything, living examples of almost everything a leader should not be. To make matters worse, their younger replacements are at least as bad.

Take Kamala Harris, a woman who built her career by pandering to the fears and prejudices of white CONservative voters. A woman who gleefully described how she enjoyed jailing poor black women for the truancy of their children, but did not prosecute foreclosure fraud perpetrated by rich white guys, tried to help cover sexual abuse by clergy and laughed at prospect of marijuana legalization in 2014. Now she has suddenly remembered her Jamaican roots and pretends to give a shit about black people. Then there is the overwrought drama queen aka Cory Booker. We could write a paperback about his dishonest behavior, and here is a small taste. He is also a well-known confabulater, faithful servant to pharma and all-round embarrassment. And let us not forget Obama, the ultimate black neoliberal politician, who had no qualms about throwing millions of poor (and heavily non-white) people on the street in aftermath of housing bubble after 2009.

How do these self-hating scam artists end up becoming “leaders” of their communities?

What do you think? Comments?

On the Difference in Outcomes for China and India in Post-1945 Era: 3

February 16, 2019 9 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how post-1949 Chinese leadership put in a lot of effort to improve the conditions of its people, even if their motivations were not purely altrusitic. Then again, the same is true of every government which has every existed in human history and the present. In sharp contrast, the Indian leadershit has remained mired in their self-chosen role as darker white sahibs carrying the “white mans burden” and lording over an allegedly hopeless bunch of subhumans. One commentator in the previous post of this series made a comment to the effect that it sounded like how things work in south and central american countries- where an incompetent whiter elite (with the assistance of dying white countries) mismanage and lord over less whiter people, who they see as less than human. Yep.. that is about right.

In the previous post, I also wrote about how the Chinese leadership took a pragmatic approach to improving literacy through a variety of reforms and programs. They also built, and in some cases rebuilt, institutions and bureaucracies to function for them and their people. Sure.. they had to break a few hundred thousand eggs to achieve that- but you cannot deny that the results are quite impressive and functional. More importantly, these institutions now either do what they are meant to do, or do not interfere in what other institutions are doing. In other words, the Chinese leadership was able to build and maintain a unitary and coordinated governmental system with a pretty decent level of accountability. And all this within first three decades after 1949. So why were they able to achieve something which their Indian counterparts thought to be impossible.

Conventional explanations for this, usually put forth by allegedly “credentialed” white idiots, try to paint this as some sort of exception or aberration. However that is not the case, as some version of this had been previously implemented in Japan and the Koreas. For example, modernization of Japan starting in Meiji era and its rebuilding after WW2 was achieved by implementing a watered-down version of what China started doing after 1949. The same is true of South Korea after the early 1960s. You might have noticed that all these examples have something else common to them- other than being east-asian. Ready.. they were, or are, mostly single-party systems.. yes, even Japan. But didn’t India also have effectively have a single party system for first 2-3 decades after 1947? Yes, they did and the Congress party won most elections as the state and federal level for 2-3 decades after “independence”. So why did it work in east-Asia but not in India?

Which brings us to the part about accountability- for elected officials as well as bureaucrats. As I mentioned in previous parts of this series, almost every single Indian politician and elected official came from families who collaborated with the British colonizers of India. They had risen to their positions without facing any real challenge, struggle or conflict. Most had no real skills beyond regurgitating what they learned in British universities and they saw themselves as darker whites rather than Indians. As I said in previous part, they believed anything some white guy in an expensive suit would tell them. The Indian bureaucracy was no better and filled with sad excuses for human beings who enjoyed abusing and screwing over their own people by using rules and regulations written up for that purpose by their erstwhile colonial masters.

Long story short, both the political class and bureaucracy of India was made up of incompetent losers who saw themselves as lesser whites rather than Indians. And there is one more thing.. the bureaucracy and political system continued to exist as two independent and antagonistic centers of power. Contrast that to successful east-asian countries where the political leadership and bureaucracy are different faces of the same system. There is a good reason why I used the words such as unitary and coordinated to describe the Chinese system. But why does any of this matter? Also, does it matter that much? Well.. let me show you with a couple of examples.

Very few of you know that India was first Asian country to build its own supersonic combat aircraft. Ya.. India built the HF-24 Marut and successfully tested it in the early 1960s. While the team leader of the project was Kurt Tank, almost everybody else in the project was Indian and they went from nothing to flying prototypes in about 6 years. So what did the Indian political leadershit and bureaucracy do in response to this success? The sabotaged it in every way they could- from denying funding for better imported engines to crippling the organisation setup for developing indigenous engines. Even worse, they spent a lot of effort trying to make sure that all the knowledge and expertise gained through that project was lost. But why?

The “conventional” explanation for this behavior is that USSR offered them decent inexpensive combat aircraft. However that is not true since the USSR which made such aircraft in multiple thousands was not really bothered by this indigenous effort. Moreover, it filled a role distinct from the aircraft they supplied to India at that time. The real reasons have far more to do with the Indian psyche, especially those of its white-worshiping idiot politicians and bureaucrats. The thing is.. they could not believe that people of their skin color could make world-class products. To make matters worse, they had no ability to understand concepts such as iterative development and using the insight gained in one project to advance others. But most fatally, they believed in what white scammers told them about the nature of money.

Now contrast this to what China did during the same time period. After getting all the equipment from USSR to manufacture Mig-15s, 17, 19s etc they first kept cranking out replicas. While not the best combat aircraft of that era (mid 1960s), they were good enough. But far more importantly, they used that opportunity to train a shitload of engineers who would then go on to improve these aircraft and eventually build far better ones. They did this at a time when they were as poor as India and in politically worse shape. They also did the same with soviet diesel-electric submarines, infantry weapons, artillery etc. Did you notice that they never stopped these projects or disbanded their experienced teams regardless of domestic upheavals and other issues. Why not? And where did they get the money to do all these things?

The answer to first part of those questions is that they, unlike their Indian counterparts, were not incompetent white-worshipping idiots. The second and related answer is that they saw money in a very different way to their Indian and white counterparts. To make another long story short, they implemented a form of what we today call modern monetary theory, which is fancy way of saying that they printed money and allocated resources as necessary to get important things done while making sure that this new money did not enter the general circulation at levels large enough to cause runaway inflation and currency devaluation. So ya.. they pretty much printed money and rigged their system to deliver what they wanted, which they could do because of the size of their country. Their Indian equivalents chose to believe “credentialed” white eCONomists.

In the next part of this series, I will show you (with more examples) how a unitary and coordinated government policy gave China a huge advantage over India in other sectors.

What do you think? Comments?

American ‘HealthCare’ System Has Been a Scam for Over Two Decades

February 10, 2019 5 comments

What do you call a service which keeps on getting expensive much faster than general monetary inflation but which does not improve? How about calling it a scam. In the past, I have written a few posts about this general area such as the american ‘healthcare’ system is crap, a majority of people now see doctors as no better than credentialed scammers and how life expectancy in USA has always been about class, not race. Yesterday, I came across a tweet in my twitter feed containing a graph which tracked the amount of money spent on healthcare in USA since 1960. Intrigued, I looked up the source and used the more realistic inflation adjusted option. Having seen many other graphs and infographics about the ‘healthcare’ system, I noticed something right away. Here.. have a look at the attached figure to spot what I am talking about.

You might have noticed that the increase in calculated average life-expectancy at birth from world bank data has a peculiar relationship with cost in USA. For starters, the calculated average life-expectancy at birth has improved by just shy of 9 years since 1960. But isn’t that a good thing? Well.. sure, but have a look at how it correlated with cost. It had already reached the 74 year mark in 1981, when the total cost was about 440 billion USD (inflation adjusted)- which is about 1/4th of what it costs now. But it gets better.. or worse. In 1998, the average calculated life-expectancy at birth was 76.6 years and cost about 1,016 billion USD (inflation adjusted). Long story short, average life expectancy has increased by only 2 years over the previous 20 years- but the costs have more than doubled over the same time span.

Even worse, average life-expectancy has been slowly falling over the past two years– but costs keep on going up. While USA spends a bit over 18 % of its GDP on ‘healthcare’, other developed countries achieve significantly better results by spending less than half that amount and their average life expectancy is 3-4 years higher and still rising slowly. So what is happening in the american system? Well many things.. first, the income of doctors started rising a lot after 1980 due to the introduction of billing codes. Impressed by the ability of doctors to extort the system, hospitals joined in the act and used their leverage to out-exploit them starting in the mid-1990s, which is also when pharma got in on the act. So far, none of the three want to stop. And why should they? Too many boomer idiots still want to delude themselves into believing that the american ‘healthcare’ system is the “best in the world”. Keep believing..

What do you think? Comments?

Intersection of Narcissism, Attention Whoring and Extra Woke SJW-ism

February 7, 2019 4 comments

A few years ago, I wrote a short post about my thoughts on why female “celebrities” appear to have high rates of self-reported sexual abuse. The brief version of that article is as follows: show business attracts people with certain personality types- which is a nice way of saying that people who stay and succeed (even modestly) in that sector are pretty narcissistic and crave constant public attention or fame of any sort. Combine that with “gatekeeping” by rich and connected but largely talentless assholes (Harvey Weinstein etc), and it is a pretty ugly place to work. Also, let us stop pretending that women are “innocent” victims. They know exactly what is expected of them. There is a reason we have terms such as ‘casting couch’ and ‘stage mothers’.

Now let us extend this observation to its next logical outcome. Ever wonder why so many actors, actresses, musicians etc are into personality-based cults, alternative religious beliefs or various social causes? While some might want to believe that this has to do with them being nice human beings- the reality is far more sad and banal. To make a long story short, the type of outwardly pro-social behavior you see in showbiz has much more to do with the intersection of narcissism, attention whoring and increasingly pathetic trying to remain relevant. There is a reason why the “celebrities” who support allegedly pro-social causes are either way past their prime (Alyssa Milano, Chelsea Handler, Debra Messing etc), not attractive (Amy Schumer, almost all female comedians, Lena Dunham etc) or trying to get back in public eye (almost any female celebrity).

So how bizarre can this sad intersection of narcissism, attention whoring and extra woke SJW-ism get? Well, let me illustrate with a story. But before we go there, here is the standard boilerplate disclaimer. This story, all names, characters and incidents portrayed in it are completely fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places or products etc is intended or should be inferred. Any why did I put this disclaimer before telling you the story. You will see..

The story starts with an attractive busty girl in her late teens who was pushed into modeling by her mother whose ambitions to become a famous model never came to fruition. So she gets into print catalog modeling, is reasonably successful and moves into TV ads. So far so good. She ends up having a very brief marriage in her very early 20s which ends in a quick divorce. Again.. that, by itself, is unremarkable. Then by a stroke of luck, a respectable adult magazine recognizes her physical attributes and pays her a low six-figure sum to pose nude. This exposure results in her getting some acting roles and more modelling contracts. At the top of her acting career, she is a C or D list celebrity. So far, her career path is neither unusual or remarkable.

But biology, you see, can be a bitch. The same genes which gave her a busty figure and mature look when she was in her late teens starts making her look a decade older. She tries networking in showbiz to get bigger roles, with some initial success. At around this time, she becomes one of the.. well.. regular non-exclusive sexual partners of a famous showbiz couple. However this gig does not translate into her getting the guy or bigger movie roles. After a few years, she decides to quit or (or is thrown out of that arrangement) and ends up dating and then marrying a C or D list actor- but one with a regular and decent paycheck. She immediately decides to have a child and within a year or so, gives birth to a male child. For the next 3-4 years, things appear normal.

And then the fun begins.. a few years into the marriage, she decides to start dating other women. Once again, this is not especially unusual by the standards of showbiz. However, for reasons that will be apparent later, she ends up with a lesbian showbiz type who goes out of her way to look masculine and has expressed interest in “transitioning”. Did I mention that this new person has apparently no talent and seems to have found success entirely due to her identity as a lesbian woman. Then again, many in showbiz have no talent.. so who cares. And this is where things start to get interesting. Within two weeks of starting this relationship, the once D-list actress abruptly declares that she has become a vegan and activist on all her social media profiles.

And then things take an even more interesting turn.. if you can call it that. She starts posting photos of her young male child in increasingly feminine hairstyle and clothing. In the beginning it is quite subtle, but then it starts becoming really obvious. Over next few months, she transforms her male child to the point where she starts referring to him as her daughter. The male child in question is less than 6 years old. What makes all of this a bit peculiar is the timing, specifically the fact that it started almost immediately after she dumped her husband and starting dating a lesbian woman who tries very hard (and in vain) to appear masculine. Also for some reason the publicly posted photos of her child start having lots of rainbow symbolism.

What makes this even more peculiar is that all publicly posted videos of child (by her) do not show any obvious feminine body language. Then ways things are going, there is a pretty good that this male child will end up getting puberty-blocking drugs and gender reassignment surgery or become totally estranged from his mother.. or maybe both. Who knows? The point I am trying to make is that this situation is almost entirely due to the desire of his mother to regain some popular relevance and attention, which feeds into her narcissism and compensates for the fact that she looks 10-15 years older than she should look- and will therefore never have the showbiz career she dreamed about in past. We also cannot forget the role of her partner- who has her own sordid past. But ya.. it is still mostly about the mother.

Readers might have noticed that I did not make any claims that the woman is abusing her child. Why not? Well.. because I don’t care about this sordid saga beyond its value as an interesting short story in the depths of human depravity. And make no mistake, what she is doing is no worse than female genital mutilation as practiced by people belonging to a certain religious faith who originate from some middle-eastern and north-African countries. Some mutilate their child to, ostensibly, satisfy a bronze-age deity.. others do it to express their enthusiastic embrace of a new secular religion. What is the difference? And one more thing.. This story, all names, characters and incidents portrayed in it are completely fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places or products etc is intended or should be inferred. Kapish?

What do you think? Comments?

Contemporary Transgenderism is Based in Regressive CONservatism

February 4, 2019 8 comments

Readers of this blog will be aware of my rather dim view of certain social movements which claim to be liberal and progressive, but are the opposite of what they claim. I have written more than a few posts about how SJW-ism and how the causes it promotes are actually quite regressive (link 1, link 2 and link 3). I have also been a strong supporter of causes, such as freedom of speech, which are currently unpopular just because losers like Alex Jones are invoking it to defend their odious behavior (link 4 and link 5). Moreover, unlikely many self-anointed progressives, it is my opinion that giving your consent or more power to governments and corporations is a really bad idea (link 6 and link 7). My beliefs don’t fit within intellectually dishonest ‘left-right’ classification which dominate the mind of incestuous circle-jerkers aka “credentialed intellectuals”.

Some of you might be aware that I have written posts on this area such as- Contemporary Elite Support for Transgender Rights and Neoliberalism, On the Most Likely Mode of Discreditation for TransGenderism Ideology and Some Thoughts on How TransGenderism Will Likely Lose Public Support. In these, I covered issues such as the connection of this ideology with neoliberalism and late-capitalism and how institutional support for it is eerily reminiscent of past support for other bad ideas such as eugenics and residential schools. To put it another way, I am not a big fan of that ideology- especially the way in which its proponents are trying to force their worldviews on other people. Some might ask.. “how is that different from struggle for gay and lesbian rights”? Well.. glad you asked, because there is a big difference between them and transgenderism.

But before we go there, let us be clear about something- I have always believed that no person or institution has any right to tell or enforce how another person should live their life or who they should have sex with- as long as it does not involve animals or children. In other words, society should not discriminate between people irrespective of their sexual preferences and lifestyle. But isn’t this belief at odds with my strong support for gay and lesbian rights versus my expressed thoughts about the ideology of transgenderism? Well.. no, because gay and lesbian rights are not in the same category as transgenderism. Confused? Here is the long-form explanation which starts by looking at how the gay and lesbian rights movement came into being.

The modern movement for gay and lesbian rights in west started sometime during late-1960s. While there are many reasons for why it started at that time- it is best understood as being an extension of the sexual revolution and various civil rights movements. So.. ya, the movement for gay and lesbian rights started and grew as a movement for equal legal rights and legal protection from discrimination. And yes, there is a very good reason that I am emphasizing the part about legal equality. You might have noticed that this movement, over the next few decades, was primarily focused on achieving legal equality rather than social acceptance. But why? Why focus on the legal part and not the social part. The simple answer to that question is that legal equality is readily attainable while social acceptance cannot be forced.

A more complex answer requires us to understand its philosophical underpinnings. Specifically, the gay and lesbian rights movement was and is largely based in progressive principles. But isn’t the movement of transgender ideology based in progressive principles too? Well no, it is not and the way I described it provides a partial clue. See, the gay and lesbian rights movements are not independent and free-standing ideologies. Instead they are part of progressive humanism, which is why they were successful and are so uncontroversial today. They demanded equal legal rights because they were also human, rather than somehow special or different. Nor did they try to impose their belief system on other people or make constant demands from others to recognize and celebrate their “specialness”. They just wanted to treated like everyone else.

Now compare this to the ideology of contemporary transgenderism, more precisely how it works in real life. For starters, everyone else is supposed to just shut up and accept any new brainfart emanating from the vocal self-anointed leaders of that movement. Anybody who does not do so immediately is labelled as a denier or heretic. And don’t forget that they are all “extra-special” people with a unique connection to something that nobody else can understand. Accepting this ideology by mutilating your genitals and secondary sexual characteristics is supposed to provide you with a magic cure for all your mental issues and help you get into the inner circle. Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the reactionary bullshit you usually see in religions and cults?

But it gets worse. Have you noticed that those who change their gender (especially from male to female) go for conventionally hyper-feminine look, dress and behavior? But why is that so? Why do they crave socially sanctioned feminine and masculine looks, dress and mannerisms? Let me contrast that with gay men and lesbian women. Have you noticed that both come in a very wide range of looks, dress and mannerisms? While the media, sadly, often still portrays gay men as effeminate queens, most people who have interacted in real life know that they cover the full range of masculinity. In other words, most gay guys are like straight guys. The same is true for lesbian women. Most are not the ultra-masculine “dykes” still sadly portrayed in media. Most of them are like straight women and it is even harder to tell them apart than gay and straight men.

And this brings us to why I said that the ideology of transgenderism is based in a regressive form of CONservatism. One major difference between CONservatism and progressive humanism is that the former requires people to conform and fit into narrow definitions of what they are “meant” to be. That is why, for example, CONservatives were historically against women wearing pants or not dressing in allegedly “approved” ways. This is, also, why women who appear on CONservative news outlets dress and style themselves in a particular hyper-feminine manner. To make a long story short, any ideology which directly or indirectly pushes its followers to conform to narrow “traditional” choices in style, dress and behavior is by definition CONservative. Now combine this insight with the previously mentioned bit about its highly cultish nature and you will why it is fundamentally different from the movement for gay and lesbian rights.

What do you think? Comments?

On Establishment Democrat Hypocrisy and the Ralph Northam Scandal

February 2, 2019 10 comments

While I prefer to write on topics which are more intellectually satisfying than some stupid piece of current news, there are times when the later have some relevance to former. Most of you must have heard that the current governor (as of the time of writing), Ralph Northam, posed as either a blackface character or KKK klan member for some photo taken at some party in his mid-20s. It does not help that he selected that photo as one of four to appear on his personal page in 1984 yearbook of his class. And let us be clear about something.. wearing either blackface or KKK klan garb at any public occasion in USA was a bad idea, even in 1984. Having said that, let us look at this mini-scandal from a different angle- especially at establishment democrats feigning outrage.

But before we go there, let us quickly talk a bit about why wearing either of those two costumes is a bad idea. To make a very long story short, the history of reprehensible institutional racism in USA make any attempt to celebrate or glorify that period highly unpopular in the contemporary era. That is why, for example, we saw all those recent agitations against continued public display of confederate statues in certain southern states. That is also why people see the confederate flag and other symbols of the “old south” as racist. The confederacy and its symbols occupy the same space in post-1965 american history as Nazis and their symbols in post-ww2 Germany. Everyone knows what happened, but only idiots wish to glorify and celebrate the worst part of their history.

Which brings us to Ralph Northam and his lack of judgement in playing racist dress-up in 1984. The very recent leak of those photos appears to have been timed to hurt him because of his pro-choice stance, however the reaction of establishment democrats says a lot more about their own hypocrisy than this poor cosplay choice in 1984. Let me explain that point in some detail. A lot of establishment democrats from Bill Clinton and Joe Biden to Kamala Harris have done far more to perpetuate the inequities and suffering caused by racism than putting on a highly racist costume for drunken cosplay. Bill Clinton, as many of you know, was instrumental in passing laws which perpetuated structural racism such as Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act aka the 1994 crime bill and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act aka welfare “reform”.

Did I mention how he gave an important campaign speech in 1992 using the background of a few hundred incarcerated black men at Stone Mountain, Georgia? Or remember how he showboated the execution of a mentally retarded black man to increase his support among potential white voters in 1992 presidential election? Meanwhile the 1994 crime bill, which he strongly supported and signed, caused the largest sustained increase in number of jailed black men in american history. And yet somehow he was the first “black” president according to some cock-sucking loser in the mainstream media. Moving on.. did you know that Joe Biden was the leading proponent of the 1994 crime bill and he spent a lot of effort making it as punitive as possible for black people?

But we are supposed to believe than an idiot wearing a racist cosplay costume in 1984 is far more worthy of public damnation than two people who have screwed over the lives of millions of black people. What about Kamala Harris, who spent her whole career enthusiastically prosecuting tons of poor and usually nonwhite people for minor “crimes” and then laughing about it? Of course, her alleged zeal for fighting crime did not extend to rich white criminals especially those who donated to her political campaigns. And somehow, the democratic establishment sees her as a viable presidential candidate. My point is that establishment democrats have perpetuated structural inequities of racism almost as much their republican counterparts in post-1965 era.

But that idiot wearing blackface/ KKK outfit in 1984 is the source of all our problems *sarcasm*.

What do you think? Comments?