Tag: society

Overruling the family court judge

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the most effective way for men to overturn the ludicrously evil child custody system is to utilize violence to render moot the unjust dictates of the family courts:

A gunman who shot dead eight people in an upmarket beauty salon in California is said to have gone on the rampage after losing a custody battle over his son. Scott Dekraai, who is the former husband of one of the stylists, is said to have shot a total of nine hairdressers and customers at Salon Meritage, a beauty salon just blocks from the Pacific Ocean in the upscale seaside resort of Seal Beach.

His ex-wife, Michelle, is also reportedly among those who were killed. The 42-year-old, who used to work in the military, had allegedly threatened violence after losing a court case against Michelle – who was using the name Huff – over the custody of their seven-year-old son, Dominic.

The problem is twofold. First, the family court system is totally unjust. Second, there is simply no other recourse for the man who has been forcibly robbed of his children by the unholy alliance of ex-wife and family court. I have zero sympathy for any woman who would utilize the force of the law to deprive a man of his children, no matter how unhappy the marriage. In fact, one can quite reasonably argue that it is in the interest of women to demand a more equitable family court system; this should become more apparent when “winning” a child custody case amounts to a potential death lottery.

The ironic thing is that society tends to applaud a man who do anything and pay any price to get back his child. There are movies entirely based on this premise. So, why should it surprise anyone that increasing numbers of men are willing to resort to breaking the very law that took their children away from them? Throughout the West, the Muslims have shown the way: threaten sufficient violence in a credible manner and the law will be modified according to your will.

The Burning of Thomas Ball

Dr. Helen writes about the lack of media response to Thomas Ball’s suicide:

There are some pundits and commenters who have said that Ball does not deserve any compassion or that he should hardly be the poster boy for men’s rights because he may or may not have been jerked around by the family court. He did slap his then four-year-old daughter, giving her a cut on the lip, when she refused to obey him after three verbal warnings, etc. This isn’t great, but it doesn’t warrant jail time, arrest, or having one’s children taken away. If it does, there are so many women out there who qualify for the same treatment, I shudder to think about it.

But whether you think Ball is a good man, a bad man, or a crazy man doesn’t really matter. What matters is that Ball’s death — and the reaction to it — should serve as a wake-up call to how men and boys are being treated in a society that devalues their very existence. Males commit suicide at much higher rates than women and no one cares; they are treated unfairly by courts and no one bats an eye. They are abused by the women in their life and people say “tough shit.” So they ratchet up the game a little and start setting themselves on fire to get some attention to their cause and, once again, the media and society react with: “So what?”

Can we really stand by and do nothing about the treatment of men and boys in our society much longer? When I look at the picture of Mr. Ball in flames on the steps of that courthouse, I think the only answer is a resounding: “Hell, no!”

As I previously wrote, I think Ball’s chosen form of suicide was a relatively futile one and I suspect the media would have paid considerably more attention if he had instead set one or more of the many cogs in the family court system on fire. Like every other bureaucratic industry, the abuses of the family court system are not going to be ended by those who presently perpetrate them; there are too many parties with a vested interest in the continuation of the system. Since not only the system, but the law itself has been corrupted, the only possible solutions have to be external. The ideal outcome is the most likely one, which is that the family court system will collapse naturally with the rest of the bureaucratic system when extend-and-pretend finally runs out of new government debt to keep it going.

However, it doesn’t take an expert on the Tamil Tigers or the Sendero Luminoso to note that if a portion of the estimated 5,000 annual divorce-related male suicides ever become murder-suicides, this would likely trigger a sudden and urgent impetus towards revision of the mechanics of the current system.

Ball’s self-immolation illustrates the intrinsic problem with socially engineered injustice. While injustice is always wrong, it can at least be socially stable when directed against minorities or the unproductive. Targeted injustice against the productive majority whose labor is required for social survival is downright madness. Even if we set aside the interests of the unfortunate Mr. Ball, who benefits from his incindiary death? His ex-wife will receive no alimony. His children will receive no child support and will likely grow up with more than their fair share of social pathologies common among the fatherless. The state will receive no more taxes and the economy will no longer benefit from either his labor or his consumption.

And finally, as others have pointed out, if slapping a child somehow justifies burning at the stake, logic dictates that 21st century America will have to burn more women to death than the witch hunters of the 16th and 17th century ever did.

Another round of Let’s Play Guess the Race

This round’s news comes from Philadelphia:

A WOMAN’S leg was broken and several other people were injured Saturday night when a large group of teens accosted pedestrians in Spring Garden, police and witnesses said. Philadelphia police responded to two reports of pedestrians being assaulted by a large group of young people along Broad Street about 9:30 p.m….

According to the police report of the incident, Guendelsberger was “jumped” by 30 to 40 men who punched and kicked her numerous times. Police said they checked the area for surveillance but had no luck.

So here’s the question. Were the “young people” involved:

a) White
b) Hispanic
c) Black
d) Asian

Read the article as closely as you like! You won’t find any clues there! For a bonus point, guess the a) number of arrests and b) the race of the “unruly teenagers” at a street fair in Cleveland.

About 40 Cleveland Heights police officers had to control a crowd of unruly teenagers in the last hour of the Coventry Street Arts Fair Sunday, an event hat closes Coventry Road every summer from Mayfield Road to Euclid Heights Boulevard. There were no reports of injuries, but Cleveland Heights police were expected later today to release the number of arrests made Sunday.

One seriously wonders who the morons in the media think they are kidding. As any horror director knows, the monster people imagine is always scarier than the one on screen.

Mailvox: in defense of Ann Coulter

RC still believes Miss Coulter was correct to attack libertarians as “cowardly frauds”:

Your article was interesting, but never addressed the substance of Ms. Coulter’s presentation. You offer several examples that purport to contradict her statements.

Let’s look at one:

“It is worth noting that in some states, such as Washington, all marriage-related information was kept at the county level until 1968. And yet, civil society somehow managed to settle these issues without devolving into total chaos.”

What’s missing? The fact that there was never previously a major societal push by homosexuals to attack the millenia-long history of traditional marriage. Somehow you fail to identify and address that significant departure from world and US history that you purport to address.

What else is missing? Never have historically bedrock institutions of morality like mainline religious denominations been so tolerant – nay supportive – of aberrant social behavior such as homosexuality.

There are a plethora of arguments and examples that could be given along these lines, all having to do with the current breakdown of societal mores and values at a level unprecendented since perhaps Roman times.

Don’t you see the difference? I think Ms. Coulter was completey correct in her wry observations concerning Libertarians. Hopefully you will, too.

Do I see the difference? No, I see a conservative who didn’t acknowledge a single one of the errors in Miss Coulter’s article that I pointed out. Of course, RC is clearly a historical illiterate with no clue what he’s talking about, given his assertion that “the current breakdown of societal mores and values” is unprecedented since Roman times. He should read Boccaccio, Solzhenitsyn, or the history of the Spanish Civil War if he wants to see what a real breakdown of societal mores and values looks like.

American culture is filth, but it is a mistake to confuse the media’s Hollywood version of it, very much skewed by its gay Jewish perspective, for the reality. In the real world, the quarterback didn’t dump the pretty blonde cheerleader at prom in favor of the ugly Barbara Streisand wannabee, every school bully isn’t a self-hating homosexual, everyone doesn’t want to move to New York City*, and a crack team of Jewish commandos didn’t win the war in Europe.

In any event, the column sufficiently demonstrated that Coulter is very poorly situated to be labeling anyone, let alone libertarians, as “cowardly frauds”. As Paul Gottfried noted in “The Mainstreaming of Michelle Malkin“, it’s only a matter of time before a fame-driven media whore learns to dance to the crack of the party establishment’s whip. No doubt Dana Loesch will be the next to look beautiful in chains.

“A recent syndicated column by Michelle Malkin indicates what happens to interesting conservative commentators when they sign on as GOP flacks: They become predictable Republican mouthpieces and attack dogs against the Dems…. As a Republican journalist and media entertainer, Michelle is following in the well-trod path of others such as Ann Coulter. Like Michelle, Ann started out as a very feisty rightwing news commentator, but unlike Michelle, Ann could be devastatingly witty as well as edgy. But she, too, succumbed to various pressures and became a sharp-tongued version of Sean Hannity rather than remaining a figure of the traditional right.”

Mailvox: opportunity and result

DML and Mikert, among others, appear to be having some trouble understanding the difference:

So the difference between opportunity and result here is a question of citizenship? I think it would be helpful if you’d devote a post to explaining the difference because this doesn’t look like a very good, clear explanation.

I’ll try to type a little more slowly… although I find it very difficult to fathom how and why anyone should have any trouble distinguishing between opportunity and result given the way in which conservatives are often explaining why they support equality of opportunity instead of equality of result with regards to issues such as affirmative action.

Anyhow, it’s not a question of citizenship, the hypothetical concept of 500,000 Chinese immigrating to Delaware and democratically transforming it into a Communist state is merely an example of the way in which liberty of opportunity – in this case, the free movement of peoples – can render a result that is significantly and materially less free for the people living in Delaware. Anarcho-capitalism may sound cool and exciting, but it is an oxymoronic concept as capitalism requires the sort of ground rules that no anarchic society is capable of supporting.

Liberty of opportunity: everyone on the planet enjoys the maximal freedom of choice with regards to where they live, and where are permitted to vote and/or otherwise influence the systems of government whether they happen to live there or not.

Liberty of result: everyone on the planet enjoys the maximal freedom of action with regards to how they live their daily lives in their places of residence, but they are not permitted to enter or even have contact with those communities that do not wish to associate with them.

Libertarianism is not anarchism and maximizing liberty for everyone necessarily involves imposing limits on those whose actions would result in less freedom for others. This is not utilitarianism, this is simply logic and observable fact. One may not ignore the fact that nations exist and are societally significant any more than one can ignore the fact that gravity exists simply because one would like to fly.

The carnage expands

As Wisconsin becomes the 49th state to permit citizens to defend themselves, we’re still waiting for the rampant bloodbaths on the streets that we were promised in 1993 (Texas) and 2003 (Minnesota):

The Wisconsin Senate passed a bill Tuesday that would allow concealed weapons in the state Capitol and other public places, but not in police stations, courthouse and other specifically exempted locations. The final vote was 25-8, with all 19 Republicans and six Democrats supporting it, and the other eight Democrats opposed. Wisconsin would become the 49th state to legalize carrying hidden guns.

It may amuse you to know that the first political op/ed that I ever wrote was published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, of all places, sometime in the early 1990s. It was in support of an early, unsuccessful attempt to pass a concealed carry law and noted how all the ominous “blood in the streets” warnings of the anti-gun crowd had been proven to be false in the dozens of states that permitted it.

Who the hell is Edie Falco?

Wait a minute. If I understand the situation correctly, an actress is complaining that people take the opinions of celebrities who are not actresses seriously?

Do you think our society’s hunger for fame has gotten out of control, like it’s worse than it was in the late sixties, when the play takes place?

I don’t really know if the hunger for it has changed, but our obsession for it seems to have changed. I’m not so good at commenting in any meaningful way about these things, but celebrities are now like our royalty, you know what I mean? Most of them haven’t really done anything to earn where they are, which is what’s so troubling. There’s an obsession with famous people who, oftentimes, are not worthy of a million people knowing who they are and what they think.

So it’s safe to say you don’t watch much reality TV.

No, not a big fan. Like, forgive me, I don’t know if you’re friends with her — but who the hell is Kim Kardashian? Like, who are these people and why are they famous and why are they advertising things and being asked their opinions about things? I just don’t understand what these people did to be in a position of having everyone ask their opinions about stuff. I mean, if there’s something about her personality or something that she’s accomplished or her philosophy on something — but beyond that I don’t understand what’s happening. It’s actually frightening.

I have never seen anything that Kim Kardashian has done, but I do know she is the Armenian with the grotesque posterior who went out with Reggie Bush and Miles Austin. Not the sort of thing that would incline me to think much of her opinion on comparative advantage or the latest Z.1 report, but at least I’ve heard of her. The only Falco I know sang “Rock Me Amadeus” back in the 80s… and frankly, I have never thought about what he might think about anything either.

The amorphous Official Story

This belated announcement demonstrates why you should never, ever, pay much credence to official government statements about major events:

Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant experienced full meltdowns at three reactors in the wake of an earthquake and tsunami in March, the country’s Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters said Monday.

The nuclear group’s new evaluation, released Monday, goes further than previous statements in describing the extent of the damage caused by an earthquake and tsunami on March 11. The announcement will not change plans for how to stabilize the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the agency said.

THERE IS NO MELTDOWN. DO NOT PANIC! THERE IS NO MELTDOWN. ALL THE REACTORS ARE STABLE… okay, well, there was maybe a meltdown. Um, three, actually, if you insist on being precise.

Statistical illiterates

In fairness, the estimates would probably be right on if one only counts celebrities and fictional television characters:

U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian. More specifically, over half of Americans (52%) estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian, including 35% who estimate that more than one in four are. Thirty percent put the figure at less than 15%.

Only four percent got the answer right, “Less than 5%”. The actual number is less than half of that, around two percent, not that you’d know it from the way that Hollywood now portrays America as being half Jewish, half Gay, and one quarter Clean, Articulate Black. I expect that Gallup would get similarly overestimated results if it polled Americans on the percentage of Jews in the population too.

I don’t know about you, but I look forward to the touching final episode of Glee, when the very last student at [whatever] high school a) learns that her great-grandmother died in the Holocaust and b) is deconverted from her insidious heterosexuality by Sue Sylvester.

And yet some wonder why I don’t bother to conceal my complete contempt for mainstream opinion. Given its wildly delusional foundations, I would be gravely insulted to learn that my thoughts were considered to be even remotely related to the mainstream.

HT Steve Sailer

Mailvox: why do white women choose black men?

The Spartan inquires:

Why is it that in my town, there is a lot of White Women hanging around Blacks. It seems that every Black man in this town has a white wife, white mistress, white girlfriend. Walk into the Salvation Army soup kitchen and every poor white trash woman (or her grandmother) is lugging around some mulatto child.

How does Game answer this? Should not every Beta White male go around in blackface and talk jive? If reproduction is about genes, and moving up the ladder, why are white women flocking to black men, especially on college campuses?

One can never be certain when attempting to ascertain the motivations behind the actions of others. Never forget some of the most important words of Ludwig von Mises from Human Action: “No dialectical artifice can spirit away the fact that man is driven by the aim to achieve certain ends…. We cannot approach our subject if we disregard the meaning which acting man attaches to the situation, i.e. the given state of affairs and to his own behavior with regard to this situation.”

The problem, of course, is that Man in general and women in particular are very seldom able to explain the actual reasons for their actions, they are much better at providing ex post facto rationalizations of them. But, I have made the following observations over time.

1. The media has been pushing multi-racial romance very, very hard for the last 12-15 years, specifically the white female-black male combination. (I would bet that there are at least 10x more WF-BM couples portrayed than BF-WM couples.) There is nary a commercial on television that does not include a token black man with a funky pseudo-afro at the party or a drama that does not feature a romance between a Handsome Black Man and an Open-Minded White Woman. This tends to have an effect on the class most susceptible to mass marketing, the 18-24 crowd, which also the only group without sufficient life experience to understand that the “racist” stereotypes they so enjoy opposing are based on statistical fact.

2. Black men tend to be more aggressive and forward than white men, on the average. They not only take a shotgun approach, but don’t tend to agonize much over being shot down. Possessing -1SD average IQs, they are less likely to be crippled by introspection and second-guessing than white and Asian men. Recall that Roissy has asserted that high intelligence is actually a handicap with regards to sexual status. Also, the observable black male disinclination for monogamous relationships dictates that a higher percentage of them will remain on the market regardless of their current relationship status.

3. Low rank white women tend to be overvalued by black men. The woman who can attract only white 3s is often able to attract black 7s. I know several black male-white female couples where the black man is significantly more attractive than the white woman. This phenomenon is also often seen in white male-Asian female couples. When a woman has the option to increase her sex rank simply by expanding the pool of acceptable men, it should come as no surprise that many elect to do so.

However, it is interesting to note that despite the race-mixing at the prole level, very little of it takes place among the marrying classes. Virtually no white women actually marry black men; even Asian marriages to white men are on the order of 2 percent of all Asian female marriages. As with most cultural degradations such as crime and illegitimacy, multi-racial non-marital relationships are for the lower classes while the shrinking middle and upper classes of all races remain homogenous.

So, on the basis of his email, I can conclude the Spartan’s town is an economically depressed one that is largely comprised of lower class whites with a large minority population. As far as the question about Game goes, the rule is to mimic whatever behavior is proven to be successful. If the Spartan is interested in overweight, peroxide-blonde 3s, he would probably be wise to imitate the behavior of those gentlemen who are presently attracting them.