Friday, February 3, 2017

If I am dangerous does that make Black men dogs? The curious case of Darryl Lynn Hughley

Some creature called Darryl Lynn Hughley or better known as DL Hughley, went on a rant this week regarding President Trump's 90-day immigration ban. This diatribe, while only three minutes in length, was all over the place and all those places were not good places.





Hughley doesn't hide his leftist leanings. He's ultra liberal and very critical of the right and white community. At the same time he's had his run in with his own ilk, so it's not like he's afraid to speak his mind regardless of how wrong or out of touch that mind may be.


Here was something I found astonishing:


“ISIS is supposed to be what we are scared of. The most dangerous thing in America is a white dude with an assault weapon and an attitude. If you wanted to really make America safer, you would ban assault weapons and not Muslims. What is more scary to you? A white dude that just got laid off with a gun? Or a dude reading a Koran?"


Now let's start out light. Assault weapons? What are assault weapons? How many white dudes who commit crime are doing so with “assault weapons”? Now, what about his claim about white dudes being dangerous along with said assault weapons? Notice how he follows that up with the talk of banning assault weapons but leaves out banning white guys? It would seem fair enough once is an inanimate object while one is a human being.

However, that's not the case because the very next sentence he points out banning Muslims doesn't make sense because they in Hughley's opinion are not the problem. Interesting he uses the word “thing” to describe the white man and the gun but doesn't include the white guy in his BAN DESPITE said white man being the most dangerous. Come on.

And yeah, reading the Koran can lead to suicide bombing. It does nothing for your argument when rational people hear this. Reading the Koran is like pointing out that someone reading Mein Kampf doesn't make them a threat. Of course it doesn't but in the wrong hands; that book and almost every religious book written 2k years ago can lead to things like.... Crusades. 9-11. Burning women as witches or stoning women in 2017 for being raped.


Just one minute later he doubles down:

“The most dangerous thing in America are white dudes… angry white dudes. Let's be clear.”


It's obvious DL Hughley is triggered here. But does that make him racist? I don't take the glee in making those distinctions. He is, however, a race baiter. A sensationalist in the mold of an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. All bark with no bite (spoiler alert). All hysteria with no logic. A race hustling pimp. His illogical - partisan race baiting is so pronounced it would make Emanuel (reparations) Cleaver of the Congressional Black Caucus fame weak at the knees.  


This is the same man who doesn't think Black on Black crime exists. No, he really thinks that. Despite places like Chicago, Baltimore, LA, NY... where the victims and offenders are almost exclusively Black; it doesn't exist.


"There’s more white on white crime than black on black crime…. crime is about proximity.. you hurt the ones you love because you are close to them … if you take any living organism and put it in a small space with limited resources it will kill anything around it… black on black crime a’int nothing but biology."


Now it's obvious DL Hughley isn't a deep thinker. He sees an FBI report, looks at some numbers and viola, there are more white people killing white people than black killing black people. That would be a valid point say if you lived in Flatland, where everything was in a two-dimensional reality. However, we live in a complex space and biology is rooted in mathematics. Just simple per capita data points out DL Hughley flaws.


77.35% of the US population as of 2014  identified themselves as White (including Hispanics who identify as White) or 246 million.


13.3% in America are identified as Black or African American.


Whites in this country are 6x the population of Blacks. So, for Whites to kill more than Blacks would not only make sense but it would be expected. And the numbers bear that. Whites do commit more murders than Blacks, barley but they do. Now if we are talking about the most “dangerous thing in America” there is nothing on two legs more dangerous than a Black person. More specifically a young Black male. Because of, Blacks, despite being only 13% of the population commit 52% of all homicides and 59% of all felony murders on record from 1980-2008 according to the FBI as you can see below.




A piece written by the Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley a few years back came out with these nuggets…


  • Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do
  • Black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s when black poverty was higher" and "racial discrimination was rampant and legal



There are also these bombshells from Edwin S. Rubenstein, M.A., New Century Foundation (courtesy of the American Renaissance)

  1. There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.
  2. In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.
  3. In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.
  4. In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting” — defined as firing a bullet that hits someone — a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.
  5. If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.
  6. In an all-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.
  7. In 2015, a black person was 2.45 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by the police. A Hispanic person was 1.21 times more likely. These figures are well within what would be expected given race differences in crime rates and likelihood to resist arrest.
  8. In 2015, police killings of blacks accounted for approximately 4 percent of homicides of blacks. Police killings of unarmed blacks accounted for approximately 0.6 percent of homicides of blacks. The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by blacks.
  9. Both violent and non-violent crime has been declining in the United States since a high in 1993. 2015 saw a disturbing rise in murder in major American cities that some observers associated with “depolicing” in response to intense media and public scrutiny of police activity.



No reason to pile on, the case is pretty clear. Black folks, particularly young black men who might make up, what 2-55 of the population... are unequivocally more dangerous than a white man despite an attitude or any weapon he might have. He can denounce and ignore “black on black crime” as not being real but the truth of the matter is it's pure evasion on his part and others like him because when you look at the data it's black and white (pardon that glorious pun).


Now let me make an interesting analogy.


If Black folks commit such an exorbitant amount of violent crime despite such small numbers could it be reasonable for people to be leery of that demographic? Is it racist for police to be more cautious or leery of young Black males? Can you really blame someone from crossing the street at night to avoid crossing paths with said young Black men? It doesn't take a mathematician to figure this out, it just takes access to the local or national news.


I said earlier there is nothing on two legs more dangerous than a Black person. More specifically 2-5% of the population or aka young Black males. You care to guess what's “the most dangerous thing in America” on four legs?


Pit bulls


Pit bulls make up only 6% of the dog population, but they're responsible for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of dog-related deaths since 1982, according to research compiled by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7, an animal-news organization that focuses on humane work and animal-cruelty prevention.




The correlation with Pit bulls and young black males is almost dead on and both highly disproportionate to their numbers of the US population in both dogs and people. There are people that will make the case that Pit bulls are only dangerous because they have bad owners. Pit bulls are good dogs in the right hands. Just like people on the left make excuses for the problems in inner cities with young Black males DESPITE the fact that before the 60’s under harsh conditions the Black community never had these problems. Remember, that was the days of the two parent household still - the Left has no time for that. Now, I know what you're thinking…. HE’S CALLING BLACK MEN DOGS.

That’s not it at all. I'm making the case that if you're going to go off hinge because you didn't like the election results and are triggered (still) then there is someone out there, despite being a nobody in terms of audience and notoriety is still going to take the time and check your ass. Because, I don't like being called dangerous without any empirical evidence to back it up; no more than does Darryl Lynn want to be compared to an animal that is bred to fight/maim/kill. Meanwhile, it was announced this week the gangs of Chicago want to meet with President Trump, while Darryl Lynn continues his SJW crusade fueled by false narratives and racial diatribes. This what it feels like to be winning again… 14 days and counting.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Useful idiots bound by no borders: the front lines are everywhere.

I remember watching a youtube video some time ago when I first heard the term: “Useful Idiot” to describe the Marxist leftists both here and abroad. It was Yuri Bezmenov who spoke those words of truth, a former journalist and propagandist for the KGB who had direct knowledge of psychological warfare practiced by the USSR in the Cold War. Mr. Bezemenov defected to the West and wrote and lectured in a pro-West manner until his death in 1993.
In todays world, Bezemenov today would be rich. His speaking engagements would rival the Clintons in terms of monetary command (except for not being able to deliver State department approved favors for it). He predicted our societal cucking via the neoliberals and the hypersensitive liberal left that seems to not only permeate our culture but dominate it across so many various levels from government to media and everywhere in between. His accuracy and precision of society in a present day United States is in such a detailed manner he would make Nostradamus just another failed Myan forecaster. A Y2K truth-er.  He was that damn good. It was this video that came to my mind after watching what unfolded after the dust settled and the smoke cleared in Aleppo, Syria.
We have an overabundance of “useful idiots” here in the states. We have the media. We have the aforementioned neoliberal agenda. What you don't see at first glance is what has become the most useful idiot in the arsenal. Its there in plain sight; you just have to squint a bit to see it.
Don't turn on your TV to see the idiots in plain view. That revelation won't be televised. The reality is “terrorism” has become the most easily exploited geopolitical hot potato of modern times. Kick em when you're up; sick em them when you're down. Or flip it around; it all works the same.
It didn't have to be all the #FakeNews pouring out of eastern Aleppo BEFORE it was taken by Assad and Syrian army as the city celebrated Christmas for the first time in four years. Funny that wasn't on CNN. Must have missed it. It didn't take Syrian special forces to capture and officially name Western operatives last month facilitating the likes of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, for us to know who we were betting on. How we aided and funded Wahhabist and neo-Wahhabist extremists in their attempts to implement an Islamic theocracy at the expense of a democratically elected secular nation. Let that soak in. Let that hit your palate. Got a taste for it now? Do you taste the notes of hypocrisy, deception and a hint of callousness in it? A democratic republic, the self-described beacon of light on the hill in the darkness of the world.
A benevolent nation (thank you ScottL) government who traded its sensibilities and soul in for more geopolitical power and less freedom. At least DADDY gets it...



As CNN and the like reported the civilians running away from the encircling Assad armies aided by Russian airstrikes in Aleppo last month they flipped the script. It was the civilians fleeing from 4 years of control by Islamic extremists, running from “moderate rebels” held in east Aleppo. But just where were they running to? The report never had that destination outcome. Interestingly enough, that report did tell us how the media are unable to cross the front-line into northern/western Syria. Funny way to gather info and intel to build a story, no? Journalism through 2nd and 3rd channels isn't journalism anymore. Its at the mercy of whoever can control said sources. This often leads to propaganda. A simply connection of the dots can tell you where they were running and fleeing to. It was none other than the Syrian government, who held a peaceful western Aleppo just a few miles away. Consider this TV report on the fleeing civilians from CNN via Fred Pleitgen:
CIVILIANS FLEE AS SYRIAN ARMY POUNDS ALEPPO
That headline is totally misleading for a myriad of reasons. Strange it is, the narrative here at home is not reporting the truth. People are fleeing a place being bombed to the people responsible for the bombing? They want you to believe the east, where our “moderates” are aided and backed by the US and its allies are fighting for freedom in favor of the citizens of Aleppo; when it could not be further from the truth. East Aleppo, the place where a kid is surrounded and beheaded by “moderates”. Those “moderates” known as the Nour al-Din al-Zinki Movement were given arms and support by our State Department headed by the infamous and nefarious demon of death herself, one Hillary Clinton. This is in a place where:
hundreds of east Aleppo militiamen prevented at rifle-point thousands of civilians from fleeing their enclave over the past two weeks, how they shot dead six people, including a pregnant woman.
In a place, where cowards shouting "Allahu akbar" used civilians and their residences as shields from bombings. What a great God they have. And the Western media was along for the ride if you just exclude the fact they didn't have the balls to get in the car and be there in person. There might not a better recap and list of media lies and propaganda on east Aleppo, Syria than the piece written by Rania Khalek of Fair.org.
We have seen this play out in Libya as well. Defined by the West on its watch lists as “extremists” but used by the West openly as useful idiots in the pursuit of regime change against a secular middle eastern nation.

If we are to engage and our goal is to eradicate these extremist groups then lets do so. What we can't have is this posture where we allow ourselves to arm these extremists over democratically elected leaders. It sends a mixed message and is ineffective. 
All of this is lies at the feet and the blood on the hands of the prince of peace himself, the neoliberals anointed one, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize. A President of the United States who won the Nobel Peace Prize before he even stepped into office. The same man who burst onto the scene under the guise of transparency. Who ran a campaign against nation building and regime changes. The same man who would come to execute more drone strikes than his predecessor. A man who would choose to arm radical Islam over nations with democratically elected governments. What happened? Did he do an 180 because he wanted to or was he just doing what he was told?
He was the man who once said back in ‘08;
"one important thing is that we not get mission creep"
There was no congressional authorization for launching air raids in Syria. There was no authorization in Libya either you know what started out as a “humanitarian effort” to only become another “Moderate” extremist-backed “resistance” that ended up with the Muslim brotherhood filling the vacuum. I think mission creep has all but been executed at 100% capacity, Mr. Obama.
This leads me to my questions:
How do we get to a point where we are supporting the elimination of democracy at the hands of extreme Muslim terror?
All of a sudden an extreme Sunni/Wahhabism hybrid decides to enter Aleppo as liberators? Despite every conquest by these actors has been extreme and violent to the natives they confront.
Why would Al-Assad enter Aleppo to butcher citizens (as some reported) while it was being held by these “terrorists” in a city of mixed ethnicities and religions who before the uprising lived side by side in peace under Assad?
Why do we support a nation like Saudi Arabia? A nation led by Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Al ash-Sheikh whom has declared Sunni Islam as enemies and wants to purify the Sunni sect or you could also say 80% of Islam. All this despite the fact Wahhabism is the overwhelming majority of “terrorists”?
Why do all of our end results in the middle east we engage in result in destabilization?

There are plenty of options for answers but the conclusions to be drawn from these options are about as fuzzy as the reasoning for these actions I laid out in my questioning. I have written about the petrodollar many many times but that might be just part of the story. If there is one thing we do know, Mr. Obama your legacy is clear: we want our award back. See, I know YOU think you deserved the award without merit DESPITE the fact that you were the polar opposite of peace. And its this entitlement that makes you the poster boy for the infamous cultural suicide we embrace today; the participation trophy. Nevertheless, Nobel committee secretary Geir Lundestad finally sees it like I see it (sort of). As he wrote in his memoir: "Secretary of Peace. 25 years with the Nobel Prize" ...
"thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this effect."
"In hindsight, we could say that the argument of giving Obama a helping hand was only partially correct,"
"Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake,"
"In that sense, the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for"

Better late than never , Geir.