Guns vs Drugs

has anyone here ever noticed that the same arguments that leftists use to support drug legalization are the same ones that right wingers use to support unrestricted gun access? When I first started following politics when I was a teenager, I noticed the pattern that RWers liked banning things – drugs, pornography, abortion etc so I assumed that they also supported banning guns.

This is all part of my grand theory that deep down it’s not the thing itself but the who that drives politics. It’s not things like guns or drugs in and of itself but rather who is using it.

political corruption- all that matters is who is doing it

watch this video:

The short film is a walk through the day in the life of Dan Rostenkowski circa 1980 or 1981 as he prepares to take over the powerful Ways and Means committee. Rostenkowski, or Rosty as he often went by, was plenty corrupt and actually lost his seat in 1994 over it and did a year or so in prison. But even if he was corrupt, Rosty seemed like a good guy with his sort of Jackie Gleason type persona.

Hillary Clinton is also somewhat corrupt and comes across as a total bitch. When Bill was president, she seemed way too willing to inject herself in the political process. During the 90s, she didn’t come across very well as opposed to someone like Rosalyn Carter who just seemed more likable and non-threatening. Watching her speak during speeches is like listening to nails on a chalkboard and it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what it is that rubs me the wrong way but something seems off. As a result, her corruption just seems worse.

This all kind of reminds me of one of Davis Aurini’s early videos:

The American Ethno-Religion and its implications

I’ve seen videos before talking about how America has a sort of ethno religion with things like MLK, the holocaust, and all those other type of things. Normally, you would think that people who know about there society the most are the ones who should be voting but I’m not sure that’s the case in the United States. Someone who knows a lot about the United States has been fed the whole ethnoreligion type stuff and therefore votes emotionally. I myself am guilty of this type of stuff as I was a staunch democrat that voted that way because my view was “if the south votes republican, then the GOP is a priori bad and if the union states mostly vote democrat, then the democrats are a priori good”.

This is a case of knowing a lot about the history of the United States and that actually making you a less rational voter as a result. Even if this is ethnoreligious thinking in and of itself, as a kid, I never really was bothered by any part of British politics, little as I knew about it, because I had in my mind that British politics was a priori good because they all sounded so much more intelligent than Americans and our gas guzzling morons. The fact that there were groups like the BNP meant nothing to me.

But even if that was ethnoreligion in action, it also meant that I might make a better decision running Britain as a noncitizen member of parliament (let’s pretend for the sake of the argument that such a thing exists) because I don’t see myself as part of the culture and don’t have any emotional investments. So in a way, this is like being on a jury. You obviously don’t put families of the victims or families of the defendant on the jury because there’s an obvious conflict of interest. This is why I think the call for having “informed voters” is counter intuitive and that somewhat American citizens who have lived here there whole life may actually make a worse decision in voting than a group of Japanese businessman who don’t know a lot about the United States.


the married women vote and the assumptions of the 19th amendment

From listening to the F Roger Devlin’s of the world, you would think that women couldn’t vote until 1965 or so. But women have been voting since 1920. For the first fifty years of women’s suffrage – none of the things we hate about gender politics existed. There was no banalities about the “war on women” and men and women more or less voted the same way. Actually until about 1980, women were sometimes more republican than men.

Part of the thinking may have had to do with the assumptions at the time the 19th amendment was passed. At the time, this was merely the continuation of what people called “the family vote” – women voted just as there husbands did. The idea of single women as a vote was not something that was ever envisioned back then. I might add that criticizing single women per se is not necessarily a worthy target for the NRX community. It’s the single mothers who are the real societal threat.

At the same time though – should single fathers be denied the vote too? I mean the manosphere guys talk about single mothers, but aren’t single fathers usually equally culpable?

Does “Separation of Powers” actually lead to more government?

I’ve been thinking this thought recently with how the U.S. government is organized. The U.S. government is fairly decentralized with a separation of powers from the judicial, executive and legislative branches – in addition to powers given to the states. I always thought that it sounded like a terrible idea and people like Jay Cost – ( who sucks the dick of the constitution and James Madison are suffering from what Ryan Faulk calls “flat eartherism”.

I haven’t fully explained how I feel but its sort of a gut reaction. My view is that all of this actually leads to more government because what happens is that it makes it harder for the government to do anything and that as a result – creates a sort of backlog of unresolved matters. I’m not sure what a good analogy to this is but imagine if the criminal justice system had to be solved by three separate juries. The cases would often have to be retried to the point where¬† the judicial system would be clogged up/bankrupted.

Speaking of Ryan Faulk, he once mentioned how if you combine two different systems, you get the worst of both worlds and I’m starting to think that’s what the compromise in the constitution has eventually led us to.

Will “Criminal Justice Reform” actually benefit more whites?

Hey guys, its been a while. I think I’ll be posting blogs more regularly from now on.

I’ve been thinking about this for awhile. I’ve watched a lot of TV shows and documentaries about crime and I’ve found that the people who would benefit the most from reducing penalties for crimes and making it easier to parole – are white people.

I mean I’ve found that a lot of sympathetic defendants – people who get arrested for something years after the crime was committed and have “gone straight” in the time since or people who were manipulated into committing a crime – are almost all white. This could even be the case if the white person is convicted of a more serious crime than there NAM counterpart.

I mean who would you want released from prison – a 70 year old white man doing 25-to-life for having his business partner whacked, who, even if not particularly sorry for what he did, is a model prisoner and has no tattoos OR a 30-40 year old black man whose sentence is less severe than the white mans (10-15 for rape or something like that) but is a terrible inmate (fighting other inmates and guards) and is covered in tattoos etc? In my view I feel that most white guys who commit crimes are getting it out of there system and are probably not going to offend again while for a NAM, seems more “in character”. If I remember right, Ryan Faulk wrote something about this last fall.

Anyways, the left, in there wanting to “reform the criminal justice system” actually end up widening the parole disparity by race, then I’ll have a nice laugh. It’s sort of what Those Who Can See calls “Victimization Whack A Mole”.

A Munchausen Society

My dad was telling me today about how he was at his end-of-year awards ceremony for where he works and how he heard some motivational speaker talk about how he was abused as a kid and what not. When I was in a kid and even in my teens I would really like those type of stories. As I got older I became more skeptical that they were even true and felt that it was a gimmick.

I thought about it more so with Gregory Hood writing the article “My Weakness Is Strong”. It seems that having something happen to you like surviving a disease when no one gave you a chance, or being abused as a kid is sort of like a badge. Three years ago, a linebacker for Notre Dame made some speech about how his girlfriend died or what have you and it was discovered pretty quickly that the whole thing was a hoax. I thought it was bizarre at the time but now that I think about it, I realized that this is an example of munchausen’s disease which is a want for attention by having something happening to you.

I do think though that it might be part of the human condition, albeit in small doses. Someone I knew broke there wrist when I was in third grade and seemed to be at the center of attention. I really wanted to break something too. I was never fucked up enough to actually do something like that on purpose but when I was a little older and still thinking it got you all the attention (I think I was twelve), I actually broke my wrist by hitting the brakes too hard while going down a hill on my bike (and the bike catapulted). Having a cast go up almost to your shoulders (and in May-June no less) dispelled any want for that to ever happen to me again.

More importantly, if having some sort of “story” to tell to people is considered a plus rather than just a waste of time, then it says something about our society. It just seems like this is going to open the way for scammers of sorts – people who defraud insurance companies, perpetrate hate hoaxes and all the other things. I’m almost starting to think that we are entering a 1984 type scenario where in the future, a sizable chunk of the population actually makes a living doing these things.