Archives for category: Crime

The thing about Democrats and guns has been obvious since I was a kid. On the left, we commonly find the wish to blame anyone but the criminal. This became a joke in the 70s: ‘Society’s to blame; let’s arrest society.’ Now we have joke disciplines to push this sort of nonsense, like ‘Critical Race Theory.’

This is the result of sympathy, perhaps, sympathy unbounded by reason, but whatever the cause, it is generally a part of the leftist mindset.

THE OUTSIDER MUST BE THE VICTIM TO BE DEFENDED
or
THE OUTSIDER IS THE HERO TO SAVE US

That is the leftist myth. In art, this is often expressed in merely identifying heroic or victimized outsiders and celebrating them. Note that this core leftist notion is not about individuals carrying on civilized standards — or the defense of civilization — when shorn of usual social support by being thrown into the state of nature (this is a very right-wing artistic theme, prevalent in Westerns and SF), it is about how outsiders are created by bad insiders, and ‘therefore’ we mustn’t fight the outside threats but our very own selves, our in-group hierarchy especially.

Now, sometimes it is indeed the case that insiders create their outsider enemies. But once created, one may disagree on what to do. Truth is, most victims are not created by our in-group but by some other group or individual. There are three major types of malefactors that engage in victimization on a regular basis: criminals, mobs, and states. I hold to what I think of as a common-sense truth that

  1. anyone can do good as an individual, or do bad as a criminal;
  2. any group can do fine work either as families, communities, firms, etc., or even move about harmlessly in crowds, but any group can become a dangerous mob all-too easily;
  3. states bound by a rule of law are better than those not so limited, and the less encumbered by customary law, the more states are apt to victimize individuals within and without their designated territories.

A right-wing mindset sees states as absolutely necessary to keep individuals from becoming criminal and crowds from becoming mobs. A left-wing mindset sees states as absolutely necessary to bringing in outsiders and mobs into the in-group, toppling the hierarchy and establishing the rule of ideologically pure leftists. Traditional state concerns are uninteresting to leftists largely because traditional state concerns are right-wing, in-group defense and hierarchy maintenance, which the leftist gesture sees as inherently evil.

So it is no surprise that leftist and centrist technocrats tolerate leftist mobs — that is a source of their power and purpose. And it is no shock to see leftist and centrist technocrats tolerate outrageous criminality, for the criminals were (their story tells them) created by the evil conservative hierarchies and by insider oppression of outsiders.

Which is why these technocrats repeatedly lean to the strategy of “anarcho-tyranny,” where the power of the state is directed away from violent criminals and to actually creating and oppressing peaceful people in the enforcement of regulations (and this is one of several ways in which left-wingers become right-wing: they perform the very acts upon members of the in-group that they say the in-group performs on outsiders).

On the common-sense level, leftists are nuts. But there are cases where their story is true, and their gesture across the social landscape (defend the outsiders against insiders, to revolutionize the in-group) is the right one.

The problem is, people infected by the memeplexes of right-wingedness and left-wingedness cannot judge actual situations on the basis of actual facts and operating trends. They get stuck in their myths and rites and gestures, and can only perform stereotypical acts. They are disempowered from even conceptualizing actual problems.

Now, in times of crisis, increasing numbers of people jump ship, move rapidly from left to right and from right to left. We will see a lot of this in the near future. It is not necessarily a good sign, because it is mainly panic, and because the responsible “middle way” is often the last thing anyone wants. After all, in times of crisis, responsibilitarian policy appears as too difficult — just as, in the period leading up to the crisis, it appeared impossible.

But Biden trying to pretend that today’s criminality is caused by gun manufacturers, for example, is pure stupid evasion — and just the kind of evasion we expect from the left. In this, he is a sign of leftist intransigence and leftist assumptions among even ‘centrist’ Democrats. He cannot yet conceive that the best way to respond to criminals is to fight them and crush them, not make their criminality just marginally more difficult.

Or, in the case of Democrats today, make criminality easier while cracking down on free speech of “hate groups” . . . like white people who do not vote Democrat.

twv

Nearly every reference to “conspiracy“ is stupid.

People use “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracist” often incorrectly, and with baggage from their benighted instruction in public schools and from the hectoring of major media news readers.

It is common to accuse someone of [unwarranted] belief in [non-existent] conspiracies at the first drop of the hat, upon almost zero evidence. Mere association of an idea with even the whiff of “conspiracy” taints it like the lingering body odor of Seinfeld’s toxic valet.

The funny thing is, this inculcated fear of “conspiracy theory” is very likely the result of a conspiracy. Tales of Operation Mockingbird tell how the very term ”conspiracy theory” itself was encouraged by the CIA to its cadres of news readers and reporters, to dismiss anyone who brings up critiques of the Warren Commission Report on the JFK assassination.

Are these tales true? That is, are the reports that the CIA directly told its moles within the news media to dismiss those who question the Lone Gunman Theory as “conspiracy theorists” true? We hear this a lot online, especially from . . . conspiracy theorists.

Wikipedia belittles the lore of Operation Mockingbird as “an alleged large-scale program” of the CIA, despite quite a lot of evidence for the operation’s existence (most of it not mentioned), and despite the many, many links between the legacy media’s news staff and the CIA (not to mention the dominant Ethnicity We Must Not Mention), but I have had enough run-ins with Wikipedia’s editorial staff to understand that Wikipedia was long ago taken over by the same kind of propagandists who overrun most successful start-ups of influence-peddling. The history of non-profit foundations is littered with ideological takeovers. This shouldn’t be surprising. It is more class-based than anything else, and much of what is condemned as “conspiracy theory” is actually some sort of class-based analysis.

But in American intellectual culture only leftists are allowed to engage in class analysis. All others are “conspiracy theorists” — and even the left is controlled, somewhat, by the obsessive implementation of the “conspiracy theorist” charge.

It is nevertheless the case that all conjectures about conspiracies should be judged on their factual merits, with recognition that conspiracies are evasive phenomena that do not present evidence in the innocent manner that we see the phenomena of the natural world. Clues of a conspiracy often appear first as evidence of a cover-up. Elementary praxeology should warn scientists of the danger of using the smell test in these areas, pro or con, for scientists generally do not have to fight against consciously withheld data.

”The greatest trick the devil ever pulled”: successful conspiracies would hide behind a taboo against looking into conspiracies for the same reason that true, exploitative egoists would hide behind the smoke of official altruism.

Don’t be a stooge. Reject the lore that says ”conspiracy theory” must be the province of the psychotically paranoid.

For if “they” are out to get you, it is not paranoia to notice. And there are a lot of theys out there in the business of defrauding us, stealing from us, subjugating with us.

More importantly, we must not be shamed by the shameless.

To be a conspiracy theorist should be no more controversial than an “invisible hand” theorist. A conspiracy theorist is someone who has theories about conspiracies, and considers conjectures about conspiracies as legitimate subject for inquiry and disputation. Someone who believes in a conspiracy is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist. Someone who merely suspects a conspiracy lurks behind some observed events would better be labelled a “conspiracy conjecturer”!

The first question to ask an actual conspiracy theorist is not “what conspiracies do you believe in?” but “how can we learn which proposed conspiracies might be real?”

twv

France will fall — I have been saying this for ages, but “fall” is too autumnal.

France will likely become an Islamic state, filled with murderous purges and genocide and, in the end, tyranny, especially including against French women. Houellebacq’s Submission scenario is rosy compared to what’s coming.

Here is the latest, from The Daily Mail:

Emmanuel Macron has threatened to punish generals who signed an open letter warning that the country is heading for ‘civil war’ because of radical Islam.

Twenty retired generals, as well as several serving soldiers, signed the letter which warned that failure to act against the ‘suburban hordes’ — a reference to the predominantly immigrant population of the housing estates which surround French cities – will lead to deaths ‘in the thousands.’

“French generals who called for military rule if President Macron cannot stop ‘Islamists’ from ‘disintegrating society’ will be punished, government declares,” DailyMail.com, April 26, 2021, updated April 27, 2021

It is absolutely vital to the functioning of a republic for the military to stay out of everyday politics. On the top level, of course, that old custom is often merely honored in the breach in America and elsewhere. But the military is warning, in this case, of something else absolutely central to the functioning of a republic: a cultural commitment to the rule of law amongst the citizenry. In France, and in America, mob rule is becoming all too common. Several major factions in France — long known for political crowd action — go beyond protest. But in America we hear little of it, except when some Muslim manages to kill dozens of people at a time. But there is also antifa violence, and then there is the Yellow Vest movement. But here across the Atlantic, we know little of all this.

Of course, in America we have our BLM/antifa riots, we have milquetoast protests mirroring the Yellow Vests (including the milquetoast and likely false-flag event of January 6), and we have a much smaller Muslim population, which so far limits its members to the occasional spree murder event. But it is all much worse in France.

But caution. The gods may be chortling. There is a sort of poetic justice to the nature of the French predicament. The country has the continent’s largest Muslim immigrant population. And it is considered “right-wing” even to worry or warn about the dangers therein. But note: it was right-wingers who insisted on the Algerian occupation. France would not have the huge Muslim influx were it not for right-wingers and their foreign adventurism.

This is why “right-wingers” cannot be trusted. Like left-wingers, their preoccupations are dangerous and their lust for extending power tends to lead to mass murder in the end.

twv

“The police are simply going to stop policing.”

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, on his Daily Wire show, often argues that the left’s concerted attacks upon policing over the past several years have led to the recent rise in murder rates in particular and crime rates generally. Partial defundings of police departments and policing programs, and misguided checks on policing, have directly contributed to the rises in crime, Shapiro says.

“As soon as you start loosening the restrictions with regard to criminal behavior,” Shapiro asserted on Tuesday, “you get an uptick in violence.”

True enough?

Well, what if assertions of racial injustice and police bias encourage black criminals to resist arrest?

Black Lives Matter rhetoric sure looks like a case for interpreting all searches, traffic stops, and warranted arrests as oppression. And since oppression is bad, resistance is good. Sure smacks of a dangerous excuse to resist arrest.

It is in situations where suspects resist arrest that most shootings by police occur. Then the results of resistance get pushed through the corporate media’s propaganda mill as yet more evidence of racist cops, decreasing respect for lawful standards and law enforcement, which in turn leads to

  • protests, which have led to
  • riots and
  • general mayhem and looting and
  • more robbery and, yes, murder.

These social forces are not utterly mysterious. Mr. Shapiro’s repeated focus on the simplest analysis (more police=less crime) may be regrettable, for the wider-angle view that the left’s “institutional racism” mantra could have deeper effects with broad consequences.

What we may be witnessing is a cycle of violence and misinterpretation: more crime along with more dangerous police-suspect encounters that feed mistaken impressions to bolster the initial charge of racism: rinse, wring, repeat.

twv

When will Republicans do something about so many Americans being shot, wounded and killed by other Americans? Nine killed in Atlanta and then several shot in Colorado in two shootings in the past 24 hours.

…as answered on Quora….

Odd question. Why focus on Republicans? And why mention two much-publicized shooting events and not the overwhelming number of shootings and murders in inner cities (such as Chicago) which is ongoing and dwarfs the body count of spree murders?

Take this seriously, why focus on Republicans? Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency — and the cities where most of the routine criminality occurs. And that latter fact is even more important. Why? Crime-fighting is properly a local matter.

It is almost as if the questioner has no real interest in crime reduction but … merely seeks to ply a tired and false agenda for “gun control.”

More entertainingly, when we ask somebody to “do something” about a problem, we ask the somebody with direct connection to the problem, in this case crime. While Republicans are generally thought of as “tough on crime,” Democrats are regarded as weak and lenient — so consider, for a moment, the obvious question of responsibility: Democrats commit most of the violent crime. A supermajority of convicted criminals are registered Democrats, not Republicans.

So, the question should become when are Democrats going to do something about violence in their ranks?

But aha! They won’t. Because violence sure looks like part of a strategy.

The Democracy is now the party of anarcho-tyranny, where the plan is to go easy on violent and property crime, and then criminalize civil matters like environmental issues, business competition, socializing sans masks. The idea here is to make peaceful people the subject of police power and ultra-coercion, while letting the mob (whether antifa or looters) and criminal gangs and habitual criminals thrash about, endangering peaceful people. This ramps up demand for increasing State power and (especially) wealth redistribution, and amounts to engaging in terrorism as a means to consolidate authority behind a cult-backed group of ruthless insiders.

I am not a Republican. I have an instinctive dislike for a party that runs on a sort of inertial piety and extreme tolerance for dumb-assery. But Democrats sure seem to be pushing me into the GOP. Please, no, Democrats. No. Give up on idiotic panaceas like “gun control” and evil practices like anarcho-tyranny.

twv

The 20th episode of the LocoFoco Netcast is up:

LocoFoco #20, August 6, 2020.

The podcast is accessible via LocoFoco.net, and using podcatchers such as Apple’s and Google’s, Pocket Cast and Spotify. It is also available as a video on BitChute, Brighteon, and YouTube:

LocoFoco #20, August 6, 2020.

Among the monuments dishonored by “Black Lives Matter” mobs are those of Miguel de Cervantes, himself a slave for several years as well as a Spanish literary master, often said to be the inventor of the novel; John Greenleaf Whittier, America’s abolitionist poet; and Ulysses S. Grant, the general who ended the Civil War and thus materially ushered in the abolition of slavery.

That mobs are mad is a truism; that its participants are willfully stupid, obvious. But support for same among bystanders is worse than mad and stupid.

I’ll let you guess the word I think most apt here.

When, at the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of the Soviet Socialist hegemony, the statuary of Stalin and Lenin were pulled down, I was jubilant, too. A tyranny and its iconography were being smashed. Great!

But a tyranny had fallen. The Soviet Union had not been a real republic. It was, indeed, an “evil empire.” In America, there are surely elements of evil in our empire, but it is not on the same order. And the empire has not fallen. The icons going down are being taken down by unruly mobs who bypass the rule of law to express their own feckless hegemony on our state and our culture. The empire is letting this happen. Why? Because it shows, I suspect, how secure it is to have all the ancient iconography pulled down yet it remain, barely shaken.

The current iconoclasm is probably best seen as an attack upon the idea of the republic, a rejection of its goodness and virtue and justice. While I am sympathetic with that general critique, the specific critique is insane, since you cannot claim that the bourgeois freedom of American society is evil “because of slavery” when slavery is obviously (and was recognized as) at odds with freedom.

Black Lives Matter is not subversive of The State. It is subversive of Liberty. The leftist idea is to use the mere existence of past slavery as a rationale to set up a completely different kind of socio-political order. Since most of these ninnies are promoting some form of socialism, those of us who identify socialism with slavery must express some alarm.

To get caught up in the peculiar arguments about “systemic racism” is irrelevant. For insurrection is no way to fight that.

For example, while I am more than willing to defend black lives from the depredations of the state, once the movement goes socialist, or engages in some vast doublethink Orwellianism of destroying ancient monuments, all I itch to do, then, is simply destroy the mobs. Bring in the guns and start shooting. Let the blood run at the wreckage of the statuary.

Is that the best way to handle the mobs? Probably not. Especially since what we are really dealing with is a ginned-up race war by the corporate media and the Democratic Party. Violence should probably be avoided.

The real problem is not the intransigent minority of African-American “protesters.” The real problem is the sick, cowardly, intellectually flabby support of same — and the rioters who follow so closely at their heels — by white “liberals.” Who are not of course liberal.

It is they who deserve the fate the mobs have directed merely towards the statuary.

I hope they do not get what they deserve, if for no other reason than I know these asshats, and I would likely be caught as collateral damage. But they might. For who knows where this will end?

If we are lucky, it will peter out as it becomes apparent that it was all fake and nonsense from the beginning.

twv

Here is a man whose place in history demonstrates something different than what he intended. John Flammang Schrank (March 5, 1876 – September 15, 1943) shot Theodore Roosevelt in the chest during a speech on October 14, 1912, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. TR survived. 

Schrank claimed to have had nothing against TR the man (I do: TR was a lunatic, as many of his contemporaries testified), but, instead, TR “the third-termer.” 

A good grudge, on the whole. But . . . not a good act.

Schrank’s claim that former President William McKinley, himself famously fatally shot by Chuckles the Anarchist, had come to him in a dream instructing him to do the deed got him into a nuthouse instead of prison.* And, as a warning to future presidents not to seek a third term, Schrank proved spectacularly unsuccessful, considering that another Roosevelt survived a third term in office and got part way into his fourth.

TR went on to make a terrific speech — one that I largely disagree with for a variety of reasons, but it was quite good rhetorically. This part still carries some power:

When the Republican Party — not the Republican Party — when the bosses in the control of the Republican Party, the Barneses and Penroses, last June stole the nomination and wrecked the Republican Party for good and all; I want to point out to you nominally they stole that nomination from me, but really it was from you. They did not like me, and the longer they live the less cause they will have to like me. But while they do not like me, they dread you. You are the people that they dread. They dread the people themselves, and those bosses and the big special interests behind them made up their mind that they would rather see the Republican Party wrecked than see it come under the control of the people themselves. So I am not dealing with the Republican Party. There are only two ways you can vote this year. You can be progressive or reactionary. Whether you vote Republican or Democratic it does not make any difference, you are voting reactionary.

Note, however, the pure demagoguery of stealing an election ‘from you.’ Such men as TR, alas, are almost impossible to keep away from power. 

Trump seems a bit like that, though far less tyrannical and murderous than TR. I mean, Trump doesn’t have TR’s death count and deeply racist version of American imperialism and eugenics.

It is common among today’s Democrats to admit to admiring only one Republican, Teddy Roosevelt. This does not reflect well on them, in my opinion, and as much as I shrink from murderous violence, my mind not rarely drifts to Schrank.

That admission being made, and daydreams acknowledged, I make no more outrageous confessions: though in my dreams I may or may not follow others’ instructions, and I may or may not commit crimes, I insist that I do not take Dream Time commands and put them into action during Waking Life.

Further, my support for term limits itself is subject to certain limitations. One of them is: I will not kill for them.

twv


* Wisconsin, the state in which he shot TR, did not have the death penalty — indeed, Schrank followed TR state to state, waiting to pull the trigger until he got to a Progressive state lacking the death penalty.

While reading a novel, last night, I was interrupted by intrusive thoughts — a memory of the day a man repeatedly called the magazine offices where I worked over two decades ago, threatening to kill us all with a knife. “I’ll rip out your guts,” he snarled. I took the phone from Kathy and, using a popular curse, wished him the worst in forceful terms. Actually, the grammatical form was an imperative, not an indicative or subjunctive: “wish” is an understatement. I told him never to call again.

As far as I know, he never did.

I sort of marvel that anyone would do such a thing, make an apparently empty threat. Unless I was so minatory that I scared him off? Seems unlikely.

Every now and then I wonder whether I knew the man in real life, if he followed me or any of the other people in the offices. Probably he just dialed a random number. At the time it did not cross my mind that he might have been the hitchhiker I once picked up who threatened to kill me. (I talked him down: he was a drunk and hadn’t put on his seatbelt, so my power over him was almost total.)

It did not once cross my mind to call the police. 

The police — indeed, the State — does not exist to protect us. The State intervenes in “justice markets” to suppress “the feud” and other patterns of revenge, and the police are mainly in service to clean up messes, chiefly those made by violence. An important job, but if you think protection is what they are all about, you have not been paying attention. We must protect ourselves.

twv

As House Democrats hide underneath the capitol cooking up a cockamamie impeachment case, and as Hillary Clinton publicly contemplates running again, Attorney General Bill Barr has officially switched the inquiry into the origins of the ‘Russia hoax’ to a criminal investigation.

This could get fascinating, bigger than Watergate, with the partisan shoes switched.

Hilarious.

For a real fun time, watch Rachel Maddow ‘react’ to this. For somewhat more sober discussion, here is the New York Times coverage, in part:

For more than two years, President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel closed it. Now, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began.
‘Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter. The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to impanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges.
… The move also creates an unusual situation in which the Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into itself.
‘Mr. Barr’s reliance on Mr. Durham, a widely respected and veteran prosecutor who has investigated C.I.A. torture and broken up Mafia rings, could help insulate the attorney general from accusations that he is doing the president’s bidding and putting politics above justice.
‘It was not clear what potential crime Mr. Durham is investigating, nor when the criminal investigation was prompted. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.
… Federal investigators need only a “reasonable indication” that a crime has been committed to open an investigation, a much lower standard than the probable cause required to obtain search warrants. However, “there must be an objective, factual basis for initiating the investigation; a mere hunch is insufficient,” according to Justice Department guidelines.

For the record, I hope the Democrats go on with their insane impeachment course. It is too funny to maintain composure.

But about Hillary?

On the one hand, a rematch would be entertaining, sure, and all sorts of dirt could come out to the fore.

On the other, if I were looking for a stable U.S., and some dignity to the union, I guess we should urge her not to run.

Personal opinion: it is probably too late to save the union, and we might as well have fun watch it unravel as its corrupt leaders satirize themselves in public.