There are some moderate Muslims, and they can be enlisted in the struggle against the anti-civilizational Joe Biden and the moral (immoral?) retards who support him. Zuhdi Jasser is an example of a moderate Muslim. May peace be upon him and no harm come to him. Here I recount an exchange I had with Jasser.
A reason, perhaps the main reason, may be gleaned from the following graphic:
The above stats are clearly in the ball park according to every study I have read. Heather Mac Donald has done outstanding work on this topic. I refer you to her.
One reason why leftists won't enforce existing laws is because (1) doing so would have a "disproportional impact on blacks," and (2) such disproportionality violates the value of 'equity' to which leftists subscribe.
Leftists (mis)use 'equity' to mean equality of outcome or result. 'Equity' is at or near the top of the Left's axiological hierarchy: a high or the highest value to be striven for in our social and political arrangements.
Someone who accepts both (1) and (2) will be loathe to enforce existing laws against homicide and other crimes.
Now (1) is undoubtedly true. The reason is simple: blacks as a group commit more crimes than the other groups mentioned. And so it follows that their incarceration rates are higher. This is so even after we subtract off unjust convictions due to racial bias among jurors, and the malfeasance of corrupt judges, overzealous careerist prosecutors, and bad cops.
(2), however, is undoubtedly false. The reason is that 'equity' is a disvalue, not a value. The word as used by leftists is a neologism that conflates the distinction between equality in legitimate and attainable senses (equality of opportunity, equality before the law, treating like cases in a like manner, and such related ideas as due process which are the glory of the Anglo-American legal system) and, on the other hand, equality of outcome, which is unattainable except by police-state means, and even then not sustainable for long: life's natural hierarchies will inevitably reassert themselves.
It might go like this: the USA under the yoke of 'woke' continues to weaken itself until it collapses under the effect of its own decadence in synergy with external attack and invasion by its geopolitical enemies. It is a good bet that this is in our near future, within ten years. It is not inevitable, but there is no reason to be sanguine about the prospects of push-back. The oligarchic deep state will do everything and anything to crush Donald J. Trump and will of course if necessary attempt an 'Ecuadorean solution.'
If the USA collapses, then the natural hierarchy of aptitude, ability, resoluteness, etc, will have reasserted itself. We will then both collectively and individually face the Islamist-Sino-Russki trilemma: either embrace and affirm the new order, or accept political-cum-religious dhimmitude, or 'be put to the sword,' if not literally then by cancellation of livelihood and incarceration.
There will never be, and their cannot be, equality of outcome or result over the long haul because of the different aptitudes and abilities and interests of different peoples and groups of people.
The RCC is already a joke with a clown at its head; why then should it not go 'woke'? It has needed defunding for a long time now. It is up to us to make it true that 'go woke, go broke.' Story here:
VATICAN CITY — An unprecedented global canvassing of Catholics has called for the church to take concrete steps to promote women to decision-making roles, for a "radical inclusion" of the LGBTQ+ community . . . .
The document also asked what concrete steps the church can take to better welcome LGBTQ+ people and others who have felt marginalized and unrecognized by the church so that they don't feel judged: the poor, migrants, the elderly and disabled, as well as those who by tribal or caste feel excluded.
Perhaps most significantly, the document used the terminology "LGBTQ+ persons" rather than the Vatican's traditional "persons with homosexual tendencies," suggesting a level of acceptance that Francis ushered in a decade ago with his famous "Who am I to judge" comment.
Satanists must feel terribly marginalized by the RCC even at this late date. They need to be recognized so that they don't feel judged. 'Catholic' means universal; so shouldn't everyone be included? Diversity, equity, inclusion! In fact, Satanists are more worthy of inclusion than New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, et al.) because the former, unlike the latter, believe in the super-natural, the meta-physical. In any case, the New Atheism is so passé! Hell, nobody knows what it is is anymore. Satanism is the current thing and must be honored as such. Diversity demands the inclusion of Satanists! And (superlunary) equity, equality of soteriological outcome, for all, regardless of merit or demerit!
Moral judgment must be avoided at all costs since, as we all know now, there is no difference between making moral judgments and being judgmental, and no bien-pensant wokester wants to be perceived as judgmental.
"LGBTQ+ persons" absolutely must replace the Vatican's traditional "persons with homosexual tendencies," because of the latter's implied distinction of tendency/disposition and exercise. It was traditionally held that there is no sin in having the innate homosexual tendency or disposition; the sin consists in exercising or acting upon it. But this distinction is quite obviously homophobic and hateful because it marginalizes those who act upon their inherent homosexual desires. Besides, it's a bogus distinction; it sounds like some dusty punctilio from some superannuated scholastic manual of the sort the beatific Bergoglio rightly excoriated. Both disposition and exercise are to be, not tolerated, but celebrated. By her own astute admission, Karine Jean-Pierre, as the first black, female, lesbian WH press secretary, is a historic figure. No doubt about it, and qualifications for the job have nothing to do with it.
See? I'm a clown! Who am I to judge?
Recent Comments