5th Generation Warfare

 

If Black Lives Mattered.....

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3545634-state-of-emergency-called-in-akron-following-protests-over-jayland-walkers-death/ 

A state of emergency was called in Akron, Ohio, on Monday following protests that took place on Sunday night over the death of Jayland Walker, a Black man who died after police shot him dozens of times. 

“Early yesterday, we had several peaceful protests in the downtown footprint related to the officer-involved shooting of Jayland Walker. These protests did not escalate to violence and destruction,” Akron Mayor Dan Horrigan (D) said in a statement. 

“However, as night fell and others began to join, the protests became no longer peaceful. There was significant property damage done to downtown Akron. Small businesses up and down Main St. have had their windows broken. We cannot and will not tolerate the destruction of property or violence,” he said.

He said that he was also implementing a curfew, which will be in effect in the downtown area between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., and that fireworks scheduled to commemorate the Fourth of July had been canceled.

“As I stated yesterday, I fully support our residents’ right to peacefully assemble. What we have been calling for since the beginning, and what the Walker family and many community leaders and faith leaders have also urged, is peace,” Horrigan said. 

The protesting came in response to Walker’s fatal shooting by Akron police last week. Police body-camera video released Sunday showed officers firing a barrage of bullets at 25-year-old Walker as he was running away following a traffic stop for an unspecified violation.

Most of our "news" comes with a biased slant. I don't think anyone acting in good faith denies that. 

The slogan "Black Lives Matter" itself is just a mantra (i.e. propaganda). It's a good mantra, as it takes the Left's best meme and makes it their name. 

Nonetheless, like with most propaganda, it's just semantics. What the BLM movement actually represents is a counter to the notion that there is a bunch of racist cops who go around killing black people because they have black skin. Or because cops just hate black people. On merit, that's just silly. Even with the entire backing of the information systems, only the most diehard conformists believe that narrative. 

The problem with the BLM narrative is that they don't hold black people accountable for their actions. It's as if they've concluded that black people aren't capable of following basic instructions. This isn't to imply that the police killing people of any color is OK; it's tragic. But there has to be an honest discussion about why this is happening. 

Furthermore, the man killed in this most recent shooting was wearing a ski mask when he jumped out of the car and ran. How did they know if he was black or not? What if he had been white? Why wouldn't there be public outrage and "peaceful protests" if he had been white? Do white lives matter?

The reason nobody would burn down small businesses if the masked man would have been white is because white people are held to a different level of accountability for their actions. That's to say that the average response from a white person if the guy had been white would be, "That sucks that he died. But, he shouldn't have been shooting at the cops, and he shouldn't have ran. If he hadn't, he would still be alive. I'll pray for the family."

It's rather odd that every black person in America knows that if they shoot at cops, or don't comply with demands in a way of resisting in a threatening manner, that they are effectively putting their lives in danger. Furthermore, every person in the country knows this. If you get pulled over and shoot at a cop, you're probably going to get shot.

The BLM narrative is that when a white person shoots at the police they don't get killed. Honestly, that's just bullshit. Nobody believes that.

If BLM was sincere about their mantra, and really wanted to show that they cared about black lives, then they would put all of their efforts into telling black men to quit committing violent crime, quit shooting at cops and quit resisting arrest. If that happened, we wouldn't see any police shootings. And if we did we could be very speculative on the "why?"

Until that time comes, BLM seems to be more of a well-funded anti-police group that does "peaceful protesting" using Alinsky tactics as opposed to a group focused on the well-being of black people.

Sunday Psalm

Psalm 39 

I said to myself, "I will watch what I do

and not sin in what I say.

I will curb my tongue

when the ungodly are around me."

But as I stood there in silence -

not even speaking good things -

the turmoil within me grew to the bursting point.

My thoughts grew hot within me

an began to burn,

igniting a fire of words:

"LORD, remind me how brief my time on earth will be.

Remind me that my days are numbered,

and that my life is fleeing away.

My life is no longer the width of my hand.

An entire lifetime is just a moment to you;

human existence is but a breath."

We are merely moving shadows,

and all our busy rushing ends in nothing.

We heap up wealth for someone else to spend.

And so, LORD, where do I put my hope?

My only hope is in you.

Rescue me from my rebellion,

for even fools mock me when I rebel.

I am silent before you, I won't say a word.

For my punishment is from you.

Please, don't punish me anymore!

I am exhausted by the blows from your hand.

When you discipline people for their sins,

their lives can be crushed like the life of a moth.

Human existence is as frail as breath.

Hear my prayer, O LORD!

Listen to my cries for help!

Don't ignore my tears.

For I am your guest -

a traveler passing through,

as my ancestors were before me.

Spare me so I can smile again

before I am gone and exist no more.

UFC 276 Predictions

 

Israel Adesanya (c) vs. Jared Cannonier

Alexander Volkanovski (c) vs. Max Holloway

Sean Strickland vs. Alex Pereira

Robbie Lawler vs. Bryan Barberena

Pedro Munhoz vs. Sean O'Malley

Prelims:

Brad Riddell vs. Jalin Turner

Ian Garry vs. Gabriel Green

Jim Miller vs. Donald Cerrone

Brad Tavares vs. Dricus du Plessis

Early prelims:

Uriah Hall vs. André Muniz

Jessica Eye vs. Maycee Barber

Jessica-Rose Clark vs. Julija Stoliarenko

My picks are highlighted and underlined. I don't care (or watch) about women's fights (excluding Shevchenko), so I didn't even bother picking them. On paper these fights seem relatively easy to pick. I only went with two underdogs (Cerrone and Barberena). Cerrone has already beat Miller once. And the Barberena fight is basically a pick em (-120;+100).

A few thoughts on some specific fights:

Adesanya smokes Cannonier pretty easily. Volkanovski beats Max for the 3rd time, and it will probably be close just like the first 2. O'Malley gets another highlight reel KO.

It seems pretty obvious that if Stickland or Pereira wins impressively that they will get the next shot. I think Strickland wins that fight, but I haven't seen Pereira fight much. And everyone wants to see Pereira fight Izzy, since Pereira KO'd him in kickboxing. That seems to be what the UFC is setting up.

The Riddell/Turner and Garry/Green fights are sleeper fights for me. Nobody knows about Green, but he is legit. If Garry can handle him easily he will probably get a pretty big fight next.

Utopianism

The idea of liberalism is to create a utopia. It's obviously a flawed idea, in the sense that not everyone agrees on what a utopia would be like. It's like trying to eliminate all of the foods you dislike in the hopes of making everything people eat absolutely the best eating experience possible based on what you like to eat. 

Another obvious problem with utopianism is the fact that even if liberalism created a utopia, there would still be people who wanted to continue to make things better. In other words, liberalism is a perpetual mindset. The creation of a utopia wouldn't eliminate the quest for utopia. 

The liberal social causes that are being forced on society currently will ultimately destroy the society. America is undoubtedly a dying empire. And, that's what liberalism wants. Because America is oppressive and discriminatory and whatever else they say it is that makes it such a bad place... that everyone in the world wants to move to.

The ironic thing is that liberalism wouldn't even be plausible in a country unlike America. The founding fathers had a beautiful idea, but they were unable to see the ways that their idea could be exploited by usurpers (or maybe they did). 

Liberals hate America, but what they fail to realize is that what they hate about America is what enables them the right to hate it. 

It's the same energy used in the hatred of white supremacy. Those who hate white supremacy use white supremacy everyday. So they really don't hate it, they just hate that white people created it. Basically it's just radical envy. They love white supremacy, they just hate white people.

For example, people who are serious about their hatred of white supremacy wouldn't use electricity, "human rights," the English language or any other product of white supremacy to voice their disdain for white supremacy. They would go to the Congo and send smoke signals from their dunghut while barefoot. 

The same can be said about those who hate America. Like women who think they have the "right" to kill their child because white men came up with the idea of "rights." You can't say, "Hey, I hate America and the rights that come with being American, but I demand to have my American rights to kill my kid." That just makes you look stupid. 

Instead of liberalism being parasitic based on usurpery, it should try to be innovative and create concepts and societies that can be critiqued as an independent ideal as opposed to a reactionary pariah. 

The people who should love America the most are the ones who use the system to create the change they want. America makes that system possible. America is what makes individual liberty relevant. No other place before it cared about a person's feelings. 

Ultimately, the downfall of America will be the genius of  its creators (founding fathers). They were the first people to ever create a true utopia, but what we've realized is that utopias always become dystopias.

Liberalism is a reactionary critique of the American utopia.

Cardiovascular Crisis: Only 20% of Americans Are In Good Heart Health

https://www.studyfinds.org/1-in-5-americans-heart-health/

A staggering 80 percent of the U.S. population has either low or moderate cardiovascular health — meaning just one in five people have a heart that’s in excellent shape, according to a new study.

Using the American Heart Association’s new Life’s Essential 8 checklist, researchers discovered that just 19.6 percent of the country has a cardiovascular health score which the checklist considers “high.”

Meanwhile, the study of more than 23,400 U.S. adults and children found 62.5 percent only have “moderate” cardiovascular health and 17.9 percent have “low” cardiovascular health.

The Life’s Essential 8 looks at eight essential components that combine to give someone ideal heart and brain health. The measures include diet, physical activity, nicotine exposure, sleep duration, body mass index, blood lipids, blood glucose, and blood pressure. The new scale is an upgrade from the American Heart Association’s Life’s Simple 7, which did not measure sleep health.

When looking at the differences between the country’s racial and ethnic groups, the study finds Asian Americans have the best average cardiovascular health scores. Non-Hispanic White individuals had the second-highest health scores, with Hispanics (not including Mexicans), Mexicans, and Non-Hispanic Black individuals following in that order.

Concerningly, children’s diet scores had an average of just 40.6 and a miniscule 0.45 percent of the entire study group achieved a perfect score of 100.

This is shocking! Everyone knows Americans are the epitome of exceptionalism. I mean, look at how well the children are doing on their diet scores. The future looks bright.... and obese.

Luckily, Science! will find a way to give everyone pig hearts so Americans can continue their gluttonous ways. That's how Science! works: it doesn't correct the problem, it fixes it. Plus, there won't be enough healthy hearts from donors to keep up with the demand. 

And, we can't forget that if it gets too bad, the establishment will step in because they care about our health so much. So if pig hearts don't work, they'll come up with pills or vaccines. Or maybe even put something in the water like they do with fluoride that will fix our hearts, or ramp up our metabolism. Nah, that's too 20th century. They will just give everyone a mRNA vaccine that alters the obesity gene.

Diet and exercise would obviously drastically change the cardiovascular health of Americans, but there are taboo social ramifications that come with that. For example, telling black people to quit eating fried chicken is racist. Or telling a fat woman who eats too much fast food that she is "fat" is fat shaming. And hurting people's feelings is way worse than being fat with a bad heart.

It is interesting that the study was broken down by ethnic and racial groups. It's 2022, and I just figured we were beyond that. But blacks came in last place, which is certainly because of slavery or systemic racism or whatever. 

Diversity is our strength, so highlighting that blacks and Mexicans have scored the lowest on heart health makes you wonder what the numbers would look like if we excluded their data. It's kinda similar for a lot of things, tbh. Diversity is our strength, but every time it's calculated into the equation it appears to be a weakness. 

It would have been interesting to see the racial/ethnic breakdown of the 20% that have excellent heart health. I suspect the results would illustrate white supremacy or white privilege or whatever term they're using nowadays to make white people feel bad about themselves, and the Asian element would just kinda be ignored. 

But You've Already Proved You Can't Make Good Choices

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/supreme-court-goes-against-public-opinion-rulings-abortion-guns/

The U.S. Supreme Court’s new majority boldly signaled with twin rulings this week that public opinion would not interfere with conservative plans to shift the nation’s legal landscape.

The court rejected Roe v. Wade, a 49-year-old legal precedent that guaranteed the right to an abortion, after a string of national polls showed a clear majority of Americans wanted the opposite result. A similar court majority invalidated a 108-year-old New York state law restricting who can carry concealed guns that is supported by nearly 8 in 10 New Yorkers, according to a recent poll by Siena College.

Rather than ignore the dissonance, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority in the abortion decision, attacked the notion that the court should consider the public will. He quoted late chief justice William H. Rehnquist from a previous ruling: “The Judicial Branch derives its legitimacy, not from following public opinion, but from deciding by its best lights.”

The language of leftism is lying.

Although leftists control the information systems in the United States, they have had a terrible time with getting people to trust what they say. One could make the argument that it's actually worse to have control of the information systems in a society that the majority of people don't believe your information than it is to be the censored and oppressed side.

The point I'm trying to make here, is that there have been a lot of issues in society that were passed through that weren't supported by public opinion: gay marriage, school de-segregation in the south, abortion, etc. But now that it has happened with abortion and guns, it's all of a sudden a terrible thing. So everyone who has critical thinking skills reads this information and says, "hmm, it seems like they're mad or something." 

Journalism was always suppose to be ethical with the point of just telling people what happened. Saying that something is bad because a random poll says "8 in 10 New Yorkers" don't support it is just tabloid junk gossip. It means absolutely nothing.

Furthermore, the narrative is always spun to make the liberal agendas the "good side." For example, the abortion debate. Single white women have been told that it's their body, so it should be their choice. On merit, that's just propaganda that doesn't really make any sense. But if you wanted to critique that concept from a logical perspective, that result would be: "Yea, OK. But you already made the wrong choice by not being able to refrain from your sexual desires for 3 days out of the month. So why should society think you are capable of making the right choice when it comes to killing your child?"

In a society with an honest media, that would be the narrative. There would be a critique of silly propaganda, not the promotion of it.

It really isn't any different than a mentally delusional person demanding the "choice" to jump off a bridge because he has the "right" to fly.  

I've already written a pretty good piece on the abortion issue, so I won't go into it much. But it's important to understand that feminism isn't possible without abortion, which is why it's such a big deal:

Feminism can't exist without the option for abortion. Because women can't be completely sexually liberated without it. If women are held responsible for their promiscuity, then they can't be feminists, because they'll be home feeding their sex trophies. More so, they know that raising a kid on their own isn't easy, so they will look to bring in a man to help. That dynamic is known as a family. And families are what feminism is designed to destroy.

Women seem to think that men are taking their "right" to kill their child. But women never seem to grasp the concept of "rights." Where do they think "rights" came from? Do they grow on trees in the backyard? Do they become a piece of the human genome at conception? Or did white men come up with the concept when they were creating western civilization using white supremacy? In other words, the only reason women have any "rights" to begin with is because white men decided to give them "rights." The concept was based on "God given rights." Yet, these women are atheists. So, again the premise of rights was based on God and implemented by Man, but atheistic, misandrist women somehow think they should have a say in the matter.

Job 1:21 Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.

The liberal media also does this kind of gaslighting with gun control. They never, ever address the disproportionate amount of black gun violence. Or what gun violence data would look like if you excluded black gun violence. They just seed dumb propaganda that insinuates guns are the problem, and not the people shooting them. Speaking of which, the vast majority of black gun violence is committed with illegal guns. Again, it's just a really silly argument to be like, "Yea, if we made it harder for white people to buy guns legally, black people wouldn't kill so many people with illegal guns."

When you talk to people like they're stupid, only stupid people are going to listen.