Quick Takes

I come across articles and videos in my day to day life where I have short opinion to express based on limited information.

Removal of Statues

Article reported the removal of Christopher Columbus statue from California state capitol in Sacramento.

Yeah. When you have a problem that isn’t a problem you get solutions that are not solutions. Racism is not a problem, and removing statues are not a solution to that problem if it were a problem. What they’ll do 10, 20, maybe 30 years from now is talk about how the removal of the statues represents a period of social change inspired by the outrage caused by the death (not murder) of George Floyd. That will be the reflection of historians. In reality it is an effort of the left and corporate America to pander to a baseless cause in an election year, which allows politicans and the interests they represent to increase their image to these portions of the population while not compromising their own interests, and not serving the interests of the people. The difference between myself and others is I live in idiocracy, while as far as I can tell all other people are some faction within this idiocracy and can only see the stupidity of other factions. Something I mention because I don’t want people to mistakenly associate with me with the stupid shit one of these factions believes simply because the truth happens to be with a faction on some issues or some point.

City of Milwaukee Mask Mandate

An article reported that Milwaukee city council will be convening to consider a mask ordinance.

My Comment:

That’s good, this means more sensible people in Milwaukee will choose to use goods and services outside the city to avoid having to wear a mask, which will not only impact Milwaukee businesses, but will also further the coming budget crisis. Yes unemployment and the closing of businesses impacts growth and individual opportunities. The other issue is when people don’t have money either through a reduction in business or not having a job they make fewer purchases, and when cities propose ordiances that cause consumers to make purchases elsewhere this impacts tax revenue. Federal government the budget doen’t really matter because the federal government can limitlessly sell treasury bonds, and if ever the government cannot sell enough treasury bonds to meet its budget obligations the fed can purchase the difference through a 3rd party.Cities and states do have actual budgets, where they are much more limited in their ability to sell bonds. Milwaukee, like Seattle and Chicago is doing will probably increase property taxes or increase taxes on businesses. This will make Milwaukee even less appealing and cause Milwaukee to continue to lose residents while other cities of similar size make gains. In the last 10 years Milwaukee has had a .5% decline in population, while the top 100 cities in the country by population (Milwaukee is between 20 and 30th largest city) have gained 9% while the cities most similar to Milwaukee of size have had increases of 10% or more. I’m glad to see shitty people, who elect shitty people, to get the shitty results they continue to support. In Milwaukee there is an activist group who actively seeks to impose on the economic functioning of the city, which prevents business from taking place and may drive some businesses out of Milwaukee. A week or two ago they shut down Mayfair Mall, and shortly after that they shut down the Cheesecake factory near Mayfair Mall. There was a video in the Cheesecake factory of an old elderly party of three trying to pay their bill and leave while stupid people were inside yelling. Many of the people who were there that day may never return to that location. Many people at Mayfair may never return to Mayfair Mall. Why would you when you could go to Southridge or Brookfield Square and not have your experience interupted by people yelling about problems that are not problems and offering solutions that are not solutions. Milwaukee will continue to be a shit hole because the people are shit. This is true to greater and less degrees for the state of Wisconsin, other states, the country, and the world. Finally, while most of you who are no better than your left wing antagonists continue to make shitty arguments about efficiency and dubious health claims about wearing masks, the controversy is settled through the reasoning that masks are effective. If masks are effective each person can mitigate their risk of infection by wearing a mask, and the act of anyone not wearing a mask does not increase the risk of being infected for people who choose to wear a mask. There’s no basis for a mandate because restrictions are lawful to protect the safety of the public, and since each member of the public can protect his or herself by wearing a mask, mandating masks does not protect members of the public from the virus who choose to wear a mask. Let’s get that mandate passed, anything that can decrease the opportunities of people and keep Milwaukee a place where people do not want to be. Irrational, backwards, dumbass species, everyday I get to see the results of your stupidity. Not only Covid-19, not only the left, but this whole self deceiving, image seeking, no conception of cause and effect species.

Respect for the Flag

Video showed a clip of an American Flag picture taped to the floor. The poster claimed these were foreign students and for the 10 to 15 seconds of footage supplied it showed people walking around the US flag print on the ground. The poster asked if we could trade American students who hate the flag for foreign students who respected it.

1st Comment: Orion Simerl: There are plenty of reasons to step on the flag. The right has their dellusions the same as the left. The right believes the national indoctrination of the intentions with which this country was founded and operates. (http://orioncs.net/founding-intents-of-the-united-states/) Any symbol embodies the action of the people and institutions it represents. Ideas of liberty, justice, and opportunity are associated with the country, but domestically as well as in foreign policy the country operates plutocratically. Candidates are selected by money on boths sides, meaning no matter who is elected government functions to advance the interests of wealth and industry. This is by design. The advancement of the interests of wealth and industry create obstructions, hinderances, and imposition on the interests of the underclasses. We can quantify this through measurements of economic inequality, deaths through invasion, coups, US supported repressive regimes, and the general circumstances of people around the world which is largely a product of US hedgemony. More specifically, we can show the interests that benefited from and supported a policy, and how people were affected by that policy to qualify and quantify the United States as a tyrant state. Those who benefit from the system blindly support it, like most of you. Those who are imposed on by US policy have an aversion to tyranny and seek to desacrate the symbol of tyranny. The same way many of you would step on, burn, spit on or do some other disrespectful thing to a Nazi or Soviet flag, so do those who recognize the US flag as a symbol of tyranny do to yours.

2nd Comment: Wayne Hatton@Orion Simerl In America there are legal ways to make your point and settle differences. Walking on or Burning the Flag is never advisable. The Flag is a piece of cloth but what it represents is important to every American , it gives Honor to All that has Served in the Armed Forces and Special Honer to those that gave their lives from the Revolution to the Wars in the Middle East. So you are not only disrespecting that piece of cloth but the Memory and Honor of those that never returned. There fore stepping on Old Glory does not fly with an American Veteran.

3rd Comment: Orion Simerl@Wayne HattonThat wasn’t my point that the flag was a piece of cloth and that is why it is okay to desecrate it. My point is that whatever it represents to you personally through your nationalist bias, it doesn’t change the objective tyranny that it is a symbol of. It doesn’t change that the armed forces are instruments of tyranny abroad regardless of the pretext for the conflict, or the false purposes they think they are serving. I understand the flag may mean something to veterans, and most veterans serve because joining the military was the best economic opportunity they had. Most if they understood what their efforts were aimed at accomplishing wouldn’t have served. This is largely the purpose of my critical comments, because the myth of American goodness encourages people to participate in imposing tyranny. I also commented because people should understand that disrespect to the flag has a valid basis. If you want your flag and the sacrifice of your military members to be respected then your nation and military has to operate on respectful values. The problem isn’t with people being disrespectful to the symbol of good, but being disrespectful to a symbol of tyranny, even if that disrespect extends to people who died to impose that tyranny on others. With that said, I typically do not disrespect the flag not because I think it is wrong to do, but because it doesn’t serve productive purposes.

Call to Prayer

There was a call to prayer where conservative activists scheduled a prayer meeting at the captiol. They quoted Ephesians 6:12: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. There are responses to my comment.

Comment 1: Orion Simerl: LOL. I love that verse from Ephesians because of just how observably untrue it is. I didn’t see any “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms”, as the omitted portion of the verse asserts, I saw beings of flesh and blood, who are motivated by repeated assertions of racism and police brutality for which they cannot provide evidence to substantiate their claims. Flesh and blood that benefits from other flesh and blood believing things that are untrue. The same way flesh and blood benefits from how you believe things like the bible that are untrue. Quoting sources like Ephesians, which is a letter of unknown origins, along with 5 other epistiles that bear Paul’s name that were written by someone other than Paul, based on syntax, terminology, or eschatology. It feels good to believe its true. The same way it feels good for people to get together around other false ideas like systemic racism that doesn’t exist or the assertion of isolated and questionable incidents of excessive force. The function is the same (believing a lie for the feelings of social interaction and the feelings that the idea produces), the subjects are just different. That’s to say that functionally, you are all exactly the same as the people on the otherside. I respect your right to believe whatever irrational thing you choose to believe, and I hope you respect my right to point out how willfully ignorant and stupid you are for believing such things. You’re part of the problem, you just like different things then other parts of the problem.

Comment 2: Kath Magee@Orion Simerl wow. Uncalled for.

Comment 3: Orion Simerl@Kath Magee In what way is it uncalled for? Because information that challenges what you believe causes you to feel bad? The group is called Liberty, Freedom, Community, Rally & Action Page. Self deception imposes on liberty, compromsing both motivation (as people like things they wouldn’t like if they knew what was true about them) and know how (as a false understanding of circumstances prevents people from navigating those circumstances to produce desired results i.e prayer to fictional deity is going to lead to improvements). It’s called for based on the designated purpose of the group, but I’m always interested in hearing other interpretations which is why my response began with questions.

Comment 4: Kath Magee@Orion Simerl it’s uncalled for to call someone “willfully ignorant and stupid.” You want to disagree, do it without name calling and disrespect.

Comment: 5: Orion Simerl@Kath Magee It isn’t disrespect or name calling it is sharing of observations. Those words have meanings that I qualified in the substance of my comment. Where I explained that people believe things that are untrue because it causes them to feel good. This is willful ignorance, willful because they are motivated by the feeling of a false belief and ignorance because the good feeling causes them to self decieve to avoid learning. As I mentioned this willful ignorance not only affects everyone in the prevention of communication, but also affects their own liberty. Stupidity is defined as: having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense. Since everyone wants to do what they want to do, it is stupid to impose on your own liberty or “showing a great lack of…common sense”. I haven’t name called or disrespected anyone, I have shared an observation that applies based on the defintion of words.

Comment 6: Madison Marie@OrionSimerl Here you are deterring people from finding out their own beliefs and inserting your own.You never asked what I/we believe and just assumed Christians believe all the things you say and condemn. Religion and personal convictions go way deeper than what you seem to assume here.You say you respect people’s right to choose whatever thing they choose to believe, there is no respect there.

Comment 7: Orion Simerl@Madison Marie As expected, your opinion doesn’t apply to anything in my comments. “Deterring people from finding their own beliefs”? A comment that points out the contradictions between what is asserted in the post and the world we live in isn’t deterring people from finding their own beliefs. It is the opposite, it is showing that the beliefs are inconsistent with the observable world which gives people an opportunity to “find their own beliefs” rather than mindlessly continue in a beliefs that serve a bad purpose for the believer and the world around them. This is like me factually challenging the mortality rate of Covid-19 and you saying I’m deterring people from finding their own beliefs. There are general tenets of Christianity, I was a Christian when I was younger, prepared bible studies at the House of Corrections, and am much more knowledgable about both theology, the texts, and the history of the texts than most people who profess Christianity as their faith. What things did I say or condemn that do not represent what you believe? That prayer is ineffective? That you cite texts that you don’t know who the creator of those texts are. A text that most scholors believe was written between 80 and 100AD, 15 to 35 years after Paul’s death? Those are the only two assertions I made about what you/them believe. Religion and personal convictions do go deep, where feelings associated with parents and other relationships as well as ideas from trusted individual’s are transfered to the religion and personal convictions. When these beliefs are challenged not only does it compromise the value of the beliefs itself, it compromises the value of all the people and ideas associated with the belief and the value the believer has to themself. This is why it hurts or creates offense. I respect people’s right to believe what they want to believe but that doesn’t mean I have to like it or be silent about the consequences of those beliefs. The issue you have is you/they believe things that are untrue and are harmful to yourself and others, so the truth offends your bias. Or if you prefer, “it’s hard to kick against the pricks”.

Comment 8: Tatiana Fomitcheva@Orion Simerl WOW! it’s quite a few words you put together. i am impressed.And again you use too many words but analogies and conclusions and observations you’ve made are questionable…. to me 🤗 Besides I don’t understand to what exactly you sooooo opposed ? People want to pray/meditated . It’s going to be synchronized ( at the same time) and they agreed what they are going to pray about. What seems to be a problem, hon? Are you worried that it’s actually going to work/help?If you think it’s a stupid idea then what’s here to worry about?It’s peoples wish, it’s they choice what they want to do in this moment of life.

Comment 9: Orion Simerl@Tatiana Fomitcheva If anything I stated was questionable you would have addressed those questionable points with questions or rebuttals, the same as I’ve done with every assertion that has been made in response to my comment. The opinion that elements of my comment are questionable isn’t validated by any substance and is empty. What I’m opposed to was clearly stated in the comments where dedicating time and energy to a superstition does not accomplish the stated objective: “We need you and your energy to help bring Gods love and light to Madison Wisconsin and help it wash away the chaos, instability and fear.” 1: It’s a waste of time and enegy that could be better spent in other ways to “wash away the chaos, instability and fear. 2: More importantly, these superstions are harmful generally, where people believe inaction (prayer) contributes to effects in the world when they do not. It also serves as a false existential explanation that affects thinking, perception, and behavior that has implications for liberty generally. Since you cannot address any of the points directly you respond with baseless opinions. The assertion that I am opposed to it is an implication of what I wrote but doesn’t speak to substance. I’m not opposed to it in the sense that I’m trying to prevent people from participating. I’m sure it will be a good time for those who accept the superstition. I’m just using it as an opportunity to present an example of human functioning and to point out how ridiculous the idea is if you visit my original comment. Other points made were in response to commenters like yourself who being unable to refute the points of offense, presented non-sequiter arguements to feel better about themselves after seeing things in my comment they would have rather not seen. Those two points about what Im opposed to about the action or the beliefs represent a very small portion of what I am opposed concerning religion generally. Christianity and other religions are immoral because they impose rules against acts that are unimposing, and serve as the basis of authority based thinking. Where things are obeyed or accepted as fact not because they serve the interest of the individual or the collective, but are accepted based on consequence, either a negative result or the expectation of a positive result. Parents and religion serve as the basis for this mode of thinking, and it is at the center of the corruption of human functioning. It is what produces the results you see. Unfortunately, another reason I am opposed to your superstitions, is because your superstitions assert that the results you see on this planet come from things other than the creatures on this planet and the physical laws of the universe. For which there is no evidence for, and obstructs the process of producing better results. This comment is already much longer than I wanted it to be, but I will make one less point as it relates to an internal contradiction to your doctrine. God created man with the gift of free will. This means that if god intervenes either good or bad in the affairs of man, he has imposed on the free will of his creation. Which is why the idea that god answers prayers contradicts the assertion that god gave human beings free will. Free will is an observation, whereas the rest of the bible, new testament and old, contradict this tenet of the monotheistic religions: Judism, Islam, and Christianity.

Comment 10: Tatiana Fomitcheva I haven’t even read it but thank you. What you write Orion Simerl it’s more for you then for me or somebody else.

Comment 11: Orion SimerlTatiana Fomitcheva Of course, because you value the feelings associated with your perception more than you value truth, so your bias precludes from the benefit you would derrive from what I write. However, since I use these exchanges as material for my website, there is an opportunity for it to benefit others who are not contaminated from the same bias as yourself and others in this group.

Facebook Meme

The Meme consisted of Quaker Oats changing it’s name to Shaquelle O’atmeal, and featured a picture of the Quaker Oats logo next to a picture of Shaquelle O’neal in the Quaker Oats hat. The meme appeared to be making a mockery of the idea that brand logos are racist and I commented the following which was worthwhile enough to post here:

Apparently it’s racist to imply that black people make quality food products by using black people as the logo for your product, like Aunt Jamima, Mrs. Butterworth, and Uncle Ben. The makers of these brands considering rebranding to associate their products with popular opinion. I explained these functions when I wrote to the poor people’s campaign, (http://orioncs.net/ppcemail/) which is less about poor people and more a wing of the democratic party to encourage poor people to vote for democrats who are not going to serve their interests, as opposed to republicans who also are not going to serve their interests. I explained that popularity around an idea like a balance stimulus (http://orioncs.net/balance-stimulus/) would cause corporate America to support it to increase the appeal of their brand. Associating their brand with popular causes transfers value of the cause onto their brand. This is how the public can exercise power in a plutocracy.

You stupid MFs want to keep pushing a race narrative so they don’t have to support anything that increases people’s quality of life. Really, Aunt Jamima is racist? It’s racist to suggest that Aunt Jamima knew how to throw together a quality maple syrup and some pancakes? Uncle Ben and Mrs. Buttworth are probably bullshiting, because they get the same benefit with the consumer regardless of whether they actually change anything through the press release that they’re reviewing it. You cannot show systemic racism, not by the police, and not in any relevant opportunity: employment, education, credit, housing, and services. You have to redefine what racism is in order to come up with examples, like brand logos, or even noticing that a person belongs to a certain race. Last year an announcer was suspended for noting that Lamar Jackson’s dark tone makes it difficult for the defense to see the ball when he play fakes. This is an observation, one that Richard Sherman confirmed, and people called this racist. In order to justify the cause they need to assert it everywhere it can possibly be asserted, and when examples are in short supply they change the definition of the word by applying it to acts that don’t meet the definition.

Racism is relevant when it leads to the denial of opportunity based on race or results in different treatment based on race. How many racist people do you know? I’d speculate that black people know more racists than white people since it is socially acceptable for black people to be racist, and this also accounts for why black people think white people are racist. If you primarily associate with people of your race who are racist then it is a logical inference that all races are racist when their around their own. It isn’t true, but it is what a person who associates primarily with racists would believe about other races. How many racists do you know, definitively, not speculatively? How many times has a person been shitty to you for seemingly no reason? How many times would you have thought they were being racist if they had been a different color? I don’t know any racists, and I don’t think I’ve ever observed any racism, where someone was denied opportunity or treated differently based on race. Not only do you not have systemic racism, but personal racism is very infrequent as well.

I hope everybody is sleeping better at night knowing Aunt Jamima will no longer be sold as Aunt Jamima, people have brighter futures because statues have been removed, or your quality of life will be great if the police are defunded. You get these meaningless gestures from politicians and corporations that do nothing to improve anyone’s life. Congratulations, the problem that is not a problem is solved with solutions that are not solutions. Time, energy, resources, and attention is directed to an objective that does not improve anyone’s life.

You have people like Frank Nitty II living a life as a brand not a man. By that I mean a few weeks before the George Floyd (http://orioncs.net/george-floyd/) incident he’s recording himself talking about “we’re out here risking our life to vote”. Then he’s in the midst of large crowds with empty sloganism talking about a problem that isn’t a problem with a solution that isn’t a solution. It’s all image seeking and the inherent benefits of social interaction, it has nothing to do with improving people’s quality of life, which is liberation. Image seeking where an individual’s behavior is determined by how he believes acts will improve his image to others. The inherent benefits of social interaction being the feelings that come from interacting socially, feelings from belonging to a group, as well as feelings from moral ideas associated with the collective good. There’s no substance to the cause otherwise they would know the basis for their position and would no that there is no basis. They would understand functions and what produces the issues and have solutions to issues that limit people’s quality of life. Instead they seek out information that reinforces the misconceptions of their causes for the value that information has to improving their image within their group. If you understood function you would know that the less money a childs family makes regardless of race, the greater the liklihood that this child will end up in prison in their 30s. You’d be focused on putting money in people’s pockets, not removing statues and trying to defund the police. Clowns. Which means what you’re doing is for entertainment purposes only.

Perceiving Objective Reality

I saw an article recently that I’m unable to find about a study that claims human beings cannot see reality objectively. The experiment seemed to involve describing a picture and maybe visually human beings cannot see images objectively, but human beings can perceive objective reality. By understanding the causes that produce results at points of action. It doesn’t matter if visually people see something different, so long as the function observed is agreed upon. Visually, an individual’s understanding of an image or series of images will vary based value oriented purposes, but this doesn’t affect the perception of objective reality since varying descriptions can be agreement at points of action where function takes place. Understanding cause is to see reality objectively.

Rashard Brooks Summary

This is a difficult event for me because it isn’t as clear cut as most cases with video are. Whether the use of deadly force was lawful is open to opinion. It was interesting that the state attorney prosecuting the officer stated that Brooks was not an immediate threat to life which is the standard in the criteria. The reasoning was because a taser is not a deadly weapon the suspect was not an immediate thereat to life. The criteria for deadly force in poor lives matters defines an immediate threat to life as a clear identification of the means to end life, and where there is no step for an officer to intervene prior to a supect creating a lethal result. Among the notes on applying this criteria is the exception to means. One example is if a suspect is fighting the officer and tries to grab his weapon, there is no step for an officer to invervene once the suspect procures his weapon. Therefore the suspect is an immediate threat in the act of attempting to obtain the officer’s weapon, despite not being possessed of the means.

Rayshard Brooks represents that same immediate threat to the officer since if the officer is tazed he is immobilzed and the suspect may attempt to grab his weapon while he is incapacitated by the taser. At that moment he is pointing the taser at the suspect he is an immediate threat since there is no opportunity to intervene if the officer is incapcitated.

I cannot tell from the video when the officer fired his weapon, but the suspect fell to the ground only a few steps from where he was when he appeared to fire the taser. It is possible to me that he had already decided to shoot the suspect when the taser was pointed at him, and the firing of the taser prompted him to shoot. As I answered the person in the comments, if you have a gun and someone is pointing a taser at you what are you going to do?

According to the criteria it is a valid argument that the officer shot the suspect after he fired and missed with the taser, meaning Brooks was no longer an immediate threat life, and the use if deadly force is unlawful. Under the criteria the officer would face a sentence of up to 10 years if convicted. The reason for the distinction is officers enforcing the laws on behalf of the public are put in situations where suspects resist and they are required to use force. In performing a public service they constantly put in situations where mistakes can be made. When it is a mistake there still must be a severe consequence for the action, but it isn’t the same as intending to cause harm or death. Which is why the criteria also makes the distinction between an unlawful use of deadly force and a grossly unlawful use of deadly force where the criteria isn’t even being considered and there is intent to harm. In those situation the officer is charged with the appropreate statute. (Criteria for Deadly Force)

I personally believe the officers use of deadly force was lawful and appropreate based on the video. Primarily because I think about what I would do or what most people would do in that situation, and I think most people would have shot him. I also think people who have biases against law enforcement which by now is most of the population would say he wasn’t an immediate threat to life after he fired the taser. The is one case where there are two equally valid positions based on the criteria, but I believe the officer was correct in perceiving an immediate threat since if tased, the suspect could have taken his weapon. Since the shots were fired so quickly after the taser was fired, it seems like an extension of the previous perception and the firing of the taser may have prompted the reaction.

Dr. Phil: “Women Who Vote for Trump are Damaged”.

I saw this headline and I didn’t bother to read the article since the opinion itself can be shown to be incorrect regardless of the explanation. How many people who allow him to think for them will be parroting this illconceived opinion as if it is fact?

It’s true most people vote based on personality and other non-substanative issues. However, some people vote based on policy and it how it affect their personal interest. Some people vote not in support of a candidate or even a political party, but simply because they dislike what the otherside is promotiong. Whatever the explanation is, if it be because Trump is chauvenistic, is manipulative, deceptive, or possesses any other personality trait that only “damaged” women value, none of it is relevant when you’re voting based on policy.

If you’re voting based on tax policy, policing, immigration, or any number of other policies you’re not voting for Trump, you’re voting for these policies that will be marginally different under a democratic president. If you’re voting against the exaggeration of discrimination based on race, sex, and sexuality, and against wasteful spending, then you’re not voting for Trump you’re voting against those policies and the advancement of those ideas.

Seattle’s Autonomous Zone

An autonomous zone anywhere in the United States is secession from the union, and not the mayor of a city, or a governor of a state can authorize a portion of their jurisdiction to secede from the United States. Trump should send in the national guard to restore the union. This is not only the right of the president but the responsibility of the president. Locally the mayor and governor probably prefer this arrangement to on going protests. It gives the children an opportunity to play government instead of disrupting public life blocking public roads and walkways, destroying property, and stealing property. Unfortunately what they are allowing is illegal and could develop into something much worse than using force to quell the riots. The longer they allow this to pacify the children the more entrenched the children become. If they begin to amass weapons and resist when they are removed, there isn’t much difference between a compound in Waco, and buildings in Seattle. Politicans have no principles and no respect for the rule of law. Every issue is perceived as an opportunity to improve their image to the public. That is why the governor of Washington and the mayor of Seattle are allowing these things to take place.

Patriots Plan to Retake Seattle Autonomous Zone

There may be no truth to the post, but I saw a post that outlined a plan for truckers to block off I-5 while patriots removed the protestors from their autonomous zone.

I commented: That would be very cool if it happend, but I’m doubful it will happen. If it did it would represent the people of this country defending the integrity of their union and upholding the constiution against secession. Doing this when their elected representatives on the city, state, and federal level have allowed citizens rights to life, liberty, and property to be imposed on by factions because politicans tresonously support a portion of the country seceding.


There was a post in the Whole Milwaukee Reloaded Business Edition featuring a screen shot of a racist post on Facebook. The post stated that black people are criminals, and my comment was in response to that assertion. She also claimed that 75% of black children are conceived out of wedlock, and I don’t know if this is true, but even if it isn’t necessarily a negative thing. It would tell us that black people have a lower value of the idea of marriage and perhaps a higher value of liberty as a racial collective. Statistics that imply that children who come from a wed household have whatever disadvantages are most likely a product of economic disparities, where children born to wed parrents are probably more likely to have financial stability. The following is what I commented.

There are some very ignorant and inaccurate opinions expressed here. Saying black people commit the acts mentioned above implies that more than half of black people commit those acts for it to be culturally representive of the black community. That is not accurate. While black people do commit a disproportionate amount of crime, they are also disproportionately impoverished. Poverty and low income produces circumstances that cause people to commit crimes. (http://orioncs.net/the-racist-myth-in-criminal-justice/) This is a human function not a black function.

While black people are disproportionately impoverished where over 8 million black people are living in poverty in the United States, there are far more white people overall who are impoverished: over 18 million. Black people are disproportionately poor and in poverty because of past systemic racism. Black people were denied income opportunities, educational opportunities, housing opportunities, and other services conducive to establishing a worthwhile income. As a result they were not able to pass wealth down to their progeny, in a system where opportunties not denied through race are difficult to create when you’re poor. Developmental disadvantages as well as material disadvantage.

Why are white people poor? Because opportunities not denied through race are difficult to create when you’re poor. When the money you earn is only enough to meet your expenses you also do not have anything to pass down to your progeny, and development is also hindered by material deficiencies that compromise the household and well being of the child. Welcome to being poor and white poor black people. That is where you’ve arrived.

Unfortunately, activists, politicans, the media, and some black people see personal advantageous in promoting a precivil rights act platform in a post civil rights act world. Activist organizers earn money through the promotion of the cause while all members are rewarded with good feelings that come from social interaction, group belonging, and moral affirmations from believing they are advancing ideas associated with liberation. Politicans assert the problem so they can be against the problem which serves their purpose of improving their image before the public. Racially charged stories attract attention so the media focuses on these stories and implies racial motivation because the media earns money based on the attention they can attract. The same as all people, poor black people want an explanation for why they cannot get ahead in “the land of opportunity”. They accept that it is race because they want to, without understanding if the assertion is true or not. Liberal white people who haven’t had any exposure to poor white people or had their own interactions where they were treated differently or unable to access opportunity based on class, they accept the opinions of the aforementioned as fact.

We look at this womans post and if we presume it is real what causes this post? The constant nonsensical unsubstantiated claims of racial disadvantage and white priviledge. There is no white priviledge for poor white people, and there are over 4x more poor white people than there are poor black people. (bottom 40% of wealth distribution. http://orioncs.net/poor-white-sasquatch/). Presenting solutions that are not solutions for problems that are not problems is fueling a divide among people who should be united because they have common problems and common interests. What you see above is a product of the perpetuation of the myth that systemic racism exists in the United States. The promotion of racial disadvantage is creating racist people, white and black. If such a disadvantage could be objectively qualified it would not have this effect. Racial disparities in statistical analysis exist because black people are disproportionately poor due to past systemic racism, so a greater proportion of white people are advantaged. However, if you compare poor black people to poor white people there is no disparity. Disadvantage is class based not race based.

The first solution is a Balance Stimulus (http://orioncs.net/balance-stimulus/).

People can’t figure out why they can’t win an arguement with me. They think they are going to say something I haven’t thought of. It isn’t that I’ve thought of everything but I’m talking about functions because there are no random occurances, there are causes and effects. I’m already at all the points of action, I know the relevant points of controversy, and I know and can explain how what you’re saying isn’t objectively relevant, is based on a misconception or is lacking context. You’re talking about opinons and I’m talking about function. The truth is understanding how any result you see is an effect of other causes and will be the cause of other effects: spatially, morally, and in assignments of truth and personal value. My issue is my material is the truth and nobody seems to know what the truth is.