The truth is Polly Dunning is the epitome of the third form of fake news – “The Failed Millennial Leftist Diary.” Merely one of millions of failed leftist millennials who cannot accept that, even with their precious liberal arts degrees, they are common, boring, and offer nothing of value to the world. Since they cannot accept this and their ego must be satiated, they go to the internet to journal about their “heroic journey” or “struggle” where they find other sympathetic, self-commiserating failed millennial leftists. But mere commiseration is not enough, so they resort to increasing levels of sensationalism, brown journalism, and radical story telling to get validation in the form of traffic and likes. Some, like Polly, get lucky and have one article go viral for 15 minutes of internet fame. Some get REALLY lucky and get an unpaid job at the Huffington Post. But they never get more followers, subscribers, or notoriety than a Bernard Chapin, a Robert Stacy McCain, or even myself because their stories and they themselves are unmentionably common.

So my question to all of you is this:

How much time did you and millions of other non-letists waste on these type of stories in 2016?

How many of you forwarded a Daily Mail article, shared a Polly Dunning-like story, or helped make the people at Vulture more profitable by actually believing the gay Rudolph story was real?

In September, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a scathing report on the use of forensic analysis and expertise in the criminal-justice system. The report, “Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods,” looked at pattern matching forensic disciplines such as bite mark matching, shoe print matching, blood spatter analysis, fingerprint matching and hair fiber analysis. It also looked at DNA testing when investigators find biological material from multiple sources, a scenario that can bring human subjectivity into the testing.

With the exception of single-source DNA testing, the report found serious deficiencies in all areas of forensics it studied.

The PCAST report was damning, but if you’ve been following these issues with any regularity, it wasn’t at all surprising. That was in September. It’s now January. And not only has the Obama administration done nothing about the report, the Justice Department has publicly denounced it. That report, along with others and an administration that seemed unusually equipped to take it seriously, presented a small window in which to reform a system. That window is about slam shut. And we’re about to be governed by a new administration that seems likely to board it up, wallpaper it and overlay it with brick. This wasn’t just a missed opportunity; it was a catastrophe. And it’s difficult to overstate the consequences.

. . . . .

There are other problems, too. With the exception of DNA testing and to some extent forensic pathology, most forensics fields were invented and developed by people with backgrounds in law enforcement, not in science. This is why crime labs, which claim to be scientific in nature and method, typically fall under the auspices of state police agencies, offices of the attorney general, departments of public safety and other law-enforcement-oriented bureaucracies.

So not only has forensics grown less scientific over time, it was never grounded in science to begin with.

. . . . .

And this is why Obama’s acquiescence to Lynch and the FBI is so maddening and utterly disappointing. This is an administration that claims to believe in science. The science here isn’t in dispute. It is clear and overwhelming. This is an administration that claims to care about justice. The injustices here aren’t in dispute. They are real and thoroughly documented. And they will almost certainly continue.

Examine your own life. Look at every aspect where you discriminate. Are you looking for a new flatmate? Do you want the power to be able to select the person who shares your home or would you prefer to have someone on the Left dictate to you whom the choice must be? If you want to pick them yourself then you discriminate against all those poor people that missed out. Aren’t you a heartless bastard!

No, you’re not. You are exercising your free right to choose in a free market society.

Choice is simply another word for discrimination.

It’s hard to demonize a simple word like choice because we all know what it means. Much easier to turn people against another word that means essentially the same thing but doesn’t seem to when presented in a deceitful manner.

Celebrate your own discrimination. Every time you choose something then you discriminate. It is your great freedom. In the Soviet Union you were barely able to choose anything. In Mao’s China you weren’t even allowed to choose your husband or wife. The state did it for you. Think about that the next time you walk past a fat chick with tattoos and blue hair.

For living in a multi-million dollar home in a neighborhood with only a 1.7% black population (the national average is 12.6%), she seems terribly concerned about racism. Do you think she has even met a black person during her residence in one of the most expensive zip codes in the United States? It is peculiar why someone who never sees black people would be so concerned about racism, unless of course she is an intolerable hypocrite who hasn’t yet checked her billionaire privilege.

. . . . .

Maybe one day we will encounter an enemy who is our intellectual equal, but today is not that day. Instead we must endure adult children who shriek out in pain as they strike us, whose blows effortlessly slide off us like water from a seal’s fur coat. And if Mark Zuckerberg is reading this right now, and there is a good chance he is because his arrogant sister bit off more than she could chew, I want him to know that she is now our “house ho.”

Mark, we have raped your sister’s mind with our ideas and our vigor. We have so burrowed a hole into her head that not a day goes by without her thinking of our ideology, our arguments, and our words.

You can do your worst on Facebook, and hide reality to your heart’s content, but you cannot even begin to stop us from wounding your own family. What goes around comes around—you’ve manipulated the minds of millions people who use Facebook, censoring the truth from them, and now we own the mind of your sister.

And I’d surely click the like button on that.

The reason white shitlibs excuse or sugarcoat the depraved violence of blacks is because they don’t really believe blacks have moral agency. And frankly, they’re right.

The races don’t share equal reserves of empathy, and blacks by their astounding level of dysfunction prove over and over that their moral compass doesn’t quite point as true north as that of Whites’. The issue with shitlibs is their rank hypocrisy and bad faith; instead of facing the reality of race differences, they choose instead to heap lies, libel, and calumny on other Whites for, apparently, the sin of insufficiently ignoring stunted black morality and for pilfering blacks of their moral agency through the alchemical magic of White privilege and racism.

Lawrence Auster (RIP) once astutely noted that blacks are a sacred object to white shitlibs, whose religion is anti-White Equalism (don’t bother squaring that circle). And the one thing you don’t do to a true believer is desecrate their sacred objects, or even just reveal them to be mere vessels of fallen man. White shitlibs are undergoing a heretical threat to their religion like none they’ve experienced before; and you know from history that when a zealot is cornered and disillusioned, and his icons thrown to the ground, he will lash out in rage and demand the heads of the infidels.

But here, Nat Geo is testing the waters, gauging the reaction of the public by making a direct endorsement of the fable of “transgenderism,” declaring that if children can choose their sexual identity, they are also fair game for being seen as responsible sexual beings.

Hence the open sexualisation of their image for pushing even more boundaries.

This “transgender child” is simply a lost boy in drag with virtue-signalling liberal parents that should be charged for child abuse. The boy can be seen sporting pink hair, entirely dressed in tight pink clothing and striking a lascivious pose in an armchair, his hand resting on his crotch as if he was caressing it. These sick minds cross a line by using innocent children as props.


Linkage: 10 January, 2017 #TheTriggering — No Comments

Leave a Reply