The right to bear weapons is the ultimate key to freedom ; this right is not understood by the demonstrators, and by the social movements in general who see “ideals of equality” but leave to other people i.e. the State the task of enforcing them, and believe that it is through redistribution, infringements to economic freedom in general that they will make this equality happen as of course these movements hate in fact freedom and seek to achieve control over peoples’ lives. Fighting for “justice for Blacks” becomes in fact mostly an attempt at undermining the core institutions of the State and organizing a communist revolution or at least zones of anarchy for pillaging, as it happened in many cities.
I do not want to enter into the particular case of the crime of Derek Chauvin, dealt here. But there is a movement known as Black Guns Matter which is right ; when you have a just reason to use force, you will aim well, and precisely, because you have avoided as much as possible the enemy before, and that enemy, if it nevertheless keeps on seeking conflict, will expose itself as it attacks or prepare to attack and you will be able to aim at sensible parts and render it unable to attack anymore in reply. This is a direct consequence of the non-aggression principle… President Trump who defends the Second Amendment contributes to making this possible – unlike the campaigners eager to dismantle it. Sigmund Freud underlined how fear of weapons testifies of a strong sexual and emotional immaturity.
You don’t fight racism by taking poses in front of cameras, like sitting on your knees or raising a fist ; you fight it by stopping to think, first, in terms of colours, by rejecting positive rights (like increasing marks for people of colour, preferential access to universities etc.), and by simply thinking of universal rights which are the negative rights, by promoting economic freedom in general. There is a Republican principle, in this, in France, where we try to be “colour-blind”. This is a core principle, to me. With the final disappearance of the State, after the emergence of private defense enterprises, what I hope to see happening 50 years from now, we go around the debate of nationhood (soil vs. parents). In a truly free market, anyone can conform all decisions to beliefs, you, as owner of a private shop, can set your criteria of selling as you want, based on the customer. Racism is a right, what matters is only the non-aggression principle, and primacy of the private contracts of course. Systems will progressively emerge and the systems most fit will survive.
There is a wide array of genetic diversity in humans, wider than for the average animal, we humans obviously come from different groups that expanded and merged (not only Sapiens but also Neanderthalensis, other groups…), some people certainly believe there are “deeper rivalries between genetic groups that drive long-term diplomatic trends”, will imagine that Communist China is the “representative of the Denisovian” for instance, people can think whatever they want, this is really ridiculous, but beyond even the theory, first, we have few archaeological findings, tend to build worlds around them and these worlds collapse regularly with new findings that break the beliefs ; second, I tend to see these groups, also, based on the issues of natural radioactivity & climate, the map of Neanderthalensis findings seems to correspond quite well to areas of high natural radioactivity (like the Massif Central and the Eifel valley), Neanderthalensis could simply be a coherent cluster of mutations in a common ancestor i.e. adaptation to the constant internal inflammation due to higher average intake of alpha-emitting nanoparticulates (so the body mass grows, thanks to stem cell work in bone, cartilage etc. to be able to support longer periods without elimination and this passes to new generations, simply !). I maintain that such genes are still among us (Neanderthalensis never really disappeared) and why would one actually want to discriminate these genes ? That’s stupid. But there are people who desperately try to construct scapegoats because they nurture the will to build legitimacy for activities of extraction, through violence, against such scapegoats ; at least, shall I say, there is a long-term rule of natural justice against such people. Likewise for the campaigners who want to manipulate everything around some cause and reduce economic freedom strongly ; how can we have a mayor, Mr Frey from Minneapolis, who is on the left of the left and has a wife in lobbying, is “advocacy and law” (his wife’s business) really a concept from the Left ? What is she selling except ways to go around the requirements set by her husband ? It’s very obviously a simple case of extractive regime.