Gated communities won’t save you

Vibrancy devoured a nice Florida family despite their community’s gates:

Two men were beaten to death and a woman was seriously injured late Thursday during an attack at a home in a gated Windermere community while a 10-year-old boy called authorities while hiding in a bathroom, police said.

The double homicide happened at a home in the 2900 block of Sunbittern Court in the Lake Crescent Reserve community, which is just south of Lake Crescent and north of Park Avenue and Lake Butler Boulevard.

Windermere police said Ezekiel Emanuel Hopkins pushed the community’s gate open with his car then tried to steal a car from the home when he was confronted by the homeowners, John and Lisa Savey.

Police said Hopkins attacked Savey and beat him to death with a baseball bat outside the home. Hopkins then went inside the home, where he beat Lisa Savey and her son, James Savey, who was killed, according to police.

War is upon you, whether you will have it or not. And gates will accomplish little without armed men standing watch upon them to keep out the invaders.

Are you ready for this?

Fred Reed is not optimistic about the summer of 2020:

Hoo-boy. She’s ready to explode, go high order. Smoking ruins, dead bodies, seething hatreds, and a country that can’t be put back together. It may not happen, but she looks ready.

No one is in charge in this collapsing shell game of a country. In Louisville hundreds of armed blacks threaten to “burn the motherfucker down,” meaning Louisville, if they don’t get their way. All cringe before them, with reason. They have guns. Larger numbers marched in Georgia, armed, ready to rock and roll. BLM says it will “go into the suburbs” to get Whitey. Who will stop them? Not the government. It fears them. Weimar Kentucky. An American Freikorps.

America today in video. Scroll down to the New York footage. It’s Planet of the Apes.

So racist. I am literally shaking.

BLM wants to go into the suburbs to get Whitey. God help us. Then it will well and truly blow. BLM doesn’t know how many white men are sick of the chaos and destruction, sick of BLM. They quietly say, “Bring it on. Let’s settle it.” 

Better sooner than later, I suppose. It’s not as if the demographics are going to improve their chances over time.

Setting them up

I don’t know exactly what he has in mind here, but it should turn out to be more than a little entertaining:

With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???
– Donald J. Trump

I’ll be very surprised if he doesn’t turn out to have had something up his sleeve this entire time. It’s not like Creepy Joe is going to beat him anyhow. The polls are totally meaningless at this point. I can still remember when Dukakis was supposedly leading Bush, 55-38, on July 26, 1988, prior to losing 53.4 to 45.6. That was a 24.8-point change between the end of July and the beginning of November.

Democrat Joe Biden maintains a seven point national lead over President Donald Trump among registered voters for the November 2020 election, 48 percent to 41 percent.  

Note that Biden’s putative lead is ten points less than Dukakis’s nominal 17-point lead. So, we’re still looking at a Trumpslide, perhaps even a historic one.

Nationalism intensifies

And it has a soundtrack. Speaking of nationalism, I’m told that the Man in Black at the beginning is one of Mongolia’s Olympic champions. I don’t know about you, but that makes me want to saddle up and ride with the Golden Horde against the globalists trying to eliminate the nations. I wouldn’t have thought they could have topped The Great Chinggis Khan, but they did, and they did it without breaking a sweat.

The Men of the West should be as proud of their nations and heritages as the Mongols are of theirs. To Hell with civnattery.

What else are they lying about, Seth?

Seth Rogen belatedly discovers that there were people living in Palestine before the Jews arrived:

I also think that as a Jewish person… I was fed a huge amount of lies about Israel my entire life,” he said. “You know, they never tell you, that oh by the way, there were people there.” 

It’s a bit ironic, considering that the information is right there on Wikipedia. In the 1931 census of Palestine – which, by the way, has been the proper name for the region since the Romans merged its province of Judea with the province of Syria to form Syria Palaestina in 135 Anno Domini – Jews made up 18 percent of the population since there were 174,610 Jewish Palestinians and 794,658 non-Jewish Palestinians.

That was a considerably increase from their population just 11 years before, when the British government published its Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine

There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ. Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or—a small number—are Protestants. The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions.

Does this demographic history negate Israel’s right to exist by virtue of its right of conquest? Of course not, anymore than the right of the United States to exist is negated by the conquest and dispossession of the American Indian tribes. But any time a group of people feel it is necessary to lie about their own history, it naturally calls into question both a) their motivations and b) their veracity concerning other historical matters.

Cancel Culture vs the Chicago Way

Chicago may not be what it once was, but it appears there are still some representatives of old school Chicago surviving today:

My July 22 column was titled “Something grows in the big cities run by Democrats: An overwhelming sense of lawlessness.”

It explored the connections between soft-on-crime prosecutors and increases in violence along with the political donations of left-wing billionaire George Soros, who in several states has funded liberal candidates for prosecutor, including Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx.

Soros’ influence on these races is undeniable and has been widely reported. But in that column, I did not mention Soros’ ethnicity or religion.

You’d think that before wildly accusing someone of fomenting bigoted conspiracy theories, journalists on the union’s executive board would at least take the time to Google the words “Soros,” “funding” and “local prosecutors.”

As recently as February, the Sun Times pointed out roughly $2 million in Soros money flowing to Foxx in her primary election effort against more law-and-order candidates.

In August 2016, Politico outlined Soros’ money supporting local DA races and included the view from opponents and skeptics that if successful, these candidates would make communities “less safe.”

From the Wall Street Journal in November 2016: “Mr. Soros, a major backer of liberal causes, has contributed at least $3.8 million to political action committees supporting candidates for district attorney in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, Texas and Wisconsin, according to campaign filings.”

The Huffington Post in May 2018 wrote about contributions from Soros and Super PACs to local prosecutor candidates who were less law-and-order than their opponents.

So, it seems that the general attitude in journalism is that super PACs and dark money are bad, unless of course, they’re operated by wealthy billionaires of the left. Then they’re praised and courted.

All of this is against the backdrop of an America divided into camps, between those who think they can freely speak their minds and those who know they can’t.

Most people subjected to cancel culture don’t have a voice. They’re afraid. They have no platform. When they’re shouted down, they’re expected to grovel. After the groveling, comes social isolation. Then they are swept away.

But I have a newspaper column.

Never submit to cancel culture, in any form. You might think you’re alone, but you’re not. Everyone else is just waiting for someone, anyone, to stand up to their malicious attempts to bully everyone.

Patreon denied preliminary injunction

From the Superior Court of San Francisco:



There was also a hearing in Owen’s arbitration concerning Patreon’s motion for summary judgment today. That ruling won’t be given until next week, but based on what the lawyers have said, I think it is very, very unlikely that the arbitrator isn’t going to permit the arbitration to proceed to the final hearing.

So far, so good. Especially in light of the Commerce Department filing a petition to prevent the social media platforms from performing their little publisher/platform dance to avoid responsibility for their own actions.

The text of the judge’s order denying the injunction and declining to interfere in the 72 arbitrations has been posted publicly and can be read below. It is essentially the tentative ruling plus the judge addressing Patreon’s additional citations; read the whole thing for a good understanding of where the situation stands at this point in the process.



Patreon seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants “from continuing to pursue improper claims against Patreon in JAMS arbitration,” pending this Court’s consideration and final adjudication of Patreon’s complaint for declaratory judgment. Defendants are individual claimants in 72 pending JAMS arbitration proceedings against Patreon. Patreon claims that those claims are barred by its Terms of Use because they involve nonarbitrable claims. Patreon’s request for a preliminary injunction is denied, for several reasons.

First, Patreon fails to show that it will suffer any irreparable injury or interim harm if an injunction does not issue. JAMS has agreed to determine the threshold jurisdictional issues Patreon raises and will afford Patreon an opportunity to object to its jurisdiction in the course of the arbitration proceedings. If Patreon is correct that Defendants’ claims are not arbitrable or are outside the scope of the parties’ agreements, the arbitrators presumably will rule in its favor on those issues. Merely having to incur expense in order to participate in arbitration proceedings is not irreparable harm.

Second, Patreon fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its claims. Even if Patreon were correct that Defendants’ claims are not arbitrable, those issues are for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide. “An arbitration provision’s reference to, or incorporation of, arbitration rules that give the arbitrator the power or responsibility to decide issues of arbitrability may constitute clear and unmistakable evidence the parties intended the arbitrator to decide those issues.” {Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 892 [arbitration provision’s reference to JAMS rules that assign issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator “evidences the parties’ clear and unmistakable intent to submit issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator”].) Rule 8(b) of the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules provides, “Jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes, including disputes over the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope of the agreement under which Arbitration is sought, and who are proper Parties to the Arbitration, shall be submitted to and ruled on by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has the authority to determine jurisdiction and arbitrability issues as a preliminary matter.” Indeed, Patreon asserts that a JAMS arbitrator has already ruled in its favor in a similar case. (Reply at 4 n.3.)

Third, California courts rarely grant the extraordinary relief Patreon seeks here: an injunction interfering with an ongoing contractual arbitration proceeding. “Once a dispute is submitted to arbitration, the [California Arbitration Act] contemplates limited, if any, judicial involvement. ‘Typically, those who enter into arbitration agreements expect that their dispute will be resolved without necessity for any contact with the courts. [Citation.] ‘It is the job of the arbitrator, not the court, to resolve all questions needed to determine the controversy.’” {Briggs v. Resolution Remedies (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1400.) That conclusion is “especially true” where, as here, “the arbitration began without the need to seek a court order compelling arbitration.” {Id. at 1401.) As another court has explained, “An arbitration has a life of its own outside the judicial system. The trial court may not step into a case submitted to arbitration and tell the arbitrator what to do and when to do it.” (Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc, v. Superior Court (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 487-489 [trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it attempted to remedy arbitration delay by ordering arbitration to proceed under stated conditions subject to reinstatement on trial calendar].)

To be sure, Patreon is correct that this principle is not an inflexible one. However, the cases Patreon cited for the first time at the hearing do not support its position, either because no issue was actually raised or decided on appeal as to the propriety of such injunctive relief, or because they are readily distinguishable on their facts. (See, e.g., Brooks v. AmeriHome Mortgage Company, LLC (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 624, 629, pet. fo r review filed, No. S261879 (June 9, 2020) [court issued preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration of PAGA claim, which employer conceded was “nonarbitrable” under controlling authority]; Stasz v. Schwab (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 420, 426-427, 442 [affirming judgment confirming arbitrator’s award; opinion notes that trial court denied repeated requests to stay arbitration proceedings, but suggests in dicta, citing federal authority, that “[i]f an arbitrator or sponsoring organization mistakenly accepts jurisdiction, a party may either seek judicial relief to enjoin the arbitration or object to jurisdiction in the arbitration proceedings and raise the lack of jurisdiction as a ground for vacating the award”]; Delta Dental Plan v. Banasky (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1598, 1602 [affirming summary judgment for dental plan; opinion notes that the AAA advised the parties it would resume the arbitration unless there were a court order staying arbitration]; International Film Investors v. Arbitration Tribunal of Directors Guild (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 699,704 [dismissing appeal from judgment following trial court’s denial of petition for writ of prohibition seeking to prevent commencement of arbitration proceedings]; N.A.M.E.S. v. Singer (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 653 [reversing order dismissing petition to confirm arbitration award]; Windsor Mills, Inc. v. Collins & Aikman Corp. (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 987 [affirming judgment denying petition to compel arbitration and preliminary injunction against arbitration proceedings initiated by seller during pendency of buyer’s action for damages on ground that there was no agreement to arbitrate because buyer was unaware of arbitration provision].)

Briggs is closely analogous. There, the arbitrator stayed an uninsured motorist arbitration pending a determination of the insured’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits. The insured sought a petition for writ of mandate, which the trial court denied on its merits. The Court of Appeal affirmed on other grounds, holding that “the trial court lacked the authority to review a discretionary, prehearing order of an arbitrator.” (168 Cal.App.4th at 1397.) As it explained, “the trial court conducted what amounted to a de novo review of an arbitrator’s interlocutory order, something it had no statutory authority to review for any reason.” (Id. at 1401.) Here, Patreon is effectively seeking similar relief: immediate review of JAMS’ interlocutory orders submitting the contested issues to the arbitrators for decision, rather than immediately granting Patreon’s objections to arbitration or its alternative request to issue a blanket stay of the arbitration proceedings pending a ruling on Patreon’s request for coordination of those arbitrations. Under Briggs, the Court lacks authority to review those administrative decisions.

Accordingly, the court DENIES Patreon’s request for a preliminary injunction.


Mailvox: the importance of family privacy

A reader belatedly decides that I was right to keep my family out of the public eye:

Just wanted to share with you what I’ve learned about keeping things private and especially keeping your children out of the social media world and all of that. One of the first times I saw you was on Jesse Lee Peterson, and when Jesse asked you about your kids I soured on you. He merely asked how many you had or how old they were, absolutely casual and normal questioning, but you went a bit quiet and hesitant and replied that you didn’t like to talk about your kids. I thought it was a bit rude and it sliced through the fun and camaraderie you two (and us in the audience) were enjoying.

I didn’t think anything ill of you for something that simple, but it seemed a strange quirk or issue, I wasn’t sure. But I read more of your blog, and have watched nearly every Darkstream since, and thought your rule about banning or ignoring the questions about yourself or your family were a bit overboard. Not because I didn’t know how much you’re hated by the SJW demons and how badly they would love to get any info on you they could to hurt you, that is obvious and I respect that justification for privacy. But the cloak around your family was extreme, again just insofar as even relaying an anecdote or being able to share memories about them as part of the dialogue, since a decent chunk of the community talks about the family and marriage cornerstones.

Well, here I am realizing how right you were, because my brother posted a picture on his FB of him holding a can of Goya from his truck’s cargo. He was smiling and posted it saying thank you to the President for appreciating the company and about how simple things like what Goya produces are taken for granted. A message of decency and gratitude, and the insanity that follows I still can’t believe. This vile woman went trawling through his FB, found pics of his kids with their school either captioned or mentioned, and contacted the fucking school to tell them their dad was dangerous, that he was a racist, blah blah. This nonsense took a few days to sort out as my brother had to return from his job, and he let the school have it for even entertaining this bullshit, and got them to apologize to him. It’s not a typical cancel culture ending, thank God, but the fact that he had to go through this shit in the first place!

Now I think about this, about my brother who is barely even political but just said thanks to the President for supporting a large company. That’s freaking it, nothing else on his FB, only pics of their family, dogs, etc.! So I thought back to you, about how you had reacted to Jesse, and how I misjudged you and didn’t FULLY appreciate what these monsters would like to do to you. I not only respect you shutting all inquiries about your family down, I admire it.

Fair enough. Now, I will readily admit that there is only so much you can do, what with public records and curious fans and naive friends and family members who don’t understand how there could possibly be any harm in posting innocent pictures where no one is doing anything even remotely objectionable. And eventually, your children are going to grow up and live their own lives.

But there is no reason to make it easy for the stalkers and trolls and would-be harassers to chronicle your life, and the harder you make it for them, the more likely it is that they will cross a criminal line that will give the police, or at least the social media police, a reason to crack down hard on them. And, more importantly, living a public life online should be the child’s choice, not the parent’s.

It’s too bad, because what parent isn’t proud of their children and eager to share their achievements and accomplishments. But the world has changed, we now live in a no-quarter culture that refuses to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, and it is vital to understand that even as we embrace the conflict.

The Forge of Tolkien

How many of you read Tolkien’s stories and wish you could find yourself in the tale? Professor Rachel Fulton Brown, Associate Professor of History at the University of Chicago, introduces her new Unauthorized series, The Forge of Tolkien, with a meditation on Tolkien’s wordsmithing as an invitation to enter into the Greatest Fairy Story Ever Told.

For Unauthorized subscribers only. This will be a weekly series and we will introduce a subscription to it next month.