Tuesday, April 25, 2017

- Happy Birthday Ollie

Today is Oliver Cromwell's Birthday. Cromwell was not a much beloved figure in the Irish Catholic world of my childhood. We were descendants of the 'Norman Lords' who came to Ireland with Hugh DeLacy, in 1172, the very same people who had been ruling England for 400 years before Ollie came along. But that Irish expedition was centuries before the reformation so they were all Catholics. Ollie wasn't a big fan of Catholicism, and the Irish church still despises him. I grew up in the US of course, but there was enough tribal affiliation for us all to remember him as a monster of the past. So... not a big hit at my grandfather's house, was Oliver Cromwell. Why precisely we continued to bear him some familial grudge, I chalk up to the nature of being Irish and our general unwillingness to 'let things slide'.

But stepping away from all that, Ollie little adventure as Lord High Protector and the British Civil war seems to me at this altitude to be the closest model history has to offer for our own coming revolution in America. I mean let's be frank, the players in that conflict really are already established. It will be some liberal in the central government who eventually sets off actual armed revolt. I say this because in spite of Antifa and the hyperbole of the left over Trump, they themselves aren't capable of much in the way of action. They say things not do things. They are planners and deciders, not executors. They leave the lowly doing of things to the conservative proles. And that includes fighting actual fights with actual bullets.

They control the bureaucracy sure, but they've dumbed it down to a point where any idiot can do it, and that's who's doing it. It's become a holding pen for the client's of liberalism. The swamp creatures that Trump has promised to drain the water out from under. They have fallen into government work because the private sector wouldn't have them. And when push comes to shove, they could no more mount an armed resistance to a conservative or nationalist government than the National Organization of Women would be at good at organizing an armed militia.

So it will be a totalitarian (probably Social Justice) liberal who sets off the second American Civil war, and a Cromwell like figure will be the guy who overthrows them. Someone Nationalist, with a military background. Charismatic enough to generate political support of a portion of the landed gentry, but not so landed himself that he can't draw support from the masses.

I don't see that person out there right now, but I wonder how visible Cromwell was before his rise. I'm not exactly an expert on him. But one thing is for certain, his popularity was not universal. The Irish still hate him, and our future Cromwell will no doubt pee in a few rice bowls before it's over too. Maybe the gays, who technically have no reason to be liberal in a climate with the radical Islamic wolf at the door and liberal academia feeding it from the table, that will end up bearing the ire of whoever it turns out to be, and end up holding the next permanent grudge.

But the most likely group taken from a snapshot of today, is obviously the jews. The jews are the big source of division among the various nationalist factions. The more extreme groups see them as a source of outsized influence and cultural decay, while the more centrist groups see them as productive, peaceful and inoffensively prosperous. I'm in the latter group, but I don't know how it will play out. Until the first shot is fired, and very often for a long time after that, you never know how it's all going to fall out.

But anyway, I wanted to wish Ollie HAppy Birthday and let him know that for my part, I'm perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones. I'm not much for bearing grudges when I don't know the details of what happened. And if history is the final arbiter of right and wrong, then whatever his sins were, they seem largely forgiven to me.

I hope our future Cromwell does as well.

Monday, April 24, 2017

- 13 Excuses Why

Have you seen 13 reasons why yet? It’s the latest hip binge watch on Netflix about a high school girl who commits suicide, but leaves 13 tapes which explain her reasons why. Though it’s heavily slathered with anti-male propaganda, it’s not terrible story telling, and the plot does drag you along. And the scene of the poor girl’s act of demise is horrifying to watch and that’s an editorial decision I absolutely agree with. It’s horribly de-romanticized, and I congratulate the producers for their decision to handle it so.

Though with that said, the whole thing is laughably unrealistic. There’s literally nothing bad that has ever happened to anyone in high school that doesn’t happen to this poor girl or that she doesn’t play some small part as a witness to having it happen. There is even an allusion at the end to a potential future ‘school shooter’, shown as the class geek who’s been secretly stockpiling guns. Though thankfully our heroine Hannah didn’t live to see that.

It’s not real life of course, its just Hollywood. It’s more a sincere left wing fantasy about the worst possible high school experience than a serious talk about a serious problem. And the solutions proposed are just like the rest of the useless tripe that the entertainment industry has foisted on us, and that our collapsing culture has embraced. ‘Talk therapy’ for the victims, ‘teaching boys not to rape’, everything except what might actually help.

More than anything else, it strikes me as a great example of how a society can’t bring itself halfway back from collapse.

What Hannah herself experiences in a movie covering 2 years of high school isn’t all that much different from what most girls go through these days, but most of them take until about age 30 to do it. She takes a run at dating the popular bad boy jocks, who treat her badly, ruin her reputation (In this fictional case somewhat unjustly – but what would you expect from Hollywood) and eventually turns to the sweet but passive beta boy who worshipped her from afar. But by then she’s sees herself as too ‘damaged’ to deserve him and in typical high school drama queen style, she can’t find a way to forgive herself. She spends the whole movie telling people to ‘leave her alone’ and storming away, but spends the next few minutes after each emotional outburst continually hoping they will chase after her. Its all very high school.

And yes, I’m sure you knew this was coming… there’ rape. Lots of it. Or at least as it’s depicted, it’s something that comes closer to rape than the lies most girls tell. It may not be the ‘hit her on the head and put a knife to her throat’ kind of rape that everyone agrees is wrong, but it’s not quite the ‘we were both drunk and I said yes and then no’ type of thing that is so common on college campuses now either. At the very least it’s in the grey area of serious sexual misconduct. And though in the real world there may be some genuine confusion on the part of a man, this fictional villain is cartoonishly unambiguous.

And that’s what I mean by our not having a society that can bring itself halfway back from collapse. What the Feminists of Hollywood want is half of our problems. They want to prevent rampant sexual misconduct that in reality occurs in a grey area, without having to give up the unrestrained promiscuous sex that plays such a big part it making it all happen in the first place.

How this plays in the film is that they want the boys of Hannah’s world to be constrained, but they want them to be constrained in the way that women would be. Even more to the point, they want them constrainable by women. They should be gay, or weak, or too riddled with self doubt to approach a girl let alone have sex with one. They should be passive, inoffensive things that allow the women to make all the choices about who is inevitably dating who, and the path that dating takes.

They don’t want to allow masculinity and the positive value of men to be something that boys are allowed to see and strive for because it highlights how unequal women are. It emphasizes difference between men and women that they don’t want to be forced to admit exist. And even if that’s the only thing that has ever constrained the behavior of young men, they think it would come at too high a price, so it’s never even mentioned.

In that world view where the most respected men are the strong and responsible, women are something to be cherished and protected. And women very much like that half of the equation. But today’s women don’t want to be forced to behave in a way that would make men think they’re worthy of that cherishing. They would rather try to redefine what men ‘should’ find appealing in terms that they get to dictate.

They prefer to be the competition to men than to be their partners. They want to be considered absolutely equal to men in all things, except when they don’t. They want men to be willing to sacrifice it all on their behalf and to chase them down the hall to profess their unwavering love, even when they were just told not to. But they still want to be able to tell him to go away when they feel like it so they can go skinny dipping in the hot tub with the captain of the football team.

Taken by itself, only one half of that formula for building society, is never going to work on it’s own. You can’t expect men to step up and do the hard work of being the kind of men that are good for civilization (and for that matter women), when they are only ever going to be berated for it. And women, as we’ve clearly seen, can behave how they like. But they can’t expect men not to react to it. They can have their night in the limo catching chlamydia from the lead guitarist, but that means they’re going to have to handle the rest of it on their own too. If the swelling ranks of pickup artist culture tells us anything, it’s that men are done picking up the societal tab for women. And when it comes to their support, their care and even their safety, today’s girls are very much on their own. If today’s women want those things, then they have to live lives that warrant it.

As the father of a beautiful 17 year old girl, I think that’s a shame. I don’t know what kind of a future is out there for her in the dating world. She’s a good girl today, but the pressures of society will find their way to her no matter what I do about it. And I wouldn’t want to protect her from everything anyway. Like it or not she has to live in the same broken society that I do. And just because I can see how badly broken it is, doesn’t mean I can fix it for her. I wish I could.

But 13 reasons isn’t pointing to any answers on that score. It’s the same old Feminist garbage about how if we would all be just a bit more feminine, everything will work out. Though it didn’t seem to work out too well for Hannah.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

- Never Apologize

Some of you out there 'of a certain age', will remember the glory days of Tennis is the late 70's and 80's. I'm not much of a sports fan, but my brother was, and he was very skilled in that particular game. And since he is only 11 months younger than me, Tennis knowledge (if not skill) became something I could pick up around the house through osmosis.

So while browsing through the DailyMail this morning, I discovered the name of Ilie Nastase being mentioned. The Romanian was a major top tier star of the sport at its popular peak, akin to Jimmy Connors or the much younger (but probably more familiar) Andre Agassi. He was loud, passionate, argumentative and outspoken. He was the cold war 'bad boy' to Jimmy Connors' captain America act. But very much a champion in his own right, and very much respected for his talent, if not his demeanor.

Personally I always liked him. I had a pretty serious rebellious streak going at the time, and since the cold war was starting to cool down just a little, I was all in favor of seeing past the continuous anti-commie programming we got back then for any talented individual outside of politics. In my mind, government was something that did things to people, not for them. And I saw no reason to dislike a talented sports star just because he was having things done to him by a different kind of government than the one that was doing things to me.

Well the man is back in the news, and proving that when it comes to a man's character, some things never change. He made some off color (grin) joke about Serena Williams' expectant child, and got tossed from a match as punishment. Good for him I say. He has never been big on apologies for an offended public, and apparently isn't going to start now.

I still like the guy. And it doesn't matter at all to me that instead of the government that's trying to do things 'to' people, it's now the continuously offended mob of the Twitterverse of Tennis fandom that seeks to punish people who dare to speak things we all know, but have been trained not to notice.

Screw them and their prudishness, I say. The man is a legend who contributed greatly to the building of the sport. They all owe him their jobs, whether they are inclined to admit it or not. Wha they should really be doing is thanking him for doing what he's always done, demanding excellence in the payers, and drawing attention to the sport with his antics. Instead of tossing him, they should simply say thank you, and get on with their game.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

- A Note of Appreciation

I've been ignoring the news for the most part (save a daily 4:30AM review of the previous night's Tucker Carlson show) and staying away from the blogs because they have a negative effect on my productivity. My dollar per hour productivity at the moment, when viewed in a 'probability of discounted cashflows' way, is very high value. So I've been cherishing it somewhat more than usual.

But I always make time on the weekends for RadioDerb, and I've gotten in the habit of absentmindedly browsing the web while I'm listening, in order to catch up on at least the headlines from some of my regular reading that the Derb might not have mentioned. In doing so, I've noticed an interesting trend.

Hither and yon I'm seeing a familiar name pop up more and more often. As the American popular media abandons reason and objectivity at an increasingly alarming rate, a counterculture based on data driven empiricism and objectivity seems to be growing rapidly. Not the alt-right per se, since it often only barely touches the political. But a rationalism that looks like a nice opposing force to the leftist dogmatism of academia.

And our man Derb, once defenestrated from popular media and thrust to the hinterland of opinion journalism, is developing a outsized influence in this counterculture. This doesn't seem particularly unlikely to me. His wit, intelligence and clarity of thought has been long known to me personally. But I have to admit, as a question of character and temperament, I cannot imagine a less likely messiah for the new right. He'll tell you this himself if you ask him. Though online, this seems to be increasingly how he's being viewed.

This soft spoken, genteel and bookishly cerebral geriatric english immigrant, leading his quiet life on Long Island with his lovely wife and dog, is hardly the hate filled and spittle flecked firebrand reactionary the left has made him out to be. His days are filled with pedestrian things like home improvement projects, crossword puzzles, and (dear god I hope Rosie doesn't read this) sneaking the occasional cigarette while out for a walk with the dog. His life is the suburban bourgeois ideal in may respects.

But I wish I had a dollar for every time I was reading something somewhere and was pleasantly surprised to find his name mentioned in glowing terms as an example of a 'right thinking' American. His fan base is truly legion in the new media and it continues to grow in spite of the traditional media's efforts to ignore him. And the more successful of those types like Gavin McInnes and Milo, in their more serious moments, refer to him constantly. This is unsurprising to me in every way but one.

With the exception of this blog, everything I've ever done has followed 'Tony Montana' model for influence building. "First you get the money, then you get the power" (then you get the women according to Tony, but that's somewhat off my point.) And I think most people in the private sector follow a similar plan. But the Derb is doing it the opposite way. More or less semi-retired from professional life, and his days as a cubicle dwelling corporatist long behind him, his power and influence seems to be increasing in spite of his best efforts to the contrary.

Even more surprising (and probably disappointing, especially to Mrs. Derb) is that his influence seems to be vastly outsized compared to the relatively modest sums he collects for stating his thoughts and opinions. and I'm pleased to say that it seems to be growing more rapidly than he and his modest ambitions ever imagined. Hopefully the pay will find it's way to him as well.

So I want to drop yet another quick note of appreciation down here for our man Derb. Guiding the new right in the path I, and a apparently many others, believe it needs to follow. It may not be as substantive a reward as a high paying speaking gig, or chair at a prosperous think tank. But it's sincere and from the heart.

- Are Academics Just Stupid?

While I've been focusing on other knitting, one of my all time favorite Youtube personalities Janice Fiomengo of the University of Ottawa, has been getting back to hers. She's got a first rate talk posted which takes a look at whether Academics and Intellectuals are simply dumber now than they were in the past. As you can imagine, she takes an extremely anti-Feminist spin on this, and uses a second rate academic from a third rate University as example.

I've posted the video below, but it got me to thinking about her broader question. I wonder if the changing world hasn't caused some selection bias so that yes, Academics really are simply stupider than they used to be. Which is to say that Academics of the past were sampled from a more intelligent subsection of the population than they are now.

I don't think anyone can dispute that Academic thinking is far more subjective than it used to be. That statement is so obviously true that in many cases, Academics now endorse the value of subjectivity and subjective experience over objective reason. From a certain perspective, that's about 50% of what Janice so eloquently rails against. But is it possible that the greater need for intelligence in the private sector has drained Academia of the cream of society it used to attract, and left only skim milk?

Truthfully I have no idea. I'd love to see research on it. But it does fit my general appreciation of some of our cultural changes in the information age. There is a far larger need for Database Administrators (for example) in the modern world than there ever was for structural engineers. Every single company uses technology and once they reach a certain size, a DBA is an integral part of that, but only bridge building companies ever needed engineers who know bridge building.

Women's participation in the workplace too has probably also had some effect on things. Women tend to gravitate to lower risk careers than men. And few careers could be described as lower risk as a tenured teaching position at a University, where there is quite literally no penalty whatsoever for being wrong. Women too, tend to be more subjective in their reasoning, which is why the Women's Studies departments seem to be the consistent launching point for so much of the radical social engineering that comes from Academia.

But while they may, as a rule, be more subjective than men (Janice herself is a notable exception), women are not empirically stupider except at the tails of the distribution. And not every private sector position in the information age requires a fields medal winner. though if you were that kind of person, that's certainly the place to get the greatest reward for your intelligence. I'd put the staff at Bridgewater associates up against any group of academics in a test of pure intelligence.

With that said though, the fact that one now succeeds in Academia by endorsing the subjective dogma of leftist resentment, it might be just as true that the real thinkers weren't drawn away from academia by the private sector but pushed away from the sloppy thinking required for success there. If that's the case, than women in Academia surely must take some of the blame.

So I don't think it's totally unreasonable to believe it's possible that a greater need for intelligence in the private sector has left academia wanting when compared to past eras. That's not Janice's point at all, but I think she'd be as curious about it as I am. Here's her take on it:

Friday, April 21, 2017

- Arm The Populace, Seal The Borders

The title of this piece is the suggestion given to PJ O'Rourke on how best to address the situation in Somalia, by an unnamed US Army officer stationed there during our intervention in that country's domestic problems. Peej related the story in his laugh a minute book, "Give War A Chance".

Well Steve Sailer, who has been detailing how America's problems have become third world problems by importing huge chunks of the third world, has another more telling example. The huge post-Ferguson bump in inner city violent crime doesn't seem to be evenly distributed. In fact, more than half of it is coming from just the three 'one party' cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington DC. All of whom have been as welcoming as possible, to uncivilized immigrants from the third world.

These increases were highly concentrated. More than half of the 2015 urban increase (51.8 percent) was caused by just three cities, Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. And Chicago alone was responsible for 43.7 percent of the rise in urban murders in 2016. It is important to remember the relatively small base from which the percentage increases are calculated.

Ah... the glories of a multi-cultural society. The culture of those three cities may involve a lot of murder and mayhem relative to the rest of America, but just think of how diverse that is. It's also important to remember that unlike the civil rights movements of the 60's, today's black rights movement, #Blacklivesmatter, is based entirely upon fictitious information. And it's equally important to remember, as we have been endlessly told by the left, that 'Black American Culture' is very different from 'white american culture', heretofore previously known as 'American Culture'.

We don't know how many of these shootings are a result of immigrants, and there is no immediate reason to believe that immigrants played any outsized role in them. But wholesale immigration from ungovernable cesspools plays a role in society in other ways. They affect the broader conversation, and provide a new perspective from which to view society's success and failures. Surely someone who thinks it's their right to come here in violation of the law, to live by the largess of the American taxpayer, after being raised on another continent in an ungovernable cesspool, will have a different view of how the society should be run than someone who grew up in Eden Prairie Minnesota as the 5th generation descendant of an immigrant dairy farmer. That theoretical descendant of a dairy farmer now lives within a 10 minute bus ride of thousands of Somalis, but they're all considered 'equal' as American now right?

So maybe Peej's unnamed Army Officer has the right idea. Maybe we should build a huge wall around 'the jungle' in Calais ala 'Escape from New York' and do the same with our 'refugees' here. Then upon arrival, give every illegal immigrant 'refugee' a Beretta M9, a box of ammo, and lock them in the box to see what happens? An armed population is a polite population right? That's one of the fundamental unwritten rules of American culture, and works extremely well for the descendant of that dairy farmer, or 3rd generation european families in Texas or North Carolina. It also doesn't do to badly among the descendants of Italian immigrants in New Orleans, or even recent Hindu Indians in Edison NJ. How I wonder, will it work if we treat the recent immigrants from Africa the same way?

I'm not serious about that idea. I'm just trying to highlight how the unwritten rules of western society, work well for, and for the most part apply best to, western men and those that assimilate most easily to western culture. They are crafted to match our sensibilities, our priorities, and our instincts. All of which, I believe, are a product of our genetics. For people who, either by birth or by culture (you can pick) don't possess those same sensibilities, it sounds a lot like a recipe for madness, violence and mayhem, as Steve is detailing in his piece.

And I'm using recent Somali immigrants as a sort of extreme example here. And I don't hate black people at all, in spite of how many of them seem to hate people like me. But after decades of effort, the left has finally convinced me that black culture really is different from 'white American' culture. And I think we only have two choices. Either we put incentives in place to finally make inner city black culture more like the culture of 'White Americans', or we recognize that these differences are a permanent part of the genetic makeup of everyone, and we separate them, and let black Americans 'be black'. Then they can be spared all the verbal violence, oppression, and ill will of those evil white men, and can live their lives in the culture of their own making, constructed for their own sensibilities and instincts, and based upon rules that they themselves can create. Of course, that's exactly what they had back in Africa... but let's not nitpick. The other alternative is to make black Americans into a group of people who, at every available opportunity, behave like 'White Americans'. Some, like my black investment banker buddy, would argue that this would make things much better for everyone, and being a man of the west I don't disagree. But I can't imagine the gang bangers of south Chicago will feel that way about it, at least initially. No group has assimilated more poorly to the ideals of America as black. I'm not sure why that is, but the results are clear. And it's equally clear that racism isn't a cause of that lack but a product of it. Since the end of slavery American blacks have been lapped repeatedly in the race to the top of American culture, by a number of groups, all of whom were seen at the moment of their arrival, as being racially very 'different' than the American culture in place at the time. And all of who suffered discrimination because of it, both overt and systemic, and of the more subtle variety. The Irish were the first to hop above blacks in the societal pecking order. Then the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. Even some black immigrants from the west indies are doing considerably better at assimilating into American society than blacks whose families have been here for generations.

But whatever the cause, there are only two roads open to us. Assimilate or separate. That's it. Those are the choices. Neither will be easy, but there are no other options.

And by the way, you should have a similar reaction to the idea of providing welfare upon arrival to illegal african immigrants as you do to providing them M9's and ammo. Because in far too many cases it's essentially the same thing. The main difference is that in spite of their soaring black on black violent crime rates, Chicago, Baltimore and Washington DC don't have walls built around them. (Though maybe they should.)

Thursday, April 20, 2017

-It Was Always Fake News...


https://youtu.be/NwYGA2qzH0g?t=2m52s
You Can skip ahead to the 2:50 mark...
Every liberal I know is crowing about the fall of Bill O'Reilly... big deal. These same dupes will point to Bill Moyers as the most honest journalist on the planet. Liberal News is about as real as "No Touch" Martial Arts.
A good friend of mine has a green-belt in Aikido. I don't know what Aikido is but after seeing some demonstrations, I wouldn't depend on it in a street fight!
Years ago, another friend of mine claimed that his Kung Fu Master in Staten Island could do all these mystical secret tricks... I asked, if he could bend bars with his mind or boil water with his fingers, why couldn't he train his brain to get the hell out of Staten Island? Phooey!
While surfing a wonderful series on Bogus Martial Arts techniques I came across a segment in this video where that Icon of Liberal News Supremacy, Bill Moyers of PBS Fame is in China being completely hoaxed. The video appears to be from the late 70's or early 80's and Bill is narrating ever so smugly that the "no touch" bogus martial arts he is witnessing is some highly evolved science that us knuckle-draggers in the west just can't comprehend. Because its on Bill Moyers... IT MUST BE TRUE!!!
But there is an interesting Fu that is happening in US Media today. While the left cheers the demise of Bill O'Reilly (if you hate the guy that much why pay attention?) they are now stuck with Tucker Carlson...  Maybe Fox News can give Derb the 9 PM slot? That would melt some snowflakes.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

- Saving Antifa By Banning Ann

UC Berkeley has banned Ann Coulter from speaking.

This surprises no one, I'm sure. But I find it kind of interesting that they decided to do this the easiest way instead of the right way. the right way is for them to allow and maybe even encourage, free speech on their campus, and then have the police deal with the rioters by throwing them in jail. That would be making each individual responsible for his or her actions, and would be about making things 'just'. Instead they decide to silence the people who are out of favor on their campus, because... they can.

This actually makes me much more angry than the police failing to do their job last week. I'll be interested to see what comes of it.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

- Antifa Lives Matter

for post mortems on the Berkeley riots, I think Ace contributor OregonMuse's take on it stands alone:

Meet Jese Arreguin, elected mayor of Berkeley, progressive loon, terrorist enabler, idiot. His Twitter TL reads like a conservative parody of a progressive Twitter account. The above tweet is a good example of Arreguin's idiocy. Because what it really means is "free speech for we and not for thee." Or, even more succinctly, "Shut up." Now, you might think Arreguin knows this and is just being cynical about his preferences. But I believe the more logical explanation is that he's dumb as a bag of nails.

What it boils down to is that the rioting that happened this weekend, as well as the previous riots, occurred because Arreguin wanted them to. After all, it was his peeps that were rioting, and the people they were punching, beating, and pepper-spraying, i.e. Trump supporters, veterans, honest free-speech advocates, and other normal people, are generally not "progressive" enough for the likes of the Berkeley mayor.

It would be ludicrous to argue that he didn't know this was going to happen. Even a cursory glance at social media would have told him that the antifas were gearing up for another fight.

One other thing that hasn't gotten through to the antifa supporting liberals in government is that if they aren't going to protect us from violent mobs and are going to leave us to do the job ourselves, then what the hell do we need them for?

Surely that's the next step in a place like Berkeley right? In this last riot, the antifa kids all brought M80's. What happens if they bring pipe bombs to the next riot? What do you think the conservatives will bring to the 'free speech' rally immediately following that one? At that point it will be beyond the ability of the cops to control.

I've seen cops shoot. I'll put my money on your average devoted hobbyist (especially those with a military background) anyday - disorganized as they may be.

I am very much against violence as a response to politics, and I'm all for the free exchange of ideas. I'll debate anyone and will restrict my actions to ... wait for it... speech. But I'm absolutely 110% for violence as a means of self defense (with that extra 10% for the sake of my daughter where the violence I meet out on whoever harms her will be considerably more severe than any they may inflict on her) and it looks like it's coming to that. It certainly did last weekend.

I'm grateful for the courage of the guys who stood up to the Antifa goons and the nominal police presence (because there really isn't any doubt who they were there to protect), and I thank them for putting themselves in harm's way for the sake of saving the rest of us. But the government can and should be the arbiter of force. None of this should be necessary. And if the government doesn't hop to it and put an end to this nonsense, we are going to end up with more than one effeminate male feminist and militant 5 foot tall filipina middle school teacher lying in the road afterward.

Ann Coulter is speaking in Berkeley on the 27th. And the way it looks to me, that's quite literally the last chance for government to fulfill its appropriate role in society. If they don't, then I'm quite certain that power vacuum is going to be filled by people who have far less personal restraint than the police in this country ever have.