Friday, February 5, 2016

- Roosh and "Making Rape Legal"

I’ve written about Roosh V before.

His website Return of Kings was planning a ‘meetup’ this weekend in a number of cities, and when the Feminist media found out about it, they had to be cancelled to protect his members. In the process he’s been subject to a quite extraordinary bit of media slander and persecution. It’s a damned dangerous thing to openly challenge the Feminist narrative.

But I’m a little surprised to find that many men’s rights writers are turning on him too. This seems wrong to me.

Roosh is lately promoting something called NeoMasculinity. It’s a little philosophically noisy for my taste, but at it’s heart it looks to be a return to more traditional roles for both sexes, with a bunch of the Feminist brain washing stripped away. There may be some quibbling around the edges but this seems to me to be a thing that most men’s rights advocates should support. Strangely, and in my mind tragically, this is not so.

Here’s my take on it.

The west needs men and the influence of strong leaders of men. We are ‘thin on the ground’ in Europe and only a little better here in the states. How long do you think it will take for the women of cologne to realize that the only thing they need to do to avoid being raped in the streets is to wear a burka? If we leave our society to be run by women and men who think like women, then our civilization will be lost. It’s a desperate situation. Anything and anyone that promotes a pushback on Feminism and the feminine imperative should be actively encouraged.

But Roosh has spent a long time trying to teach men who had little success with women, to be more successful, basically by acting more masculine in a way that women appreciate. His past role as a 'pick up artist' makes him a little unpalatable to the men's rights movement. In my view Pick Up Artists like Roosh’s people may be taking a juvenile approach to pushing back on Feminism, but it’s better than nothing. And one day those men may mature into something worthy of real admiration. Roosh seems to be personally doing so to me. But none of that will ever happen until men 'take the red pill' and abandon feminism. By giving so many men justification to do so, Roosh is certainly helping the broader cause.

The problem I think, comes from the way Feminists have used the virtues of men to destroy women. Real men have a sense of honor, so women use that sense of honor against us. Real men take responsibility and honor commitments, but women have stopped fulfilling their half of the deal that allowed men to do so leaving men paying their half of the social contract and getting nothing in return. Feminism has destroyed women, but it’s damaged men as well by destroying them.

If we want to get all that back, we have to put women in a situation where they understand the costs of their decisions, and begin to see a more traditional role as a virtuous thing worthy of respect. The shrillness of Feminism and it’s pervasiveness in the media prevent that. Roosh and the PUA community argue that if men don’t get the deal from women that justifies their honor and commitment, they should deny it to them. They should treat women the same as women treat men under feminism, with selfishness, deceit and manipulation.

We can argue if that’s a path to a solution. In point of fact I’m not sure it is. But the existence of a radical male position to balance the scales against radical feminism is certainly productive. You don’t have to agree with Roosh to admit that net on net, his effect on the larger conversation will be helpful.

The slander he’s gotten in the media is shameful. But he’s a resilient and creative guy who knows how to make the most of publicity. In the end showing Feminism and the media it dominates at its worst (and this has certainly been them at their worst - try googling 'making rape legal' for a sample) will probably help his cause. And in that way it also helps men, and is another step toward the changes we need to preserve some semblance of a free society.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

- Being Afraid of AI

This sort of thing, taken from a Drudge Headline this morning, is always entertaining for me:

Will AI-Powered Hedge Funds Outsmart the Market?

Short answer, No.

This is an area of expertise for me. I don't mean I've read a lot about it, or I know some guys who did some stuff once. I mean that I personally designed and successfully ran a program trading system that produced a consistent profit for 7 consecutive years. What specifically, did my program trading system do?

One of the most promising uses of relatively new AI techniques may be processing unstructured natural language data in the form of news articles, company reports, and social media posts, in an effort to glean insights into the future performance of companies, currencies, commodities, or financial instruments.

Yes... that's precisely what my program did. My system, designed in 2004-05 I might add, automatically read and reacted to, publicly available published news. To my knowledge, though many systems were built (and I know many of the people who built them personally) mine was the only one which EVER produced a profit.

It's true that hedge funds can be very secretive, especially about strategies that work. But people change jobs, they chat about this and that. They may never reveal the 'secret sauce' of a working strategy per se, but the broader descriptions of strategies and their performance are public for investors, and that much of the secret always gets out. Anyway, by the standard mentioned above, I call myself an expert in this specific space.

So here's the problem. People seem to think that what's in the news drives the markets, but that's incorrect. What's in the news drives the decision making of market participants. Those participants and their perspectives change over time. And the same news story published on Monday may have one effect, while if it's published on a Tuesday it may have a very different effect. The difference between those reactions is based entirely upon what conspired in the intervening 24 hours. You can derive all the sentiment you like from the news and all it will ever tell you is what kind of mood the reporter was in when he wrote the piece, and you know... like most girls, journalists can be moody.

That experience is also the source of my utter and total contempt for journalists. I dealt with a great many of them while crafting the ideas for that system, and they were as arrogant and intellectually homogenous a group of people as I've ever met. They all saw themselves as wielders of some great power which they could use at a whim to reward or punish as they saw fit. And reality be damned, post-deconstructionist cultural Marxism for them is the law of the land. Even business journalists.

This has become like the 3 months cycles for coffee (silent killer/can save your life) and cholesterol (silent killer/can save your life). It's the silly journalistic mental masturbation. I'm surprised Drudge was fooled by it. Or maybe it's just a slow news day there too.

In a related Drudge Headline, apparently Yale has discovered how wonderful it is to 'sell volatility':

The Secretive Hedge Fund That's Generating Huge Profits for Yale

I always find these stories funny. Selling volatility is often described as picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. Short term is a recipe for looking brilliant, while long term it's recipe for disaster. Professional investors have gotten more sophisticated at not getting caught in this trap unless there is a political incentive to be invested in the firm. I wonder if that's true here:

Nancy Zimmerman’s Bracebridge Capital has gone from $5.8 billion in assets four years ago to $10.3 billion today with a return of about 10 percent a year since its inception. That makes it the largest hedge fund in the world run by a woman.

Well it may end in disaster eventually, but at least it promoted the triumph of the sisterhood, or broke the glass ceiling or whatever. It's long been kind of a joke among my peers, that all you have to do to be successful is come up with a way to be short volatility that your bosses and investors don't understand as being short volatility.

Moral of this story... never EVER trust a journalist.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

- No More 'Real Men" In Europe (and Damned Few Here)

The smartest person I've ever met is a woman who emigrated here from Germany - a coworker of mine when I worked at Tudor. This woman being interviewed - Iben Thranholm, reminds me of her.

Maybe it's the hair and accent, but the way she keeps saying "that's just reality", rings a strong bell too. And it's hysterical to my ears, to see the woman journalist doing the interview struggling to maintain the feminist view of the world and how silly it sounds compared to the Iben's much more rational view:

One issue though. Men won't go back to the traditional male virtues unless women are prepared to reward them for it. Right now most women of childbearing age are only worried about sleeping with the lead guitar player, and they punish men for being virtuous. God knows the family courts are specifically designed to 'punish' men on behalf of women as well. And that's to say nothing of what happens to a man if he expresses a masculine viewpoint in a university setting. All that's going to have to change.

In the meantime, the women of the west can cope with the Europe (and America) they created, which I hear is absolutely Rape-tastic this time of year.

Me... I'm going to take my kilt to the cleaners, spend a little time listening to Led Zeppelin's 'immigrant song', and sharpen up all my hand to hand implements. I'm not in the September of my life just yet, maybe more like late July. But I'm still confident I can handle my share of the violence when it comes to it.

Real western men aren't all gone, we're just a little older than we used to be. Bring it on Muhammad.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

- A Bigger Question

I'm always a day late and dollar short with issues like this whenever I speak to John Derbyshire about them. I'll say something broad and sweeping that I think points to a root cause of something or other, and what I'll get from him is links to three doctoral theses, a half dozen magazine articles, and an obscure novella that he himself wrote 10 or 11 years ago, that are all based loosely on the same idea. So John if you're reading this, you may want to stop now. For everyone else:

I have this theory that the institutions of the west have failed one after the other, because of their inability to cope with a new medium of information technology. The technology arrives and distributes information much more effectively and in a new way, which in our world is usually thought of as an unambiguous social good. But there may be more to it than that. When that even occurs, the mean IQ of the people deciding on the meaning of the information drops precipitously, and the affected institutions either weaken or collapse entirely as their central message is diluted.

The medieval Catholic church was an institution of both religious and government dimensions, and in fact was an inheritor of much of the authority of the Roman empire. It used to deliver it's moral messages as allegory in written form, but books were rare and only the best educated people had direct access to the text. So the main medium of transmission to the masses was in verbal form localized by parish.

When Gutenberg did his little number and published it on a larger scale, it destabilized the control of the church, and lowered the mean IQ of the moral interpreters. And though the moral position of the church remained for centuries, the governmental role diminished greatly and almost immediately. Translation into local language exacerbated the issue. The moral message became reinterpreted by new religious leaders, but the governmental role of the church declined to it's present state.

When radio, film and in the 50's, Television arrived, there was a new story to be told - one that was largely unconstrained by the religious leader's moral teaching. Again the interpretation of whatever wisdom was available in these stories became more individualized, and the mean IQ dropped again. Now it was no longer the leaders of government and the church who were marking the moral and legal signposts of society, but each person individually. The result was the 1960's and the abandonment of faith in both those institutions.

Then came the Internet and smartphones. Practically all of the written or recorded information ever created in the long history of the west has become immediately available to everyone with a phone (basically everyone who can read) and is viewable immediately at any moment in their lives. Now the 'interpretation' IQ has taken another major dip. These days according to pop culture, morality no longer involves thinking at all. Now it's exclusively about feelings, and if you feel hurt then there is a presumption of guilt for the person you claim is responsible for that hurt. And these days what's 'trending on twitter' is looked upon as a source of great wisdom.

Since it was long ago relegated to a position of individual conscience, the church already holds a nearly irrelevant place in the lives of most people in the west, though it continues to limp on. But my question is this...

Do we think our form of government, the defacto church of America and it's associated government, which as a democratic institution requires an element of serious thought and contemplation by it's participants, can withstand this new information distribution 'event'? How far are we really from encoding into law a presumption of guilt based upon nothing but the feelings of the aggrieved? Isn't that way "all rape accusers should be believed" means? Isn't that what a 'hate crime' is?

- The "Real Lesson" of The Trump Iowa Loss

One thing you won't find in all the media static about the Trump Iowa loss, is the only thing I think is relevant. We've all been deceived by the media - again. Putting Trump on the air as often as possible promoted the "if it bleeds it leads" agenda of the media. Putting him ahead through selective poll sampling increased the interest in and necessity of polls. But he did not have the support that the media required us to believe he did.

In my opinion, the only real less here is an old one for RFNJ readers: "Never trust a journalist."

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

- The Best Thing About Trump

For my part, I find all the complaints about Donald Trump from National Review persuasive. He is not a 'conservative' in the way we've all been arguing for over the years. But neither are the professional politicians who sell out 'conservatism' in a hundred important ways, and at least Trump isn't pretending. But that isn't what this short piece is about.

My reservations about Trump stand. I will vote for any other Republican candidate before him, and vote for him in the general election, with the foreknowledge that there is a non-zero probability that he will preside over (and maybe bring on) the economic collapse of the entire western world. But he has done one thing in this election which I find to be an undisputed social good - he's put the media and our journalists in their place.

There are few more intellectually homogenous industries than journalism. They reliably place the social dialog far to the left of America's conversations with itself. And the entire population spends much of it's time trying to sift through the spin to ferret out the 'truth' as they see it. the stories are all horribly one sided, never discuss cost vs benefit, and always ... ALWAYS... take a side. For everyone but Fox news it's the cultural Marxist side, and for Fox it's often the opposite. And by telling off and dismissing Fox News, Trump is taking an important stand for the American people.

It's true, we don't really deserve any better than America's TV 'journalists' have given us. But if they are more reasonable and honest about the conversation that might change quickly. The fact that Trump has picked the News organization I most agree with personally is irrelevant in my opinion. someone needs to start letting the American people know that to be a journalist in modern America is to be an expert in absolutely nothing, but to lie about it as if you are.

Trump is at least doing that. And if he keeps it up, there will finally be consequences to being wrong as a journalist. THAT can only make things better. He's treating the press as his servant instead of his master. In my opinion, that's a big enough benefit to America to forgive any of his other sins.