Monday, March 19, 2018

- And Now... Some Click Bait

I'm coming off a pretty hard batch of work. I've been working 20 hours a day 7 days a week, starting at 4am, every day for the last few weeks. Today I have a little very necessary downtime. Not much, still busy. But I can take a minute and do things like eat lunch, and read the news.

In process, I saw an ad for some clickbait about vintage ads. I like vintage so I took a look.


They're so funny, I'm reposting them. I may have them printed and hung on my office wall, Check this action:

If only she knew the future. These days she's considered a prude because no money exchanged hands.

Look at the twinkle in her eye. You know she messed up the coffee on purpose.

Lena Dunham... paging Lena Dunham....

Tiger stripes? How Gauche.

(OK... In an age where child porn and pedophilia are all the rage in Hollywood, this one is a little creepy.)

We obviously wouldn't kill a woman. We're civilized men. But we've all wanted to at one point or another.

And then move to the bedroom...

Or now that I've gotten a little older, the wine.

Please note that the Mrs. is wearing just an apron. Now that's training!

Opinions differ.

I think I know how they used that dryer (And I recommend it.)

This one would be a better Ad for today than yester-year.

That's it. Nothing serious. I just needed a yuck.

- The Democrat Mid-Term Plan

As near as I can tell from this, the Democrat plan to retake the house involves running bunch of people who have nothing in common with Democrat politics.

I don't know how the Democrat faithful are going to feel about a bunch of white, heterosexual, male, pro-gun, anti-Pelosi former soldiers taking over their party. Or for that matter, where they're going to find enough people like that to run in the face of the constant haranguing about their 'privilege' and the way they're 'oppressing' people with their whiteness.

So they really only have 2 problems to solve: 1. Get a bunch of very much non-Democrats to run as Democrats.

2. Once their elected, get them to self castrate and become like the Brooklyn soy-boy party faithful.

I know they want to win, but unless the candidates they put up are overweight, blue haired, brown skinned, gay, disabled, illegal immigrants of indeterminate gender, I think they can expect a rank and file revolt. So this doesn't sound like much of a winning plan to me.

- Revisiting Cathy Newman

We all remember the brilliant Cathy Newman, Jordan Peterson interview. Well Cathy's back at it.

I found this video this morning by accident. I don't the guy who published it at all nor do I know the man that Cathy is interviewing so I won't comment on either. But I wanted to get a more objective sampling of the kind of things that Cathy NEwman typically says in an interview other than endlessly repeating what you're saying is..."

To my eyes, this is a journalist in 2018, berating a man for being associated with a leaflet that was distributed in 1961, and demanding an 'apology' for it's racism. 1961. Nearly 60 years ago. I can't imagine anyone who doesn't change their outlook in nearly 60 years of life. 1961 was before I was born so I can't say for sure, but I'll bet at that time you could have found a meaningfully large portion of the population of Britain saying that man will never walk on the moon. IT was by any reasonable account (Cathy Newman noticeable excluded here) a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORLD.

I can't speak to 1961. But in 1971 when I was in grammar school and had VERY different views than I do now. IS this the standard we're using for 'journalism'? Is she one day going to make me disavow the opinions I offered on the playground? I recall having a crush on the cute little blonde daughter of a young Army officer, and I repeated a number of 9 year old fantasies about it to my friends. Am I somehow guilty of rape thanks to my evil 9 year old thoughts which I never acted upon?

Even more to the point, this is how this woman 'bounces back' from her disastrous showing with Jordan Peterson? This is how she regains credibility? By dredging up some long forgotten pamphlet from a half century ago and demanding an apology for it, when half the people who saw it at the time could very well be dead by old age by now? This is her attempt to re-establish herself as a thoughtful commentator?

Until this morning, I had a very hard time imagining anyone doing worse than Cathy Newman did with Peterson. It didn't occur to me that she would be the one to go that far herself.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

- The Tale Of Lauren Southern

We Americans tend to think of Britain as our 'retarded older brother'. Well our bro has been busy.

Here's the story of Lauren Southern, the Canadian Independent Journalist who was banned from entry into the UK on the grounds of 'racism'. Think what you want about Lauren. Agree, disagree, whatever. But if you are a person of good conscience, you should be very deeply concerned about the actions of the British government.

The brits and Canadians are both a part of the Anglosphere (as are Australia and South Africa who are each having similar issues), and are closely related to the US in terms of culture, but they are much smaller. So their systems and culture turn on a much tighter faster circle than the much larger US. I believe this is why we're seeing the insanity of the 21st century west reaching the boiling point there first, before the US. It's why we're also seeing much of the most effective pushback coming from the likes of Jordan Peterson and LAuren Southern.

But if you don't believe that the problems they're having today are the problems we'll be having in the future, you're not paying attention. This is the road we're all on. The road to the 'equal outcomes' of Social Justice, where all competency has been devalued to zero.

Friday, March 16, 2018

- A Crush On A Canadian Dude

So... if I identify as a woman, then I'm a woman. And since women are inherently better, I can be 'better' just by believing I am. I can also be 'better' by being say... an American indian, if I 'know in my heart' that's what I am. But if I can be these things just by wanting them, then I can in theory un-want them.

So if I'm gay but I want to be straight, I can be. And if the thing that makes me want to be straight is that my parents had me tied up in the basement of my local church without food or water until I wanted it, then I'd probably want it pretty bad eventually. Not that I'm advocating such behavior, I'm just trying to think it all through.

So if I can be 'black' because 'I know in my heart that I am', then how can I be racist? Because we all know it's impossible for someone who is black to be racist. If I start out as a racist but then 'know in my heart that I'm black' does my racism go to some storage facility or something for the next guy who 'knows in his heart' he's white? And if racism is so awful (and it certainly doesn't sound very nice), why can't the black people just 'know in their hearts' that they're all white? It sure seems to me like they'd be spared an awful lot of grief, and the test scores in the local school would probably improve.

So someone is going to have to go over the rulebook with me again, because it sounds to me like all these social justice progressives are saying that what they think changes who they are, but who they are is what defines how they think. Or rather, they say that who I am defines how I think. They can think any old thing including that they are three toed sloths or potted plants or whatever, and that seems to be just fine.

Don't even get me started on Feminist Ubermensch Harvey Weinstein, who apparently thinks that not only can a woman be a potted plant, but a potted plant can also be a woman.

So you can be a gay back man today and a straight white woman tomorrow. And every time you jump the fence to the other side you acquire either virtues, or oppression, depending on which way you jump. So why aren't we all straight white men by now, since they seem to be the ones at the top of the pyramid that everyone hates for being there?

Believe it or not, this all has a specific practical application for me. Back before she was banned from the UK, Lauren Southern went to the trouble of legally 'identifying' as a man under Canadian law. She is now legally Mr. Lauren Southern. And if you ask Mr. Southern (I was gonna say 'her' but I don't want to mis-gender), Mr. Southern will tell you (s)he's straight. But (s)he's also 'legally' a man. So does that mean (s)he likes girls or boys? This isn't totally irrelevant to me because Mr. Southern ain't so hard on the eyes and I'm wondering how hard I should be trying to get an introduction.

Who would have ever believed I'd develop a crush on a Canadian dude?

- Slate Discovers DNA

... while simultaneously misunderstand parenting.

It's not a totally uninteresting piece, but it has all he typical intellectual gymnastics you see when a liberal is trying as hard as they can to take notice of the trees without seeing the forest.

The real issue with Parenting is that you only really screw it up by being a bad person. Over time, the various ways that you rationalize away the things your fragile ego can't allow you to face, and all your other character weaknesses will all be noticed by your children and defined by them as 'the way to be'. All your faults will become their version of normal.

It's possible for them to grow beyond what you are, but since they inherited your DNA, it's not the way to bet. I for instance inherited my father's propensity for alcoholism but seeing the harm it's done him (and the rest of us) over the years, I avoid that more carefully than he did. Many people tell stories like this.

But a liberal cannot recognize this because in most cases their denial about themselves is absolute. And they'll screw up their kids by making them into reality denying liberals.

- Heroic Builders Of Worlds

In many ways our modern age is much more two dimensional that the past. Our conversations around the concept of an Alpha man or a Beta man is a good example. For those that advocate it, Heartiste is probably the best example, the Alpha is what the woman wants him to be in a biological response sort of sense, but he's little else.

The Heartiste version of an Alpha is a bit self involved; all but totally unconcerned with a woman's wants or feelings. he's a self regarding mildly narcissistic creature who behaves as if all women want him regardless of the truth, because it's that attitude that causes them to do so. In a sense, the alpha allows himself and his priorities to be defined by the woman. He is a 'real man' living in a woman's world, and that is defined by a womans rules.

Meanwhile the Beta man is seen as more supplicant. He's occasionally bullied by his woman because he indulges in the kind of self sacrifice that has always been held up as a male ideal. It's women who have done this of course, perverting men's natural self sacrificial instincts to serve their own narcissism. But our current version of the story leaves us all allowing the women to set the terms of engagement, and reacting to that by refusing to play the game. In that refusal we may win in the short term but we lose over the longer term, by bringing our reproductive future to an ignominious end.

I've always had an issue with that.

Beta's are seen as mildly negative in the Heartiste world. As if they're too weak or too stupid to see what modern women have been up to and respond to it with the same kind of ultra short-term outlook and unilateral self interest. But that alpha description is very much a reaction. And I don't trust reactions. I believe a man should act, not react. And sometimes he should take a longer view even when everyone else is thinking shorter term.

This leaves a much more admirable role for the modern Beta man. Let's be clear here, I don't see the whiny wimpy east village soy boys as Betas. What they are is a kind of 'woman in training'. They struggle day in and day out to purge themselves of any latent masculinity, and to do their best to take on a woman's view, and a woman's perspective.

A beta man isn't like that. A beta man is a man who thinks about the people around him more than Heartiste's alpha. He's a man who desires making the world a better place, in the ways that men have always done. He's a man who may be slightly self sacrificial if there is a long term gain in it for him, or his family. In another age driven by something other than selfie sticks and instagram followers, he'd have been seen as a pillar. The thing around which all of society hangs.

And that view leaves more than ample room for some middle ground. Where the line between alpha and beta is blurrier and more circumstance dependent than it's seen to be today. Today, with women defining the difference, it's all alpha phucks and beta bucks. But in the past where men still had a say, we'd all have been alpha and beta in varying degrees.

Below is a great example of this, in the form of a man who, until last night I'd never heard of, but who touched virtually everything in the modern world.

I have a developer working for me right now who lives in Britain. And because of a conversation I had with him about unapologetic British stereotypes, I've been on a kind of Jeremy Clarkson kick. 'The Jezzer' has done more than be the presenter on one of my favorite shows, and one of the few shows on TV explicitly for men. (Top gear, known in it's new Amazon format as "The Grand Tour". ) He also wrote, produced and starred in a number of BBC documentaries. He has a great one about his own father in law who won a Victoria Cross during operation Market Garden. And another about a man who by anyone's historic accounts was an Alpha, but who probably seems quite Beta given the standards of today.

Meet "Isambard Kingdom Brunel". The man who engineered Victorian England. By any description an amazing character. I got about half way into the documentary below when it occurred to me that this man would make a great hero in a screenplay but to my amazement, according to IMDB there has never been a fictionalized account of his life. When you see what the man accomplished and hear the echoes of the great brass clanking that no doubt followed him everywhere he walked, that's a difficult thing to believe.

Clarkson tells his story better than I could, so I'll leave you to his telling. But what an amazing guy - particularly in contrast to the 'men' we celebrate today.

Hugh Jackman released a singing and dancing account of the PT Barnum story last year, which I didn't actually see because ... who cares? I don't much care for most musicals, for reasons relating to my heterosexuality, that I think are obvious. In 99% of all cases, they just bore me.

But watch a few minutes of this, and tell me that Brunel wouldn't be much better suited to a telling of heroism than a guy who basically just hired people to shovel elephant crap. He might not have been in the center of the big top in a pretty red coat and shiny boots like Barnum. But all Barnum ever did was 'look pretty'.

Engineers are dull, you say? Who cares who built a bridge or a boat? He didn't just do that. He invented a big part of the modern world, and we all stand upon his shoulders whenever we build something today. And in a 'man's world' it would be good to remember what men of the past have given us. He's a much better hero for men, than anything women might identify.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

- To Bill From Old Bridge

This is maybe the oddest post I've done in a decade.

Our man Derb got an email from a fan asking for my contact info. He promptly forward the text of the message. But Derb is a creature of habit. And his habit when forwarding emails is to preserve the anonymity of the people who write to him even when they specifically tell him it isn't important to do so. So I got an email today from the Derb, which happens often and I'm always happy about, but no return email. And because I couldn't respond directly, I decided to post my response here and force all of you to read along as well.

So it seems that a NJ resident, NRA life member, and longtime reader Bill, is a little less young that he used to be. (Aren't we all) And he as a few firearms that he's thinking of disposing of. Nothing is more tragic than a man selling his guns, but Bill explained his reasons and they seemed valid to me. He said it wasn't the money, but the idea of them being melted down into slag, that keeps him awake at night. So he doesn't want to simply turn them over to the police.

I think we all know what you mean Bill. I have only the one daughter, so unless my nephew decides to take up hunting I may very well be in your shoes myself in just a few more years. My daughter will certainly have no use for my AK, or my 1941 30 caliber Russian sniper rifle. And I couldn't see just handing them off to the cops.

The good news is there is a perfectly viable alternative.

Here's what I would do. I'd go to and sign up for an account. I'd then list the guns along with photos and a description, but specifically not set a reserve price. When you do that, you all but guarantee that the guns will sell, but the amount could be quite low. You can be sure though that the person who buys them will be someone who wants them. (both those stainless 22's sound like the kind of thing that will fly off the shelf).

I'd add one detail though in the description. If I were you I'd specify that the guns must be bought through an FFL, and that the cost of an FFL on your side will be added to the final price. An FFL close to you will handle the paperwork for about a $25 dollar fee, which you then pass on to the buyer. I'll post the contact info of a guy I know not too far from you in the comments, but there are a few people who are probably closer, and has a list of them accessible to members.) By selling through an FFL, you ensure that the guns will go to someone who passes a background check, removing any potential liability to you.

Gunbroker is a great site with a national market. And when the guns sell, all you'll have to do is bring them to the FFL dealer boxed but unsealed, and he can arrange to ship them for you. It will go from you, to the FFL dealer of your choice somewhere near you, to the dealer at the other end (very likely in another state) and then to the buyer after appropriate paperwork.

This is all 100% legal and within the laws of NJ. There isn't even anything dicey about it. It will take a phone call or three to get set up, and maybe a little bit of 'ebay style' internet work, but your guns will be assured of going to someone who will value them as highly as you have. And whatever they're worth, this will probably be your best chance of getting that out of them.

In the meantime Bill, I wish you all the luck in the world. And thanks for reaching out. If Derb sends along your email address I'll do my best to respond more personally.

- My Childhood Hero William Shatner

William Shatner hasn't been 'Captain Kirk' in a very long time, but it's still awfully hard not to like the guy.

Here he is smacking Paul Krugman on the nose with a rolled up paper, for complaining about Larry Kudlow's recent whitehouse appointment.

Kudlow isn't my favorite economist, and at a certain level I can see Krugman's point. Talking about "king dollar" and 'free trade' gets old, especially lately. But there was no need for Krugman to be such a dick about it.

What happened to Krugman has always been a topic of much bemusement among participants in the financial markets. I've mentioned it many times. But the thing that always struck me most about him is that when you actually listen to the guy and watch him squirm and shift about with his eyes etc, he literally looks dishonest, insecure and resentful. As if he's the grown up version of the kid who never got over being bullied in grammar school. He looks like a guy whose about to try to launch an excessively complicated plan to cover the captain of the football team in pudding through a hole he cut in the ceiling the night before.

That insecurity comes out in his writing too. I think it's his defining feature. And you can't understand the world outside yourself very accurately if you don't have a clear view of yourself in it. This is, in the end, what I think most liberals have as a principle limitation in understanding the world. Their view always needs to address their rather extreme personal insecurity before, often during, and in many cases after, it addresses anything else. In fact, the only time they really seem like they are confident of their view is when they're treating public policy as a big game. But Krugman takes that to an obvious level I've seen in anyone else, and he lacks the 'let's have a fun debate where I beat you rhetorically even though I don't really believe any of this stuff' good nature that some other liberals do.

Not so 'The Shat'. Here is a man who will apologize to no one for his opinions, but he won't hold them up as the last word either. He's often been quoted as saying "Who cares what an old Canadian actor thinks?" or words to that effect. And that means that he's grounded, rational, confident and secure. He also has a great sense of humor. Which makes him a much better man in my book that Paul Krugman will ever be.

Maybe the NYTimes should hire him instead of a nasty, delusional old narcissist like Krugman.