Thursday, December 14, 2017

- Who Hacked The Election Again?

So at this point in the decline of the the nation formerly known as America, we all have a serious question to ask ourselves.

Who do you think worked harder to overrule the voice of the American people in the 2016 election, The Russian hackers or the deep state in the form of the FBI and the Obama Justice Department?

I'm not asking who got their way. There isn't any evidence yet that either group made any sort of difference in the actual electoral outcome. But who do you think worked harder for one side or the other to influence the election?

This piece is effecting my vote.

- The Disneyfication of America

Just announced today the Disney is Buying 21st Century Fox for huge money.
The Disneyfication of America began with Bambi's Mom getting killed by the evil beer swilling hunter. Many years and generations later, Bambi's descendants were probably the cause for many traffic accidents and fatalities as well as the spread of Lyme's Disease.
NRO is somewhat Disneyfied as Rich Lowry truly believes that Hunting cannot be a central component of conservation. Peter Hathaway Capstick warned of the coming Disneyfication in his masterpiece "Death in the Long Grass" and has reminded us of this in other writings.
The acquisition of Fox by Disney was preceded and forewarned by the dismissal of  Bill O'Reilly. Love him or hate him, he was canned by Murdoch's effete liberal sons to pave the road for a deal. The next step was an aggressive campaign to remove Sean Hannity by David Brock through Media Matters. Hannity is possibly the worst interviewer on the planet, but he commands a devoted flyover following and at least serves as a somewhat staunch Republican  firebrand. Disney on the other hand is an infectious disease. It destroyed ESPN by transforming it into a platform for Social Justice Warriors. Fox News will be effectively neutered by this deal. I anticipate Hannity to keep up the fight, but I don't see much reason for sticking with DisneyFoxNews. Laura Ingraham will probabaly get axed and Mark Levin's new show will probably not see the light of day. 
This leaves CRTV and AM Radio for conservative commentary. But what about news? While Newspapers are going the way of the dinosaur, news media still retains value albeit humorous with the overt buffoonery of CNN and MSNBC. I'm sticking with One America News and Fox Business News (which will probably get deprogrammed). 
In scope, we have Alexa teaching our children about feminism and social justice, Disney beating us over the head repeatedly with Multi-Culti mantras, FaceBook delivering censored or edited news to the masses. We are entering into a pre-dystopian America. The resistance to Trump and "normies" is the heavy handed, media sanctioned approach to reprogramming America from the bottom up. God save us.

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

- Woke Conservatives

The worst thing about Kurt Schlichter is trying to spell his name correctly. That's my only beef. And in this piece he captures the very heart of my post Trump attitude:

Have you noticed that if you fail to do, think, and vote exactly the way that the liberals and their Fredocon minions demand, you’re a racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids? Yeah, you probably have. And you’ve probably also realized that if you do everything that the liberals and their Never Trump minions demand, you’re still a racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids.

When you understand that, you’re on your way to being conservative woke.

And when you’re conservative woke, you’re ready to deploy the most powerful non-bullet firing weapon in your liberty-loving arsenal – your devastating capability not to give a damn what the liberals and their Conservative, Inc., cruise-shilling Benedict Arnold buddies say.

When you don’t care anymore, they got nothing.

What are these whiny weasels going to do to you anyway? Not like you? Think bad things about you? Taunt you a second time?

Look. Learn. Accept the harsh truth.

They hate you.

They hate you.

They hate you.

No matter how you try to please them, regardless of whether or not you comply with their every command, that will never change.

They hate you. Govern yourself accordingly.

I swear I'm going to get that motto of his, "They Hate You. Govern Yourself Accordingly." cast in bronze as a desk art.

Liberals are the people from the bottom of the hierarchy. Nothing in the world is going to make them smarter, or better looking, or more industrious, or anything else that is going to make them move up that hierarchy, so they are going to resent you for your place above them whatever it is. That resentment will NEVER go away. So the only alternative is to tell them to F*** off. And do what you would otherwise do if they weren't there.

Kurt gets that. You should too.

[Sorry Colonel, I don't mean to clip nearly your whole article, but it's too good.]

- Inflating the Bubble

Having worked on Wall St for over 25 years and witnessing the collapse of venerable institutions, I have been asked by countless outsiders my opinion of Bit Coin.
In the late 1990's I was trading pink sheets and worthless securities for one of the big firms that failed. I was a garbage man on the OTC desk since we did not have a distressed equity desk. My job at the time was to find markets for otherwise worthless securities. If a market did not exist I would issue a "No-Bid Letter" or a "Worthless Letter" to the client seeking liquidity.
One morning I sat at my desk and reviewed my pending orders. Almost every single one of the 100's of pending sell orders had an update or invalid symbol warning. I refreshed my screen and the symptom remained in effect.
Soon I was receiving orders to cancel the pending sales. I expanded the view of one of the orders to read "security name change". Replacing the orders showed that what was once called "Consolidated Lint Inc" was now re-named "ConsolidatedLint.Com"...
(Note: hat tip to The Addams Family TV Show. Gomez was a large shareholder in Consolidated Lint)
Dot_Com was the new suffix added to hundreds and hundreds of otherwise worthless securities.
Did any of these companies have anything to do with Internet Technology? Nope. Around the time this happened, Bear Stearns brought public a company called "TheGlobe.Com
I couldn't tell you what TGLO did, but the over-subscription drove this stock from it's IPO price of $9 to $97 bucks after about 5 minutes of trading. This was before Hi Frequency and Algo trading. The closest thing to  Hi Freq were SOES or Small Order Execution Services. There were SOES shops all over the country at this time and electronic Day_Trading  was the new get rich (get poor) quick scheme.
Bloomberg TV has been trying to compare Bit-Coin to Dutch Tulips and the Dot_Com bubble.
When you see more Crypto currencies role out to the public that's when you will see the bubble.
The Winklevoss twins just compared BitCoin to Gold. Last I checked, I have jewelry and electronics components with gold. In fact you probably couldn't "mine" BitCoin with out gold to some extent.
Bitcoins are backed by nothing more than demand. In a similar way when rallied after the name change, people were buying it because it sounded like a cheap way to get a piece of the Dot Com action.
Bit Coin proponents are singing a different tune: they are saying that small investors could not access the tech revolution (baloney) but that BitCoin is accessible to everyone (double baloney).
After gold peaked around $1800 per ounce, gold-bugs were saying the world was going to end and that the markets were merely pausing before the next big wave down. Oil peaked around $114 per bbl in 2014. Shortly thereafter it crashed to about $26...
Gold and Oil are tangible and have more applications than an inflationary hedge or energy indicator.
BitCoin mania is reminding me when the Power Ball first hit $100,000,000. People were liquidating their accounts to buy lottery tickets. Some people admitted to liquidating their retirement accounts and children's college fund to buy worthless paper... even after they were informed of the outrageous odds of winning!
These things collapse when the media offers the greatest promotion and when your barber tells you how he mortgaged his house to buy into it...

- Weaponized Delusion

Roy Moore is hardly my vision of the perfect Senate candidate, but at some level I think the future of the nation, like Donald Trump before him, rests on his being elected. If he isn't, then come the 2018 mid-terms Republicans can expect the percentage of candidates charged with long ago 'sexually inappropriate' activity with women to be north of 50%, and maybe as high as 100%. If we know anything about liberal tactics, it's that any rhetorical tool which is effective at winning elections, will be used and reused by them, again and again. There are no rules of war for liberals.

The big question when dealing with the he said she said of sexual politics isn't whether the women are 'lying' but whether their version of the facts can be adequately reconciled with the physical events. This is because of the way that women lie. What they do, and countless more thoughtful women have admitted this to me, is they delude themselves and then repeat what they believe to be the truth. It's a kind of ego defense having to do with a lack of agency.

In the case of Roy Moore it may well be that some large portion of these women may have convinced themselves that he engaged in some act or statement in their mutual ancient history. They could have been walking around for decades with a teenage fantasy being amplified in their head by fading memory, and they now fully believe it's true, even if their delusion has nothing to do whatsoever with what actually took place.

There is no physical evidence that hasn't been discredited. It's just the same old he said, she said but with the added vaguery of decades of history between act and accusation. There are no medical reports of the day, no angry parents, no corroborating witnesses. Just women who, for reasons that passeth all male understanding, may have felt they were involved in some way with an older man, decades ago. Based on my half century of dealing with women, I cannot just believe them. Especially in light of the current hysteria.

We needed Donald Trump to be elected because Hillary Clinton would have been an utter disaster. She was the picture of modern political corruption, and a woman to boot. The flight 93 election of Donald Trump may not yet see America landing safely on the runway, but we have not yet rained down on the Pennsylvania countryside in a billion tiny flaming pieces as we would have under Hillary Clinton.

Not quite so much is as stake in Roy Moore's election. His activity in the Senate would be unpredictable, and no one needs more political volatility right now. But if we hand the tool of unconfirmed allegations to the women of the Democrat party, then we can be assured that they will use it on us at every opportunity. 'Sexual Misconduct' will become like Racism - something you can be guilty of without any overt act or statement.

In an age when so much of the country is operating in perpetual denial about the way the world actually works, we cannot survive this. We cannot have our decisions about the real world based on female sexual delusion. It would be the end of us. And if Roy Moore loses, then the long dark night of American sexual politics will just be beginning.

Monday, December 11, 2017

- Make California A Safe Space Nation

Below is a video conversation between Millennial Woes (Scottish Ethno-Nationalist and Alt-Right Supporter) and Sargon of Akkad ('Traditional Liberal'/Individualist) discussing what to do about SJW's. It's an interesting discussion where in my opinion Sargon runs rings around Millennial Woes, and they (very courteously and jovially) discuss the future of the Social Justice Movement that they both oppose from different directions.

There are a few stolen bases here that I mention in a sec, but the broad point of discussion is that Sargon believes that the Alt-Right can achieve all its goals by infiltrating and radicalizing the SJW movement. They can then claim that the only way to achieve 'true' Social Justice is for black people to be spared the 'oppression' of white people by the establishment of their own ethno-state, and allowing them to remove themselves them from the 'oppressive' white nations.

He essentially argues that California could become the 'People Of Color' nation and eject white people, getting what's left of America much closer to the kind of ethno-state that MW generally argues for.

I've got to admit, it's a really creative idea and not totally divorced from logic and reason. I don't think it would work the way Sargon argues because I believe he's mistaken about SJW's and their true goals. But the argument certainly has an internal consistency.

And I'll give him this, according to what SJW's say, it's exactly right. If SJW's were honest (which they very much are not) I believe that Sargon would be completely correct. Since it's little more than a reaction to SJW's, the Richard Spencer version of the Alt-right definitely shares this much of the moral underpinnings of the SJW's in the same way that the old right shares the liberal definition of Feminism and (anti)-Racism with the left.

Both groups for example believe that blacks are inferior to whites. Both groups believe that expecting minorities to compete and succeed with whites on a level playing field would be futile. SJW's say that western nations should therefore impose 'minority' rule over whites by fiat, while the alt-right argues for their segregation. But that's a detail. The shared belief that whites are simply better at national state building, is clear in both groups.

But it wouldn't work because the SJW's don't really believe that minorities are oppressed by whites. SJW's are fully aware that the minority populations in white countries are infinitely better off than they are in their own nations, even as an underclass. Black people in America are far better off than those in Africa, Muslims in London live better than in Pakistan, and Mexicans in California live better on average than Mexicans in Mexico.

For the SJW, their moral argument is a device and nothing more. It's a way of playing upon the emotions of white people in order to achieve the goal of destroying a social hierarchy based on competence. They say they want to destroy 'whiteness' but it isn't really white people they want destroyed. There may be individual SJW members who truly want that, but as a group they are a parasitic class, and know they need a host upon which to feed.

What the SJW's really want to destroy is the success of white people relative to other groups, and they want to achieve this by proclaiming minorities morally superior to whites, and making them a de facto 'ruling class' by virtue of their race. They want to 'seize the means' not only of production, but of administration, and enforcement. They want to use white guilt to turn white people into an underclass of slaves, completely detached from the process of governance, who do nothing but labor for the benefit of minority groups and are subsequently dispossessed of the fruits of that labor by a minority defined rule set which inflicts penalties on them for their race.

This happens continually on a small scale already. You can see it clearly in Vox Day's book SJW's always lie. Every time an SJW moves into a new corporation they use incrementalism to seize control of the rule making, often from positions of relatively low importance like the HR department. They then impose rules which tip the scales of reward in favor of low competence minorities and away from high competence whites and asians, based exclusively on race.

They don't kill the corporation, at least not right away and not directly. If the corporation dies it's only through attrition like it did in the case of Yahoo. The frustration of high achieving people will cause them to balk under rules which make it difficult for them to rise through competence, and they will exercise their free choice to move on to less 'oppressive' environments. This leaves only the weak tea of less competent minorities and women, who then can't be unseated based on their lack of relative competence because the SJW now make all the rules.

The real war that the SJW's wage isn't on white people at all but on all hierarchies based on competence. That whites, asians and heterosexual men are the current target of that jihad is incidental. They are the accidental targets, but as long as competence is considered a virtue, they'll continue to rage at any group who retains the top spot. For them skin color is just a childishly simplistic corollary to that.

In terms of national governance, what SJW's really want is to take away that choice to leave. They want to force white people to stay where they are and to be as productive as they naturally would be, but to divert the product of that productivity to people who can't earn it themselves. I personally don't think they honestly believe this will usher in a utopia. I think it's enough for them to cynically be the recipients of unearned benefit at the expense of a group that they thoroughly hate and resent.

MW is a thoughtful guy, and doesn't completely fall back on his heels. But he can't keep up with Ssrgon in this discussion. Sargon sets the direction of discussion, and he therefore stays well ahead of MW all through the chat. None the less, it's a thoughtful look at things and worthy of your time.

Saturday, December 9, 2017

- De-Cucking David French

I sometimes wonder if my tendency to give some people the 'benefit of the doubt' isn't a kind of projection. I know I'm wrong about many things and simply under informed about many more, so I project 'good faith error' onto many people who aren't obvious about their opportunism, vanity, or lack of character. I'm extremely reluctant to ever say 'he should know better' in all but the most carefully applied circumstances.

This is a component of human nature I think, the tendency to assume that everyone else is more or less bumbling along just like you are. They just have different areas of interest, different areas of expertise, and different views that result from that gap.

I draw a line at what I view as incorrect mental process, so the person who clings to a view of a public policy issue in spite of being provided what I think is persuasive evidence that their position will have net negative consequences, doesn't get the benefit of the doubt anymore. They have in my mind, proven to me that their thinking cap is broken and can no longer be relied upon. But for people who are capable of being rational I don't like to assume malice.

Like most people, I hold views which are sometimes inconsistent with each other. My take on 'gay' issues are like that. I don't much care about 'the gays' (a term I jokingly use with my family) so I worry about the gay perspective only inasmuch as it touches on other components of public policy. Should a gay person who is dying be allowed to have their lover beside them in the hospital bed when they go? My view is that of course they should. Hospitals are chock full of stupid rules. Does that mean they should be 'married'? I don't think so no.

"But shouldn't they be allowed to live together and be happy?" asked the typical Greenwich Village progressive? It's fine with me. I didn't know that was up for debate. But should they be able to bully everyone else into using the terms associated with marriage to get that? I don't think so no.

"But, but, but, what about shared medical insurance, and pensions, and social security?" Meh. I don't find those arguments persuasive in the least. "Well what if they want to adopt?" Also meh. I'm all for children being raised in homes by people being willing to do so, and I don't think most homosexuals individually let alone homosexual couples would be particularly worse for the child than being raised in the foster care system. But it's the child I'm worried about not the parent, so if there is good data on this I'd go with what it says.

So in a nutshell, I am pro leaving homosexuals alone to do and say what they like about their relationships and lives. If it hurts no one else, I'm firmly in the leave them the hell alone camp. I feel no desire to make them live by the same moral standards I have in my own life. But do I then think that gay marriage is OK? Not in the present climate no. They can call themselves husband and wife, or husband and husband, or owner and pet for all of me. I just don't want anyone putting a gun to my head and making me do the same.

Gay rights? Sure. They can have gay rights, whatever that means. So long a the right they want isn't the right to bully people into thinking or saying that their way of life is perfectly acceptable in every way. Some people are very put off by homosexuality, for a variety of reasons. And I think those people have a right to be left alone too. To many this seems inconsistent, but not to me.

Anyway back to my tendency to project more or less marginally informed good intentions onto the rational.

Many people on the right assume that if a person holds views that are in conflict with each other it's a big problem and a sign of poor character, ill intentions, or both. The 'true conservatives' think Trump supporters are a bunch of thoughtless idiots who have abandoned principle. I don't buy that for a second. Many of them may very well be, but not the ones I listen to.

Many of the alt-rightish people I talk to assume that the tru-cons only hold their views for reasons of avarice, greed or cowardice. But I don't really buy that either. It may be true of some of them, but mostly I think they're focused on other things, are under informed, or some other totally forgivable sin. And like my example above they probably have some rationalized principle which they can use (like my 'leave everyone the hell alone' principle) to personally circle the square.

This piece by David French is an excellent example of this. As a rule I generally find David to be clear headed, and a man of courage. He's very deeply opposed to the alt-right, but I think he came by his antipathy honestly thought support of his own adopted black daughter who was the subject of much social media attack. But I have to confess, I find it a little dicey to be reading him trying to defend human nature, when the two big 'human nature' debates of the day (group difference in race, group difference in sex) are issues he won't address directly.

If you step back from it far enough - forget the author's personal history and the decline of the publication where it appears - it becomes clear that the position that he's arguing in that piece is not the tru-con position but the alt-right position. He's not bowing and scraping to the Feminist altar like any tru-con should. He's saying there are fundamental real world 'differences' between men on average and women on average. He's bumping right up against one of the fundamental biological truths upon which the entire alt-right is based. That he can't see that seems an extraordinary case of the forest and the trees.

When he does this, my tendency is to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's a very difficult thing to plainly state ideas which are unpopular. And for a professional writer like him, I'm sure there is a whole host of reasons he would be at least be reluctant to do so, which I don't presume to know. But what that means is that the debate between the alt-right and someone like David French isn't so much about what he believes, but about how he expresses his beliefs.

It isn't 'being a cuck' to choose a phrase like 'black people' instead of 'ni**ers', so by extension, what's wrong with David recognizing the underlying truths of the alt-right, even if he doesn't go quite so far in his tone in defending those truths as the alt-right typically does? It may be my projecting good intentions here, but I say there is nothing wrong with it. He can describe himself any way he likes, but if he believes the root, then he's a part of the tree.

The punchline here is that this is all a part of my argument for alt-right incrementalism and why we should be doing our best to engage the old right in a civil way. Sit next to David for 3 hours on an airplane and speak to him cooly and rationally on alt-ideals, and you'd have an ally. He won't be posting anti-white racism memes on 4-chan any time soon, but he would support the public policies tied to the facts that the alt-right uses as its basis. He is a rational man with a functional thinking cap so he can be persuaded by reason and rationality. This is who the alt-right should be thoughtfully, reasonably engaging with.

Pepe the frog is great for annoying liberals, and annoying liberals is a great way to make them overreact and make unforced errors. But people like David French shouldn't get that kind of treatment. They should be reasonably challenged to support freedom of association, and confront evidence supporting group differences in IQ. Reasoned debate and discussion is what will pull the smart, open minded old right out of the empty husk that #Nevertrump conservatism has turned into, and back into the much more vital world of the alt-right.

I guess my big point is that the 'red pill' doesn't necessarily need to be a pill in every case. Some people have more trouble swallowing pills than others. And I think it would be fine if instead of a red pill, portions of the old-right who are rational and thoughtful, engaged in a kind of red chemo-therapy over a period of time. Small treatments over a lengthy period that doesn't ever result in a snap awakening, but more of a slow stirring that results in something resembling consciousness of reality.

If he ends up awake, that's more than good enough for me.

Friday, December 8, 2017

- Being 'Uncomfortable'

As near as I can tell, this guy is resigning for no good reason.

He's resigning because of an ethics investigation of a discussion of surrogate pregnancy? That sounds like he's resigning for cause no more serious than the Yale Administrator who resigned because he was 'insensitive' about halloween costumes. And if he's so weak that this is enough to drive him to the door, then I'm quite sure Republicans are better to see the back of him.

Clearly we're going to need new cultural standards. No one can survive this. But how do you get the world to step back from a level of indulgence and stupidity like the one where we stand?

If all you have to do is drive someone from office is be 'uncomfortable' with what they say, then Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi both make me 'terribly uncomfortable'.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

- About Pizzagate

I don't generally go for conspiracy theories. Who has time for that nonsense. It's virtually impossible to keep a secret, and sooner or later it all comes out. When things do come out, it's extremely rare that it turns out to be a conspiracy, particularly one as broad and far reaching into the halls of power as pizzagate is supposed to be.

In my worldview, conspiracies are mostly a thing invented by Hollywood and our dark imaginations.

But given all the bad acting we've seen from Hollywood, and how broad reaching and effective Harvey Weinstein's (until recently successful) efforts to cover it all up was, I'm beginning to think there may be something to the stories of rampant child abuse and pedophilia.

Maybe not pizzagate. That still sounds pretty crazy to me. But after all these rumors I'm reading about Bryan Singer, David Geffen and the confirmed Hollywood bad actors, I confess I'm having doubts.

I know that I'm particularly poor at seeing this sort of thing. I've been fooled countless times before. I don't really understand the nature of sins which I'm not personally tempted by. And since I feel no sexual attraction to children, maybe it's the kind of thing I am willfully blind about.

I want to be clear here. I've seen 16 year old girls that I thought were very nice to look at and quite sexy. I even saw a 15 year old once who looked extremely mature for her age and got my aesthetic admiration going. I think that's pretty normal.

But I don't even want to date 22 year olds anymore. And though I'd look at those younger girls with the same kind of mildly illicit pleasure that a hetero man gets from looking at a woman, I have never acted on my attraction and never would. Even at 17 I thought 15 was too young for me.

In my mind there is something really badly broken about a man who is attracted to prepubescent children. It is perverse and malignant, and I'll be the first help build the pyre upon which to throw such a man, whatever his position. I think a great many 'normal' American men feel exactly the same way. Even, and maybe especially, if it turns out to be someone that I used to admire.

I do want to say though, if this stuff is confirmed, then the whole 'pervy jew' argument is going to get really difficult to fight against.