Monday, February 29, 2016

- Regarding Gyno-centrism

Some interesting and rational points from the Men's Rights movement.

If you are looking for a non Pick Up Artist's take on taking the Red Pill, Read Rollo Tomassi's "The Rational Male". It's not the best written book, but it is the best model I've ever read for describing female behavior, and in my opinion as a middle aged man, is the best way to choke down the occasionally tough to swallow "Red Pill".


A quick review of the anti-feminism movement on youtube show's I'm a day late and a dollar short. All of the rational discussion does the same thing I'm doing in private - ridiculing feminism, feminists, and most loudly, the fully feminized male feminists. Clearly the smarter westerners already see what's going on here.

for me it's very reminiscent of the post Carter era, where weakness was considered strength, and strength as evil. We're close to the edge on all this I think.

- Women and "Stress"

A woman’s strategic work goals are all about the elimination of risk. They aren’t like men who view risk as a fact of life and as an essential part of the effort to produce gain. Men hope to manage risk by properly assessing it, and taking risks they feel confident will result in a larger economic or status benefit to them. Direct competition with other men and the risks it brings, is the water in which we men swim. But for women it’s the exact opposite.

Even when the risk of a position cannot be completely eliminated, women will be attracted in far greater numbers, to careers where the consequences of being wrong are minimal. Teaching, the governmental bureaucracy, journalism and 'the arts' all come immediately to mind. And in keeping with this thesis, are all careers with a disproportionately large percentage of women involved in them. Job’s with direct or easily identifiable risks, fireman, policeman, combat soldier, hedge fund manager, are all jobs which remain overwhelmingly male. To women, no amount of money will compensate them for the stress of dealing with constant risk.

This isn’t as a result of oppression by the patriarchy, but is actually a result of our innate skills and incentives driven by evolutionary psychology. With the exception of combat soldier (where the risk is so great to the other men involved that women must be kept out for the safety of others) no one tells women that they can’t pursue those careers. They just naturally shy away from them. Which isn't to say that outlier women will still chose those careers from time to time. In fact, one of the best hedge fund managers I know is female.

But, for the vast majority of people, this is the way it works out. So this article raised an interesting question for me. What would happen I wonder, if you eliminated tenure?

Our teachers are overwhelmingly female. So if you removed tenure and began hiring and firing on performance, what would happen? First, you’d get a much higher proportion of men involved in teaching. Second, because those men would want compensation for the risk, you’ll probably have to pay more per teacher. But third, and this is the part that interests me most, women would have to go somewhere else to get the insulation from risk that they crave so innately that most aren’t aware of it. So where would they go?

Every man I know is closely associated with a woman who does little but complain about ‘stress’. Many (a much larger proportion than men actually) have turned to modern pharmacology to try to cope with their ‘stress’. Still they wail and moan about how horribly stressful it is and complain constantly that ‘stress’ is destroying their lives.

So where will today's “strong independent woman” who "needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle", find the kind of safe work with little accountability for performance that she so craves?

I don’t know the answer to this, but I think it’s an interesting question. Since Feminism now denies men most of the benefits of marriage (how can you get the respect of society for doing the right thing and be admired for being virtuous when you’re viewed only as ‘oppressing’ your barefoot and pregnant wife and participating in ‘rape culture’ by trapping her in a marriage and using her for sex?) the American marriage strike is really only picking up steam. There will be fewer and fewer marriages going forward. So like it or not, women must find a way to get by in the world on their own. But if you then also deny them the security of a job without any personal accountability (as all jobs are becoming in the modern world), where will they be likely to go?

As I said I don’t know. But I expect the perceived "mental illness" of women is only going to get worse. It's isn't actual "mental illness" you understand, just more women buying into the lies of feminism, and taking on a role in life to which they are innately unsuited. It's viewed as a 'serious' problem now with 1 woman in 4 taking medication to address it. But as the bulldozer of Feminism rolls forward effectively stifling all dissent as 'hate speech', I have to believe it will get much, much worse.

Stress for women will do nothing but rise, and because it does, the demands of Feminism will only get more and more hyperbolic. All this while we speed toward the edge of a fiscal cliff in Washington, blissfully unaware of our risk.

Funny how these things all tie together huh?

Thursday, February 25, 2016

- Institutionalized Stupidity

The Video below has some problems. But if you can get past the slightly wooden presentation and the Canadian accent, it makes some VERY interesting points. Points I find to be very high on my mental Radar these days.

There are a whole raft of videos on Youtube by the same Canadian Academic, mostly regarding men's rights. If you don't mind the tone, I highly recommend them. They actually remind me vaguely of the measured, thoughtful and carefully reasoned tones you usually get from someone like John Derbyshire, though in fairness John is a better speaker and writer.

But if logic and reason is your thing (which is to say that you aren't a liberal, and especially aren't a feminist) I think you'll like them. Professor Fiamengo certainly is stating facts that are on the "hatefact" list of the left.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

- If Trump Really Wins It

This piece on the Chinese reaction to Trump’s continued success raises an entertaining idea for me.

Liberals live in a world sheltered from risk. Academic liberals have tenure and are protected from the consequences of bad decisions. The other area that attracts liberals like flies is the bureaucracy, where thanks to low expectations and perverse incentives, they are largely thought of as permanent employees regardless of performance.

Whatever you want to say about Trump and his wealth and success exaggerated or not, he does not come from that world, he comes from mine.

Trump lives in a world where you get things done, or get them done to you. We’re used to seeing government negotiations take place between an Obama class liberal, and his moral equivalent on the Republican side. But Trump is going to blow through nonsense like that and the little girls who play those games like a steam roller. And internationally, our trading partners and other diplomats, with the possible exception of Vlad Putin, are to a great extent cut from the same cloth. They have never had to deal with a man who is perfectly content to use Aircraft carriers and smart drones as part of a currency deal.

The rhetoric from the journalists, the one remaining liberal incubator where you suffer no consequences for being wrong, will be stratospheric. But just watch how these diplomats and heads of state all fall down at his feet. There will be no Trump apology tour. No bowing to foreign nationals. He’ll be pinching their wives bottoms instead and asking them if they’d like to see the inside of Air force one, then sending the fuel bill to the husbands.

Give me the full force of the US military and 8 years to negotiate, and when I’m done, the British Empire at its peak will look like small potatoes. I can only imagine what Trump is going to do. It’s the one way that he really is qualified to be President. Far more qualified than any of the trust fund Republicans and teacher’s lounge radicals of the last few decades have ever been.

Obama and the Democrats are all women. But if Trump actually wins it, there will be a man in the Whitehouse. It might mean the end of everything, but it will be great fun watching Trump bitch slap guys like Harry Reid while it all falls apart.

%%%%%%%%%% HILLARY UPDATE%%%%%%%%%%

For the record, I think Hillary is a much weaker candidate than she seems. She lacks Bubba's charm, which frankly was his greatest strength, and she isn't very 'likable'. In spite of her confirmed membership in the 'sisterhood' of Feminism, young women don't like her, and can't identify with her. Feminism itself has also reached an apex of silliness and few women (really only the very lowest SMV creatures) strongly embrace it's third wave because of it's open hostility to all things male. Meanwhile, everywhere Hillary goes, she's going to be followed by accusations of illegal activity that also come with accusations against an Obama justice department that's widely viewed as openly corrupt and politicized. She'll have to apologize for both, countless times, in order to make it all go away.

She can't be the next Obama, because to blacks she looks like just another rich old white woman. They may prefer her, but they won't turn out in droves for her. And her closeness to Wall Street is going to raise questions with former Bernie supporters. They may be the most economically illiterate members of the American electorate, but if they get confused by that stuff, guilt by association is certainly simple enough for them.

To me, a hardcore, gun owning, pro-life, personal liberty Republican, she sounds like a harsh, shrill, ex-marxist lawyer from the Ivy League who is fully prepared to burn it all to the ground to rule the ashes. Her staff is a pack of jackals, and she'll get nothing but praise from the shill media. But the things that make Trump look like 'not much of a Republican' all seem like strengths to Hillary supporters, so I can't imagine her wolves will have much to chew on except issues of personal integrity, and few candidates in my lifetime can deflect personal integrity issues like Donald Trump.

The Robert Reich video a few posts back describes it succinctly (good catch HILN). That video is directed at Cruz, but can be used by the Trump team in the general as well. Everything that sounds like a criticism to Hillary supporters is actually a thing that will motivate the much harried conservative base more aggressively than the opposition to it. And in the end Hillary may end up producing some of the best Republican ads.

America is tired of social justice, pro black racism, illegal (in most cases blatantly illegal) immigration, and the way that team Obama is transforming America into a place that deeply hostile to the people who actually built the place. And after my recent trip to the heartland, I can tell you that the only time I heard people say they didn't support Trump, it was because they were afraid of looking stupid to me, a perceived member of the conservative wing of the New york intelligentsia. But for that, and the not settled issue of the primary, they would all be wearing Trump hats and talking about how 'Yuuuge' it's all gonna be.

The press wants all these issues settled, and for us all to simply hand Hillary her crown because it's her time. But I don't think it is. They can't hide Hillary from the public forever, and that seems to be the way she's strongest. As a kind of absentee landlord for America. The closer you get to her, the less appealing she looks.

Monday, February 22, 2016

- When A Gun Goes Bad

Here is a fun, and typically idiotic article from the Daily Mail:

A gunmaker who produced the rifle used by the killer in the Sandy Hook massacre will today ask a judge to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the families of some of the victims. Freedom Group, based in Madison, North Carolina, is the parent company of AR-15 maker Bushmaster Firearms, which made the weapon used by 20-year-old Adam Lanza, who gunned down 26 people including 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. They argue that they are protected by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturer from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products.

The(y) argue that there is an exception that allows litigation against companies that know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others.

This model rifle is the most common seller in America, so even if there wasn't a law protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits like this one, their argument fails on it's face. Literally millions of Americans own and use them without hurting anyone. And they continue to 'not hurt anyone' every single day. I myself own one and though some days as amazed by this as any liberal, my rifle has never harmed anyone either.

But one thing rarely mentioned is that if they declare these guns illegal, then my gun would become an "illegal gun". I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure the 'illegal gun' injury rates are much higher, and according to liberal logic, my gun would then be much more likely to harm someone. I'm sure you can see them late at night, hanging around on dark street corners with all the other illegal guns. They're usually smoking, getting dirty, and trying to score some primers or hook up with a brass catcher. It's really a terrible thing when a gun goes bad like that.

No bets on who specifically would meet the wrath of my gun if it ever went that way. And since guns (again... according to liberals) seem to act on their own to commit mayhem and destruction, I wouldn't know any better than the next guy who it was likely to lash out at. But if someone really pressed me to guess, then I'd probably say it would likely be a politician. No particular name comes to mind.

Thankfully however, my AR15 continues to fly right. It focuses on hitting it's targets, and spends all it's free time locked up tight in a nice warm safe without getting involved with other, more disreputable guns.

Robert Reich (inadvertently) endorses Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz should play this Youtube video in front of every group of Tea Party people and pro right to bear arms groups he can.  Reich basically makes (though I doubt it is what he intended) one of the best endorsement videos I have seen so far during this election cycle.

Friday, February 19, 2016

- What I Want For Christmas


Hillary Clinton just can’t win: Democrats need to accept that only Bernie Sanders can defeat the GOP

God hear my prayer.

I know I've been a faithless and sinful man dear lord. But if you could just delivery me the entertainment that will come from Bernie Sanders being the Democrat nominee for President, I swear that I'll do my very best to repent. I ask not for myself, but for the countless men I know who have been mocking the economic illiteracy of Socialists and Socialism for decades, and deserve the chance to wield their razor sharp wits in the battle to come, in your name.

Whatcha think Fellas Richard Trumpka as Veep? Maybe a SJW? One of those idiot girls who see's a misogynist behind every tree and thinks a black person can't be a racist? Surely a man as driven by principle as Bernie (no I mean it, it's a stupid principle, but none the less...) wouldn't 'sell out' by picking a mainstream veep candidate?

A Mike Dukakis of our age. All we have to do is sit and wait for the shoe to drop. How long before someone convinces him to actually say the phrase 'national (vs international) socialism'? I can see the internet meme already. Zombie Milton Friedman is no doubt sputtering with hysterical laughter from his grave.

- Fundamental Transformation In The Courts

All this talk of Scalia’s replacement has me thinking about ‘fundamental transformation’ lately. The left has had mammoth success during my lifetime reinterpreting the ‘living constitution’ to mean whatever they damned well please, and the courts, with a few glaring expectations have sanctioned that view. I’m not talking about the social justice stuff. If Bruce Jenner wants to call himself a woman I don’t really much care. It’s not like he’ll be seeing an OBGYN on my dime anytime soon.

But our fundamental rights have been reinterpreted and reduced so severely that my daughter, born just 16 years ago, has no idea the degree to which she is very much ‘less free’ than I was at her age. The two rulings that immediately spring to mind are the eminent domain ruling Kelo vs. New London, and the raft of incremental infringements on the second amendment. But they are by no means the only ones.

Thanks to president Bike Helmet and his sycophants from the teachers’ lounge, we have a relatively long list of new executive actions and dubiously enacted legislation that will (and in some cases already have) set off law suits countrywide on other fundamental freedoms. We are by no means a free people anymore, but the courts are slow and methodical, so the issues raised by Obama’s ‘flexible’ interpretation of the laws restricting his actions have not yet been fully settled. Your freedom to assemble, to practice your faith, and to speak to others as you see fit have all been seriously degraded since my youth, and still face further meaningful challenge – to say nothing of our right to use force to resist tyranny.

Whenever I think of ‘fundamental transformation’, I think of Rhodesia. When Robert Mugabe’s idiotic ZANU regime took over in 1980, the country has already seen 15 years of internal guerrilla warfare by fractional groups. But as a British Colony until 1965, it was a kind of African paradise in waiting. It had a stable currency, a growing economy, and a rising standard of living (rising fastest for the black population). With enormous natural resources, and a spectacular agro climate even with its small size it showed every sign of becoming a regional powerhouse. But then came the 60’s.

The Rhodesian government under Ian Smith openly discriminated against the majority black population, reserving a large number of parliament seats for whites under the premise that it was they who built Rhodesia from a third world backwater to a potential rising star, and should have their interests protected from the majority black population. Though the plan was always to fully include the black population once education took root and proved their fitness for self-rule, Smith never got the chance.

In the 60’s racial identity politics became the order of the day and it weakened the outside support of the ruling regime. Before long, economic sanctions, pressure from the superpowers, and most of all, outward migration of the white citizens who feared black Guerilla violence, so weakened the position of Smith’s government that the communist backed guerillas were given a political foothold. The rest, is simply tragic history. Now what was once Rhodesia is renowned only for its spectacularly bad economic decision making, its laughable currency, and its brutal bayonet point politics. The ‘fundamental transformation’ of Rhodesia from rising African star to ridiculous and brutal third world backwater, was complete.

I can’t find the news article, but I remember reading a piece in one of the British newspapers some time in 2004 about the goings on in Rhodesia under Mugabe. He seized most of the farmland of course, and handed it out to party loyalists who were all black. The newly created ‘farmers’ then immediately complained that they needed tractors so Mugabe went out and seized those too. Sometime after that, I read a piece where the new ‘farmers’ of Rhodesia demanded workers to drive the tractors, mechanics to fix them, and someone to teach them all the other things they need to know to be farmers. The politics of racial entitlement only led to more and greater demands for more entitlements. At the risk of offending social justice warriors even further, that analogy about teaching pigs to sing springs immediately to mind. As it stands Rhodesia today produces only a fraction of the real economic output of what it did under Smith.

I’m not saying that Obama is as stupid as Robert Mugabe or that his regime and the social justice warriors who lobby to move the agenda further left are demanding the same thing in America that ZANU and the communists were there. In America no one wants to be a farmer, they want to be lawyers, doctors, and tenured professors in such demanding ‘hard science’ disciplines as women’s and ethnic studies.

But while the actual entitlements they’re asking for are different, they’re certainly doing it in the same way. What was important to both groups? Racially driven ‘social’ justice, entitlements for the politically loyal, and ‘equality’ of results for those seen as underprivileged by the political elite, whether they knew what they were doing in their selected trade or not. What is unimportant for both? Property rights, individual liberty, and the value of knowledge.

America is by no means ‘the same’ as Rhodesia was politically either in spite of the dubious claims of the social justice and ‘black lives matter’ crowd. Under American law, black citizens have no reduced status - they are full citizens given the same protections and the same rights as any other American – which is obviously as it should be in my opinion. But in a welfare state, you cannot get equality of outcomes without holding someone back. This isn’t politics, it’s simply mathematics. One person will always know more, work harder, or otherwise be more productive than the next person. You can believe that’s as a result of individual initiative or of bias and oppression, but it’s a fact either way. So equality can’t be accomplished without punishing the have’s and bringing them down to the level of the “have not’s”.

As much as Obama has done to try to turn America into a Rhodesian superpower, I believe one thing and one thing alone has stifled his ambitions. In America 100 million private citizens have the means to resist the force which will be required to produce equality of outcomes. Our right to keep and bear arms is deeply embedded in the culture, and is going absolutely nowhere. The law may change, but gun ownership will not. And you can arm 100 million motivated people with nothing but farm implements, and no army in the world could successfully suppress them. Anyone who believes differently simply doesn’t understand the nature of armed conflict. What’s even worse for Obama and the SJW’s is that of that 100 million people, a very large number of them are currently wearing the uniform of our armed services. The day Obama or his progressive successor tells them to disarm the American public, is almost certainly the day that his Army turns on him. And you cannot rule by force if you have no force to use. You may be able to force a bakery owner to violate his faith, but you cannot force even a tiny fraction of America’s gun owners to surrender their arms or steal their farms or tractors. Not unless you want to see 15+ years of guerilla warfare across the entire continent, much like what they saw across all of Rhodesia.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but America’s gun owners are far more capable, cunning, and skilled than Robert Mugabe’s functionally illiterate idiot communist ZANU insurgency ever was. Conflict between the most fanatically determined portion of gun owning America and the US military would be such a total blowout that a meaningful portion of gun owning America is actually kind of hoping that Obama and the other girls from the teacher’s lounge actually try to pull it off. To say nothing of the fact that the two groups overlap in important and meaningful ways. As they see it the civilian loss would be minimal and there would be a congressman or know it all federal bureaucrat hanging from every lamp-post. Me I’m not so optimistic.

This is why I believe Scalia’s successor to the court is the entire battle for the soul of America in microcosm. There is really only one way to avoid the decades of violence that will spring from the ‘fundamental transformation’ of our right to keep and bear arms. And that is to leave it in place, or even better, to strengthen it. If we get another progressive on the court we inevitably go the way of Rhodesia and are ‘fundamentally transformed’ at bayonet point. If not, then when the next economic bubble bursts what comes out of the wreckage might have at least a few things in common with America of my childhood. And the ideas that the second amendment actually protects like free speech, free assembly, and property rights, might just survive it all. %%%%%%%%%%UPDATE%%%%%%%%%%

From the NyTimes:

“If we got a fifth liberal on the court, the pendulum would swing pretty quickly on gun control,” he said. “I expect that we’d see a major shift in the kind of gun control laws that get approved by the court. Look for enhanced registration requirements as the first step.”

Or you could think of it as a 'last step', depending on how you look at things.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

- Killer Mike's Uterus

From NRO:

On Tuesday, Killer Mike, a rapper who loves Bernie Sanders, spoke to a crowd of 4,800 people at Morehouse College. His intent was to discuss our glorious future under democratic socialism. Along the way, however, he said something problematic: “A uterus doesn’t qualify you to be president.”

OK I admit it, I'm only attracted to this nonsense by the controversy it created. Naturally, all the girls hopped up onto chairs and screeched "misogynist!!!". And seeing a smaller social justice fire getting started, I'd like to throw a little gasoline on it by mentioning a few other things that having a uterus doesn't immediately qualify you for:

- Football Player
- Navy Seal
- Commanding General
- Action Hero
- Surfer
- Sailor
- Candle Stick Maker
- Any other damned thing you can think of

Having a uterus doesn't immediately qualify you for anything at all. Ironically, it doesn't even qualify you in and of itself, for being a mother. Unless I'm mistaken, Lena Dunham has a uterus, and not only do I not think she'd be a very good mother given her politics, I think she'd also be very hard pressed to find a man willing to help her along (as the kids say today) with the necessary act for becoming one. But even if she could, her uterus is not the thing that makes the difference. To say nothing of how biased the social justice warriors are being against women without uteruses. (uteri?)

My daughter and I had a plan a few months back to do a little chalk art in Washington Square Park that says "Social Justice is an Oxymoron" but unfortunately the weather got too cold for us. Maybe in the spring. But at the rate it's going, I find myself hoping that the whole laughable nonsense doesn't die a natural cultural death before that. I'd like to see the bloated and tattoo'd little freaks heads explode when girl who looks in all respects like a Victoria's secret model, who is also smarter and stronger then any of those little snowflakes, scratches that on their playground floor.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

- Coping With Loss

Apologies for my absence. I have been down in the Gulf coast coping with the sudden and untimely death of my oldest friend. I'm pondering posting the eulogy I gave for him the day before yesterday (myself and the minister were the only speakers), but I need to think about it a bit. We were as close as brothers both man and boy, for 40 years. His loss has left a deep mark and I don't know how public I want to be with that experience yet.

In the meantime, Justice Scalia has also died. This is big news for all of us. That I'm prepared to say something about right now.

There are lost of people better at the political play by play than me and I suggest you read them. For my part, the only thing it's done is make me even more anti-Trump. I don't know for certain that he can be counted on to pick, or for that matter even successfully determine, who would likely be a conservative jurist. If I had to pick a Republican candidate solely on his ability to pick Supreme court Justices (a perfect and and newly relevant metric) I'd really have to go with Ted Cruz. So with the loss of Justice Scalia, he has just become cemented as my first choice.

One other thing, which was a typically insightful comment from my brother:

The Republicans in the Senate are used to caving to Obama on everything. But if they cave on this, the bubbling cauldron which brought us Donald the candidate will boil over completely, and it will very likely mean the end of the Republican party. I know that if they let him put a Second Amendment revisionist on the court, I'll happily vote Libertarian, or Whig or any other damned thing than Republican the rest of my life, and there are a LOT of people out there who agree with me. They won't end up kings of the ashes. They won't end up kings of anything. And if we're left with no choice but going over the progressive waterfall, we might as well do it at top speed.


Thank you to all who expressed their well wishes in both the comments section and other formats. To me it feels a lot like having had an arm amputated. I'm still trying to figure out how to handle normal day to day things without a part of myself that that's always been there to help accomplish them. May none of you ever have to do the same. Unfortunately I do know that there are worse pains to feel, but not many. And in the meantime, the world is still spinning, and I have miles to go before I sleep.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

- How To Communicate With Millenial Liberals (or Journalists)

How do you convince people that you have a good idea? What can you say that will persuade them that you’re right, and your idea will not only make their lives better but yours as well? The answer is, it depends on who they are and how they make decisions. Some people are persuaded by facts, reason and evidence. Others simply are not.

The best analogy I can think of is that the two groups are having one conversation but listening to different wavelengths. Both groups look at facts and have emotional reactions to them based on the degree to which their worldview is challenged. But while one group focuses on the facts and discards the emotions associated with them, the other focuses on the emotions and is happy to disregard the facts.

This is complicated somewhat by the things they say, because both groups would argue that they’re being rational. The emotion driven group sees the feeling they experience as being central to the discussion and sees the other group’s inability to react to those feelings as ignoring not just an important portion of the discussion, but the most important part. We’ve all heard it. “How can you be such an unfeeling monster?”

Meanwhile the group that discard their feelings in deference to the hard facts looks at the emotional group as dragging an irrelevancy into a discussion. It isn’t simply a question of misunderstanding, it’s a question of the metrics to determine what ‘understanding’ means are different. It’s like trying to compare music to a clock. The questions that each are useful to answer are completely different. This I believe is the state of political discussion in 21’st century America.

When Allan Bloom wrote about the American mind closing, this was how it closed. Academia, particularly the social sciences has abandoned the logic of reason and instead enshrined subjective emotion as a core part of their worldview. They have subsequently trained a generation (or two) to do the same. As a result we have college graduates who aren’t impervious to reason, they are unable to tell the difference between it, and how they feel about it.

So how do you persuade people like that? As is evidenced by our rapidly degrading political discussions and the fact that one of the leading candidates for president is utterly ignoring the last 75 years of economic history, you do not persuade them by telling them that they’re ignoring the facts. In their minds they are not ignoring them. There are simply other ‘facts’ (as they see it) which are more important – specifically, how they feel about things.

In making this point to you all, to me it seems I’m being pretty clear. But I’ve tried to have this conversation with people before and it always seems to miss the mark. I’ll bet that even my analogies aren’t adequately highlighting how foreign the 21st century liberal worldview is. This concept not only permeates their every decision, but its core to them in their understanding of how the world is structured.

This is why the left is so quick to accuse the right of dark motivations like hate. This is why they imagine evil cabals of vicious and bloodthirsty men pulling the strings of their lives that they are powerless to extricate themselves from. In their minds the world is run on emotion, and facts and evidence that point to the results achieved by past decisions are only backward looking. To them no one ever looks forward except guided by their emotions. And the emotions that drive them specifically are only fear, and resentment, so they assume that’s the only things that are ever driving others.

So how do you persuade people like that? How do you reason with them? How do you convince them to look at facts and evidence ‘instead’ of their emotions, and to assume some individual accountability and personal agency for themselves and their lives?

In my mind the answer to this question is that you don’t. With their minds walled off behind a cloud of emotions, asking them to transcend their feelings – the part of their worldview that they’ve been taught is the most important issue of any discussion – is simply more than most of them will ever be able to accomplish. So instead, I think we need to take the burden of communicating effectively with them on us, and do so in a manner that they know how to hear. We need to speak to them on their frequency. In a word, I think we need to frighten them.

They are slaves to their emotions not master of them. So I believe our only alternative is to speak to them in emotional terms. We need to scare them. We need them to fear physical and emotional harm if they refuse to listen to us. Threats won't do it, they'll just assume insincerity. Never the less, we need to illuminate the danger of dismissing our view – but not in a cool and calculated way – not in the way that would persuade one of us. What we need to do is to communicate emotionally.

We need to scream, and yell, and convey that we have feelings too and those feelings are something they need to be afraid of. To us this seems as excessive and unimportant as when they do it, but it’s the only kind of ‘thinking’ that will actually get through to them. And since we are the only party in the discussion capable of filling the communications gap, it falls to us to do it.

Rational explanation of an imminent threat of harm isn’t something they can hear. But emotion expressed in a manner to illicit fear gets right to their core. It’s one of their primary motivators. And with a motivator like that, making them afraid will let them know we’re hearing them, and they might possible then be ready then to begin to hear us.

This is tragic, but someone has to do it. They can't, so we must. They really haven't left us any choice.

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."