Monday, October 31, 2016

- The NYTimes Would Have Demanded It!

The Republican Nominee for President:

Republican nominee Donald Trump told an audience of roughly 8,000 cheering fans that if he had cheated in presidential debates the way rival Hillary Clinton had, he would be sent to the “electric chair.”

I can practically hear the network news segway:

Maybe Hillary is being held to a double standard here because she's a woman. Let's ask one of our 'experts' on women and the horrible way they're treated by men, former DNC chair Donna Brazile...

All journalists are scum, scum, scum, scum, scum!

- A Feminist Squirrel Finds A Nut

Jonah Goldberg, one of the establishment right's blind squirrels in the Feminist forest, has managed to find a nut. It's a piece on 'speaking while female' by some crazy academic from Berkeley. How lovely there is a 'too far' that women can go for him. The piece itself is in my mind, prototypical of Feminist complaints:

I am mad. I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.

The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man? Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere. There is so much of that going around.

The best part about this rant is that it could literally be about anything. There are no real arguments offered, no facts. No... anything. Just anger and rage and wailing at the moon. The is the academic rhetorical equivalent of the blue haired psycho screaming nonsense at anti-abortion activists that we've all come to know and love from the youtube 'feminist fails' videos.

And you know it's got to be over the top if a bastion of chivalrous feminists like those at National Review find it objectionable.

- A Story With Meaning

Few tunes stick in my head like Debussy’s Claire De Lune. But even more stuck in my head today is the verbal sparring between Ed Harris and Anthony Hopkins on this weeks episode of Westworld, the scene for which opened with that deeply memorable French impressionist piece.

Westworld is HBO’s new series – the NC17 rated remake of the cheesy 70’s western about robots run amok starring Yul Brynner. But it’s much adapted from the original, and I mean that in a good way. It’s beautifully shot (even in HD), with a pleasantly complex set of story lines, and features some splendid acting by legends and relative newcomers alike. And the story of Westworld finds itself at the end of episode 5, to be in a rare position to say something really important about the decline of our culture, and who we really are beneath it all.

Don’t get me wrong, I have as little confidence in Hollywood’s depth as anyone. The people who make American movies are in virtually all cases, as vain, shallow, and thoughtless as any humans. So I’m still holding back enough enthusiasm so that I won’t be too heartbroken when Westworld turns into another Hollywood version of an “important morality play about the evils of racism and the role of women”. But I confess, so far, I’m absolutely entranced.

And one of the main reasons is the conversation I mentioned. It was in my mind anyway, just the right mix of deep philosophy and shallow accessibility to lend itself to a much bigger point about good and evil. It seems flawlessly designed for a nearly illiterate American audience that’s all but completed its detachment from its history and culture, but that still swims in the ocean of western civilization. In Westworld, the characters at least are looking for something true. Something with meaning. That alone makes it better in my mind than 99% of the childish dribble that Hollywood produces.

In 21st century Westworld the theme is that if the robots are so lifelike that you can’t tell the difference between them and the humans, then what is the difference between them and the humans? We’re given glimpses of the iceberg of difference, but so far only relatively subtle ones, viewed through the heavy mist, and showing no clear indication of the larger shapes beneath the surface. The result is a mystery. We can’t tell for sure who is the good guy, who is the bad, and who means well or ill for the guests, their robot hosts, or society at large.

Sure, some of the characters are obvious. The businessman who just wants to rape and murder his way across the put up landscape to gratify his ego, or his future brother in law who has much less interest in the dark side, they’re both pretty easy. So too is the much murdered but noble robot Ted Flood, who is well played by James Marsdon, and who we are told in episode one, only exists in the Westworld universe ‘to lose’ to the guests who want to murder him. There is the fair maiden turned Joan of Arc style heroine and the omnipresent hooker with a heart of… well something or other.

But all that’s just the surface of Westworld. It’s a world where vice is very much rewarded, and virtue exists only so that it can be made to serve as a weakened foil to the depravity of the guests. The damsel isn’t ‘good’ except in as much as she’s available to be raped. The would be hero is in the end, just a victim. But not all the characters see it that way. Some at least, say they’re looking for something else.

Enter Ed Harris’ ‘man in black’, so far just an homage to the Yul Brynner character that runs amok and murders guests in the original 70’s version. So far he’s the most brutal person in the park, but there is more to him. He thinks there is something else to be had. In the conversation I’m obsessing over, he plays the devil to the enigmatically presented and nearly omnipotent Anthony Hopkins, the park's chief designer and director. You can get a glimpse of it in this trailer for episode 5:

There are subplots of course, and they have their appeal. Thandie Newton for instance plays the robot hooker who spends a good chunk of her on camera time totally nude. I’m as happy as the next guy to see an exotic little gem like her totally undressed, especially one who is as much ‘my type’ as she is. But what is it exactly that seems to fill all actresses of a certain age with a desire to nude scenes? It makes you wonder if we don’t live in a world with the same morality as the Westworld park – where vice is always rewarded, and virtue regarded with nothing but contempt.

That wonder may be the even bigger point. Later episodes will probably tell us. In fact it will probably tell us, in typical Hollywood style, with all the delicacy of a ball peen hammer to the center of the forehead. But so far, the discussion between Ed Harris and Anthony Hopkins is the big story line. Good versus evil? God vs. the devil? The importance of freewill? So far they’re all still on the table.

The writing is so well done that I’m still looking at Westworld as a great opportunity that, like so much else that comes from California these days, will probably lead to a great disappointment. But I’m holding out hope. I’m hoping they don’t bother with the ‘evils of slavery’ episode, or the ‘George Bush is still a monster’ episode, or any of the other preachy nonsense that they think is important out there in LALA land.

I’m hoping they tell us that the greatest evil any of us ever really commit, is the subtle ways we live to serve our egos and insecurities. That we are most of us not monsters who rape and kill, but when we indulge our vanity and envy we are setting off a chain of events that often leads to much greater pain and suffering than we ever imagine. I’m hoping they tell us that what is described today as traditional virtue and selflessness is not only its own reward but a reward for others as well. But that’s just me. And I’m probably not the audience they’re shooting for at deeply progressive HBO.

In many ways I’m very much a man out of touch with the world. I still care about right and wrong, good and evil, virtue and vice. And I’ve done my best to live my life that way, imperfect though my efforts may have been. I want every act in my life to be one with meaning, however small and I very much do not live for the satisfaction of my appetites. In today’s world that isolates me greatly because in our world, just like the one in Westworld, selfish (rhetorical) knifeman and the assassins of the corporate political world are the ones who always reap the greatest rewards, and virtue driven guys like me are seen by them as the naive fools they prey upon. In 21st century New York, fulfillment of their own desire is the only thing that seems to drive anyone anymore.

But I’m still holding out hope that Westworld can tell a different story. After this last episode I know it can. The question is, will the producers see any point in bothering. I guess the real question is, who are they and what is driving them?

Sunday, October 30, 2016

- The News From Overseas

The Daily Mail isn't exactly the most reliable news source on the planet, but what is these days? And at least it gives you a window into what is actually going on in US politics, instead of being a constant drone of partisan bias. Here's what they're saying about the WeinerGate Email controversy:

'The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim announced last July that he wouldn't recommend an indictment against Hillary,' said the source, a close friend who has known Comey for nearly two decades, shares family outings with him, and accompanies him to Catholic mass every week. Some people, including department heads, stopped talking to Jim, and even ignored his greetings when they passed him in the hall,' said the source. 'They felt that he betrayed them and brought disgrace on the bureau by letting Hillary off with a slap on the wrist.'

According to the source, Comey fretted over the problem for months and discussed it at great length with his wife, Patrice. He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents. The letters reminded him every day that morale in the FBI had hit rock bottom.

'He's been ignoring the resignation letters in the hope that he could find a way of remedying the situation,' said the source. 'When new emails that appeared to be related to Hillary's personal email server turned up in a computer used [her close aide] Huma Abedin and [Abedin's disgraced husband,] Anthony Weiner, Comey jumped at the excuse to reopen the investigation.

'The people he trusts the most have been the angriest at him,' the source continued. 'And that includes his wife, Pat. She kept urging him to admit that he had been wrong when he refused to press charges against the former secretary of state.

'He talks about the damage that he's done to himself and the institution [of the FBI], and how he's been shunned by the men and women who he admires and work for him. It's taken a tremendous toll on him. 'It shattered his ego. He looks like he's aged 10 years in the past four months.'

I don't know... this takes an awful lot of between the lines reading, and normal life is usually more obvious than this. But something about this rings true to me. My experience with the FBI is very limited, maybe others can comment (Muzz?). But from what I could tell firsthand is that the FBI seemed to be full of exactly the kind of 'true believers' in equality under the law that you would want it to be. I got the impression that they hold their role in law enforcement as being above petty politics, and Comey has done nothing this year but lower it. That's the kind of thing that I could see causing a minor insurrection and a dip in morale.

When you tell people you work for the IRS or the EPA, people will roll their eyes and make groaning noises. I don't think the FBI has ever been subject to that kind of treatment, but after Hillary was let off the hook, I'm sure they have been. And I don't think the people they've recruited are interested in being one more partisan 'enforcement bureau for the Democrats.

You don't find a lot of traitors in the military special forces. It requires too much dedication, and you need to be too committed to the principles for anything traitorous to take hold in your mind. I always thought the FBI was the same only in the law enforcement space. Sure a local cop may be buyable, and the Narcs will plant an 8 ball, but the FBI always seemed better than that. The current DOJ want to undo equality before the law, but pressure from the bottom can change things just as effectively as pressure from the top.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

- As NJ Goes...Redux

Texas and Louisiana are both known for the corruption of their state governments, and there is a saying in both that I think rings very true. “Thank God for New Jersey.” Many years ago I wrote that as NJ goes, so goes the nation. And in NJ, corruption is seen as something endemic and irreversible in government. It’s not seen as an unfortunate byproduct of well intentioned people trying to ease bureaucratic pain and red tape, it’s seen as ‘the way things are done’. No one complains about it, the press doesn’t take notice of it. It’s simply seen as a fact of nature like the tide.

It’s hard to imagine that the Federal government isn’t going down the same road. Even if you plan to vote for her, Hillary Clinton is obviously, blatantly corrupt, incompetent or both. But no one much seem to care. “It’s just the way things are done” say both the leftist journalists, and the Nevertrumpers.

Sure, the Nevertrumpers put up a token complaint here or there, but in the end they know they’ll be ignored because no one cares about it anymore. All that matters is crushing the “sexual predator/KKK/Jew hating ignorant rednecks” and their candidate of choice.

In New Jersey the lines are drawn not across political parties, but across the division of ‘close to a politician and ‘not close to a politician’. Politicians have political power so they get what they want. It’s sort of a state wide protection shakedown. And you are either paying your protection, or your are suffering because someone else has.

Well this is the future of our Federal government under the Clintons. The Gay Mafia, the green energy lobby, feminists, black Lies matter, the ‘borderless nation immigration advocates’ and all the white male hating constituencies have paid their dues. Everyone else, watch out. The justice (cough) department has a very long reach and an unrestricted charter, so you will be finding yourself in difficult circumstances if you get on the wrong side of the groups above.

It’s really just a matter of time.

Time makes people used to things, even bad things. Liberals have relied on that to incrementally degrade our culture and government one inch at a time over decades. And soon the rest of the country will look very much like NJ, which is to say "that which isn't mandatory, is forbidden."

Makes you proud to be an American doesn't it?

Friday, October 28, 2016

- What Corruption Looks Like

So the FBI investigation of Hillary has been reopened. But the thing that bothers me most about the Clinton email investigation isn’t what it tells us about the Clintons. No secrets there. The upsetting thing for me is how it shows the deep level of corrupt present in our public institutions. The Justice Department is a joke and the FBI is in the can for the Democrats. And if they won’t apply one law fairly to all citizens, then what’s to keep Barney fife and the Chicago police department from doing the same?

A few years ago, someone I know was accidentally busted as part of a drug sting that they had nothing to do with. They happened to be parking their car out in front of a home in queens when the event occurred, and the cops assumed they were there to buy drugs. They arrested my friend, and just to be on the safe side, planted an 8 ball of cocaine and a 22 caliber gun in his car as well. I think the threat of serious penalties were designed to get him talking. The charges were eventually dropped and the whole thing pushed under the rug, but this is how drug cops work in NY.

That’s the kind of thing that happens when the people enforcing the law don’t care about equality under the law. It’s not the race riot of the month club at the DOJ I fear, or that Bill Clinton will be molesting teenagers in the Lincoln bedroom while John Podesta tries to sell ‘access’ to the Secretary of Agriculture. I’m afraid that if you say the wrong thing to the wrong person, you end up in a dark place with trumped up charges against you. Nero may have fiddled while Rome burned, but no one complained about the music or they ended up dead. Same thing.

I appreciate that there is plenty of corruption in the private sector as well. I’ve seen people who had no business being in their jobs, and I’ve watched incompetent people do their best to blame their own failures on the actions of others. It happens. But at the end of the day the private sector has a way that reality will crowd it’s way in. There must be profit. And few companies are so successful that they can handle much in the way of incompetence at a high level.

But in public institutions, there really isn’t any check. We don’t even produce an annual federal budget anymore. So what possible incentives do the people in the public sector have for doing their jobs fairly and effectively? And with the decision to let Hillary off the hook for what was obviously political reasons, what the FBI was actually saying was that we’ve crossed the Rubicon of sorts. That even enforcement of the law will be dictated by the politician who wins. Politics will trump the law.

That was really the last public bulkwork we had to prevent us from becoming a banana republic. Without rule of law universally applied, nothing separates us from the kind of latin American dictatorial regimes that we’ve started to resemble with the import of their citizens.

I don’t know if this is enough to tip the scales in the election. That the media, academia, and the entire public sector is universally in the can for Clinton makes a story like this less important. People have to work awfully hard to find out what’s really going on in America anymore. And I don’t think most people bother. I don’t know. We’ll see. But in my mind when I vote against Clinton, I’m voting against all this obvious public corruption as well.


I can't think of a public figure I despised more than Anthony Weiner. Even Al Sharpton seemed measured and civil in comparison. He was the ultimate obnoxious left wing tool, and it was deeply fitting that his career went up in smoke when his private habits were exposed. I don't always cheer for that sort of thing. I prefer to separate the public and the private where public officials are concerned. But Wiener was a truly spectacular asshole, with truly awful personal ... hobbies. I have very little sympathy for addicts or pedophiles. I don't mean the guy who believed her when she said she was 18, I mean the guy who knew how young she was and it turned him on. That was Wiener.

The NYTimes is now reporting that it was the investigation into Weiner's sexting which revealed the additional emails that have warranted reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton. Apparently some of Huma's emails were on the devices. Everything I'm reading seems to indicate that for Comey to jump back into this 11 days before the election, there must be something really egregious involved. Given how bad the stuff we've seen has been, this is mind blowing. I quite literally can't imagine what it is.

Meanwhile the media is circling the wagons and preparing for the onslaught from the deplorables. It's going to be one hell of an 11 days.

%%%%%%%%%%%UPDATE II %%%%%%%%%%%

HUMAABEDIN@YAHOO.COM. Suppose the 'deleted emails' were really incriminating. And they deleted the outbound messages from Hillary's server, along with the locally stored responses. But Huma forgot, in that deeply sophisticated Democratic way, to delete them from her email in the yahoo cloud.

I'm cooking dinner tonight for some guests. Roast duck, roasted brussel sprouts, and mashed spuds with carmelized onions. But after that the rest of my weekend will involve little but making popcorn and hitting the refresh key.

- Nazi's Under The Bed

According to Glenn Beck's Facebook page, Vladamir Putin is now funding the Alt-Right.

I have a friend of mine who is the US Public Relations guy for Bakail the Russian arms manufacturer, and I know he has close connections to some of Putin's people. His personal politics are right of center (my friend... not Putin), but to my knowledge he's never gotten directly involved in politics. He's more of a tech and entertainment guy.

But if the money is going to start flowing, I'm happy to do my part. I'll get him in touch with the Derb and Peter Brimelow, and see what can be worked out. It may be illegal for Putin to get involved in political campaigns, but there is nothing prevent him from paying the salaries of people who write things for a living. Of course, for any of this to be worth the effort Glenn Beck would have to be something other than a deranged lunatic who is just imagining Nai's under his bed.

Beck was never the smartest guy nor the most stable of personalities, but why he despises the Alt-right like this is a total mystery to me. From what I understand his media empire is in flames, and that must be a part of it. When your vision of a future starts to fall apart, it's easier to start blaming others than looking to your own mistakes.

Of course, that's also how 'the jews' got blamed for German economic failure between the world wars, but I'm sure the coincidence is totally missed by Glenn Beck.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

- .... Remember "Daisy"? The True Threat of HRC Presidency

DAISY... 2016?

and for nostalgia... here is the original "Daisy"
FYI - Hillary called herself a "Goldwater Girl"...

- Let's All Pray For Rain

Isn’t it ironic that in an America increasingly focused on the politics of self delusion, all the people who are worried about objective evidence find themselves praying for rain.

All the polls rely on assumptions about voter turnout which may or may not turn out to be true. As I’ve said, I have my reservations about the accepted models. I just don’t see Hillary getting the level of support from black America that Obama did. I don’t believe those people are ‘engaged in the political system’ now, and even if Hillary shows up with a bus and free cash for voters, I think many of them will have other things to do on election day.

I’m no professional pollster, so maybe that doesn’t matter as much as I think it does. But between that and the enormous enthusiasm gap between the left and right this year, I’m hoping it’s enough. But that enthusiasm gap would be greatly enhanced by a series of torrential downpours in Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina.

So if you guys know any rain dances for election day, get on out there. If you have a pilot’s license start seeding those clouds. There is no place where a rain storm won’t help Trump and the efforts to keep the Clintons out of the Whitehouse.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

-Fatso Has an Epiphany, The NRA Channels RFNJ, and Other Observations...

While it is not a Trump Campaign ad, Moore hits all the points. 

Recently, I re-upped my NRA Membership. I received a nifty digital camo gym bag (they call it a range bag). For years, Tom has been suggesting that the NRA start showing Black Americans stating their case for supporting 2A. Fox is running one of the commercials. This is the most recent one:

Wikileaks has confirmed what we know all along. Hillary is corrupt. Really, really corrupt. and Obama is an enormous lying d-bag. But I digress. Project Veritas has been doing their part as well. Today they unveiled Rigging the Election Part VI - must watch!

Early voting began in Florida this week. Many of my latino co-workers (knowing my anti-Hillary, anti-corruption stance) reverted to "street-spanish" to discuss why they need to convince people to vote for Hillary and why I don't understand that time are changing. They forget that I understand spanish, portuguese, italian, french etc... When questioned by one of the "latinas" why I could not support Hillary, I pointed to my Anti-Money Laundering Certification. "That's why."
But Trump is supposed to be evil... whatever. I asked them why they left Central and South America (politically), and if true, why would they vote for the very same style of government monster that they and their kin have fled from? touche! I was also asked what I thought of Obama. Put it plainly I asked if they would rather take home more money in their pay check or pay for foodstamps for drug mules? Silly latins,
The big October surprise is the failure of Obamacare. But we knew this from the get-go. Obamacare is like Chernobyl. We are watching it meltdown but some of the architects are paralyzed with fear and will continue to bray that all is well. Ezekiel Emmanuel has been saying it's not as bad as it looks oy vey!
The next two weeks will be interesting ...

- A Note To Suburban Moms

This is a little note to all those suburban moms out there who are so horrified by Trump’s disrespectful comments (made in private, with no women present, to another guy) that you’re considering voting for the most obviously and visibly corrupt politician in a generation.

By now you know how happy the media is to tell only one side of the story, even if it wildly distorts the picture of what’s really going on. Well there is ample evidence that in Hillary’s America, they will be just as happy to make it up out of whole cloth.

We’re all familiar with the phenomenon of ‘racial hate crime’ narrative collapse. My first recollection of it was Tawana Brawley, who smeared swastikas on her body in her own feces, and then claimed it was the Westchester county prosecutor who did it. This was one of the key events which brought that paragon of American society Al Sharpton to the fore.

And some of you may know about the ongoing University of Virginia libel suit where Rolling Stone magazine published an account of a woman who said she was gang raped at a frat party. Now that her delusional tale has been completely debunked, the fraternity is suing both Rolling Stone Magazine and the University. Steve Sailer was an early responder to the ridiculous fantasy published actual journalism, and has a great piece on the subsequent lawsuit against Rolling Stone here.

You’re probably thinking, OK that’s just college kids, but that’s the point. Hillary and the Democrats are desperate to make the rest of America (known to them as the “corporate racist patriarchy”) look just like America’s college campuses. False rape accusations are legion there, because the girls know there is no check on their lies. They can say whatever they want, true or not, and there are no consequences for them.

When Hillary is elected, this sort of policy will be coming to an HR department near you.

If you’re an average guy and you ask the cute girl in the next department if she’d like to have coffee, it may be a career ending mistake. Sexual assault is considered any ‘unwanted’ sexual comment or act. If the girl decides, even months after the fact, that she was offended by a guy like you having the nerve to ask out a girl like her, you have committed a offense.

Meanwhile, the tall, good looking, rich guy can do what he likes because the girls are more likely to want his attention. If he’s considered ‘hot enough’ by the girls in the office, (maybe you work at Glamour magazine and the candidates for the world’s hottest guy are milling around) he can even grab them by the pussy without any risk of legal issues. That isn’t a joke.

Under Feminism we are not equal under the law. The Feminist standard doesn’t care what you do. The Feminist standard only cares about how the woman feels about what you do. But there is another side to it.

Suppose you are the hot guy in the office, and you have an interest in the hot girl. Suppose she makes it clear she is interested in you, and you ask her out. She says yes – problem avoided right? Wrong. Because the angry blue haired fat girl in the office thought you were hot too, and she’s very angry that you weren’t interested in her. So she decides, exactly like the girl in the UVA rape case, to accuse you of sexual assault to ‘put you in your place’, strike a blow for empowering women, and get herself the ultimate social boost in today’s America, ‘victim’ status.

Under Feminist America the second she makes the allegation she is considered a victim, and ‘must be believed’. No law will ever cause people in authority to actually believe someone who is obviously lying, but if the law says they have to, they will need to behave ‘as if’ they believed her, so to you it won’t make any difference.

You’ll be investigated, and your career will at the very least be put on hold. If there was ever an off color joke, comment or really anything at all that can be misinterpreted as a sexual comment ever uttered by you in the presence of this woman, you are going to lose your job. And that’s the minimum. This is what’s going on now on college campuses.

If you’re a suburban mother with a son, you may want to think about that. Think about how easy it would be for one of these deranged little girls to ruin your son’s life. If you’re a mother with a daughter, just imagine what it will be like for your daughter to find a good man in an environment where the men have all figured out that they should stick to porn and their Gameboy rather than try to date in an environment where every ‘hello’ could result in legal consequences. That’s what your vote for Hillary will bring.

And then think about what life will be like for your daughter with the men who aren’t constrained by the new “Feminine protection” laws. Guys who are good looking enough, rich enough of otherwise popular enough to get attention from all the girls will have free reign to do whatever they like to your little treasure. There will be no ‘good guys’ to defend her because the ‘good guy’ will be made extinct. All men are potential rapists after all, so all there will be out there are actual potential rapists. The other guys will retreat into isolation to avoid the potentially catastrophic consequences of a misstep.

Being ‘grabbed by her pussy’ will be the least of your little girl’s problems.

You probably think I’m hyperbolizing, and maybe I am a little – just just a little. The marriage strike is already a real thing and is the first wave of men’s response to victim culture as applied to feminism. The other changes on college campuses can already be seen on the horizon too, and all this is having an effect. These days the men with choices don’t want American women. “Too Much Trouble” they universally agree.

I have no stake in this. By the time a man reaches my age and level of success, he has all the options in dating and the women have none. I don’t have to approach women at all anymore. The half a million or so 30 and 40 something single women in New york are so desperate for any male attention that they approach me all the time. I’m not trying to feather my nest here.

I’m just trying to warn you that you’re burning your children’s bridge to a happy life by supporting Hillary. The world has changed, as has Feminism. And you should take that into consideration when you either vote or not.

(Give this one to the wives guys. Get the sewing circle discussing it.)

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

-Trouble Getting a Live Audience to your Rallies?

No Problem! Just Add Green Screen!
Credit to Freerepublic for posting this first.
The quality of the edit is so poor it makes vintage Star Trek look like CGI!
Benefit of the doubt? She sounds like she has a frog in her throat. Maybe she was at a remote location not to spread her germs to the adoring masses?

- The Best Hour You'll Spend Online This Week

Jonathan Haidt is a clever guy, and here he explains that Universities can choose "Social Justice" or Truth, but not both.

- Offered Without Comment

OK... one comment. On Slate they say that this piece is about what we have in common except for the last bit about "Lives Matter", and the harsh looks Tom Hanks gets. They assume we all know as viewers that BLM is really about Police violence agains the black community, but I don't know that at all. I know that some black people and cultural marxists want it to be about that, but what it is really about is the immense power of the propaganda megaphone of the left, and how easily deceived some portions of our populace are.

Or put another way, Black Lives Matter isn't a serious movement. It's nothing but the delusion of a bunch of malcontents unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives, and prepared to lie openly and continuously to the public, in order to achieve their political goals - through violence and intimidation if necessary. Black lives may matter, black "Black Lives Matter" very much doesn't.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

- A Minor Inconvenience

I hurt my back the other day. Nothing serious, I just bent the wrong way. When I was a senior in high school I was hit by a drunk driver as I walked home from my job as a bus boy at a local restaurant. The resultant injuries kept me out of the Army, and have caused me minor problems from time to time throughout my life. The symptoms come and go once every few years or so, but the larger problem is permanent. In spite of the pain, I don’t really need much in the way of medical care for it. I’ll just be lying grumpily on my back for a few more days. But I’m sure I’ll be up and about again shortly.

There isn’t much you can do to fill your time when you’re in too much pain to concentrate, and barely able to sit up on your own. So far I’ve filled mine by re-watching Game of Thrones. If you know the show please continue on, but if you don’t, you might as well stop here. With my present level of discomfort I’m disinclined to explain the notoriously complex backstory.

I noticed a parallel we have with the common folk in that show. Like them, we get our news of the world from actors. In season six some time is spent focused on the story of what they call “the war of 5 kings”, being reenacted for the people by a troop of actors who cross paths with one of the characters.

And it’s an interesting narrative they tell. In the actor’s story of the war, Ned Stark is a mercenary idiot, Tyrion Lannister is a soul-less, grasping villain, Tywin Lannister is a befuddled and tragic victim, Sansa Stark a virtue-less whore, and Cersei and Joffre Lannister are described only as the noble and faithful victims of villainy by all the others.

Obviously as TV viewers, we see the events of the land of Westeros quite differently. In the version of the story that we get, the people depicted in the actor’s narrative as heroes were all villains and the villains all heroes. Joffre was a vicious and cowardly weasel who took his nasty pleasure from torturing the weakest around him and his profoundly psychotic mother Cersei is correctly described as “the queen of madness”. Sansa was a virgin until she was raped by a minor character much later in the story, Tywin was the heartless and brutal patriarch of his clan, and Ned Stark and Tyrion both are admired for the noble and more or less honorable way they suffered the shameless wickedness, cruelty and lies of the others.

So how did the players in the story get it so wrong? How did they come by this narrative which isn’t a minor departure from the truth, but a stunningly accurate repudiation of it in every way? The answer is that they did it on purpose. Players in Westeros and 21st century America both, aren’t rewarded for telling the truth, they are rewarded for telling those in power, the story they want to hear.

One of the most powerful things about a purely subjective worldview is that in our own minds we all think we’re the heroes, even the worst of us. Hillary Clinton is a prominent example. After rising to public prominence as the wife of our most powerful living philanderer, she has staggered and stumbled from incompetence to careless disregard, leaving a trail of felonious wreckage in her wake. But when she looks in the mirror she doesn’t see the trail of dead bodies and misery for which she has at least some small responsibly, she see’s a noble long suffering hero of the people and champion of women. That she utterly despises those common people she means to rule over, is seen by her as a problem with them not a problem with her.

But our players in 21st century America, like the ones in Westeros, know where their bread is buttered. They know that powerful people like Hillary only want to hear stories where they are depicted in the same light that they see themselves in. Our players know that if they contradict the narrative of the powerful, there won’t be any cloaked swordsmen who show up in the night to murder them, but there will be other things. Their careers will be ruined and their access to the powerful limited forever. So they are no more interested in ‘the truth’ than their “Game of Thrones” peers. All they want to know, is what they’re supposed to know, and they have no intention of letting the facts get in the way of that.

I was just thinking about one of our better known actors, Anderson Cooper. He’s a gay man who lives in the west village and plays the part of an expert in current events on TV. In the last debate he all but accused Trump of promoting sexual assault, but what does a gay man know about the sexual assault of women? The best guess is very little. But he knows how to keep a secret. He knows how to tell a story. He knows how to tell a lie so that the lie seems more believable than the truth.

These are the skills he’s no doubt used to work his way to the top of the ladder in the acting business. But now that he’s there, he has one specific skill he relies on more than all the others. He knows how to ingratiate himself to the powerful. He knows that the Clinton machine’s vindictiveness knows no bounds, and he knows how his bread is buttered. He doesn’t care at all about whether what Trump did or didn’t do met the burden of sexual assault. He has no idea if the women involved were flattered, offended, or made the whole thing up out of whole cloth. He only knows that Hillary Clinton and the ruling Democrat machine cares how that story is told, so he’s going to make sure he has all the right heroes and victims before hand.

The rest of the media are all the same – either climbing the hill upon which Anderson Cooper sits, or sitting there beside him. They can see how the elite want the story of modern America told. They won’t risk the wrath of their leaders by contradicting them.

Meanwhile in the fictional land of Westeros, a violent uprising is growing. The deplorable wildlings from beyond the wall (with their obsession about freedom) are joining the fight, as are the gaggle of unwashed savages and fanatics of the eastern lands, unified under the dragon banner of the most popular character in the show. When season 6 ended she was finally sailing off to begin her attack on the crown.

I wonder what the players in Braavos will be saying about that? My bet is that they wait until they see who’s in charge at the end before they write that part of the story.

The funny thing about our ‘press’ is that they want to believe they’re all heroes too. They see themselves as afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. They call themselves the insightful and thoughtful critics of the modern world, telling all we unwashed deplorables how things should be rather than how they actually are. They don’t see their own villainy, or how complicit they are in maintaining the villains in power. And if they have to believe a lie or two in order to continue to be the heroes of their personal story, that’s a small price to pay.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

- The Morality of Women

There is an interesting piece from the College fix about students being told "be a man" is part of toxic masculinity. The quotes are fun, go read them. But a different couple of lines are what jumped out at me.

“We are in a culture that doesn’t value caring,”

Anyone who thinks that women value "caring" more highly than men, doesn't understand men or women.

Show me a woman who says that she would literally die or kill for another woman (one who isn't her daughter at least), and I'll show you a liar. But men make such existential commitments to each other all the time and mean them. It's common in our culture to describe men as disloyal, but the commitment of combat soldiers to one another dwarves any ever made by a woman. Women will not risk themselves for other women. But I've been lucky enough to have a number of friends who I've made that commitment to, and gotten it in return. It was always offered seriously.

Women on the other hand, despise other women. I'm a little older now, so I can tell you dozens of stories about the hostility that a single 40 year old feels toward any and all single 22 year olds. But it's so common a theme that you don't need me to. Those women know that man like me could have a younger girl if I wanted one, and they resent it terribly. They know that since they are past their prime childbearing years, their value has been reduced in the eyes of men.

Many think it shouldn't be, but what does 'should' have to do with it?

Since it looks quite likely that we'll be going down this treacherous road together, we should all start acknowledging the way women really are instead of the way they describe themselves. They don't believe is 'caring', they are vicious, backbiting, nasty, hostile creatures whose wrath can be brought down in a heartbeat and without apparent cause. The closest they actually come to believing in caring, is believing in their own feelings, and believing that violence is terrifying. Women will do anything to avoid fear, even happily choose slavery.

And when they get to define all our morals, they will expect we men to do the same.

- NeverTrump Greasing the Liberal Slope

So it begins, the slippery slope of female entitlement at the expense of men, previously supported in spirit anyway (see my last post), by leading light of the intellectual right, Jonah Goldberg. Over at slate, one writer is now arguing to begin criminalization of 'assaultive kissing'. How does one define whether a kiss as a greeting is an 'assault'? By the subjectively defined emotional reaction of the woman involved. Thanks Jonah, for lending your intellectual weight behind this one. I'm sure there won't be any unintended consequences of that decision.

This is my big problem with the Nevertrumpers. They all claim they are 'principled enough' to not support Trump, but all too often, the hills they choose to die on are the liberal hills of 'racism' and 'misogyny'. Those are not conservative principles, nor is the process of determining guilt or innocence of a person exclusively by the subjective emotional reaction of the offended. But if it's an argument against Trump, they see that as more than principle enough. And don't get me wrong here. My beef is not that they have found common interest with the left on a political question, but that they have embraced the leftist process for determining the 'truth'.

In my opinion, no one who believes a person's guilt or innocence should hang alone on the feelings of the aggrieved, has any business calling themselves a conservative. The process itself is incompatible with the principled conservatism nevertrumpers say they support.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

- The Feminist Standard of Law

Here then it has arrived, a new definition for 'Sexual assault', defined by the left and embraced by the right. Man of the right Jonah Goldberg, places no distinction on the difference between "groping women" and "Sexual Assault". The latter involves a lack of consent, and in the case of Trump, the consent has been revoked years later. Not one woman complained at the time.

I groped a woman I'm not married to last night, and again this morning. (grin) Did I ask her first? No. Did we exercise positive consent? No. Did she in fact say no to me verbally? She did this morning yeah, but I knew she didn't mean it, and she knew I knew it or she wouldn't have said it. If I had tried to stop this morning she would have thought something was wrong.

The fact of the matter is, sometimes no means no, but in many cases no means yes, and on a few occasions, it means 'harder'. This is no secret, and is tied up in the complicated business of being a woman and wanting to be a little slutty, without actually admitting to it. It's really no big deal.

And the reason it's no big deal is that in spite of what she actually said, I obviously had her 'actual consent'. If I didn't, she would not have invited me into her bed last night in the first place.

But those days will be coming to an end soon. Now that the right has firmly embraced the female standard for 'sexual assault', it's all over. Soon there will be a raft of laws saying what men can and can't do, and a long list of legal requirements for relationships, if the man wants to avoid the risk of getting thrown in jail for seducing his girlfriend.

One dark mood, one bad day of PMS, and even years later, you will be subject to the full force of law. Do you trust the woman in your life to be responsible with that kind of power? Do you imagine life will go along normally for you when that's how the world works? The real unwritten rule will be a requirement for all men to meet all women's expectations of them, or be subject to immediate prosecution. This will hold true, even when those expectations are conflicting.

Try dating in that environment.

If you're a heterosexual male, you have to vote Trump, or this is the way the world will work. I'm not being dramatic here. This is already the standard in much of academia, and the man hating blue haired, physically monstrous feminists will see this law implemented 'to protect women', even over the objections of more rational women. There are too many of the former and not enough of the latter.

'Protecting women' from patriarchal 'rape culture' will be the feminist standard of Hillary's America. And ex-post revocation of consent, is what that movement is all about. All it takes is one irrational shameless woman who believes she has something to gain, and your life will be destroyed.

This applies to you married guys too. Suppose you come home one day and find you're wife in bed with the entire front line of the Spanish National Soccer team. You'll want to get divorced of course - who wouldn't. But in the process of getting divorced, your wife will have the option of revoking consent on some past sexual liaison with you, and accusing you of 'sexual assault'. You can then be convicted, and now you're a convicted felon suing for divorce. You won't get the kids. You won't get the house. She will get the gold mine and you will get the shaft.

Or, you can just stay married to her, and let her continue to do what she likes, which is the whole point. You're in a no win situation. That's the Feminist standard of law. Men are guilty, first and always, and anything that happens to the women is never her fault.

Right now you're saying, "my wife would never do that". I think you're wrong (OK, maybe not the soccer team). When you divorce a woman, even a reasonable woman, with good cause, she will turn into the most psychotic creature you'e ever met. She will believe she is perfectly entitled to whatever she can get, and the family courts will see to it she can.

If you don't want to spend your life knuckling under to the will of women, you have to vote Trump and persuade others to do so as well. It's already far worse than you know. and if it goes even an inch further from this, we're all finished.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

- Message From Brussels

- Politics In America: 2016

There is a flame war ongoing on Twitter between the #blacklivesmatter crowd (who are acting like they represent victims of a serious injustice) and the #clownlivesmatter crowd (who are doing the same.) It's an elegant bit of sarcasm I think, but it's tragic that in a once great nation, this is what the conversation has degraded to.

In the area of comedy the US is still a leader. In the area of serious political thinking, probably not so much.

- Life Under A Feminist Sky

You’re a cis-gender heterosexual man, and when you saw Donald Trump’s discussion with Billie Bush you were horrified. “How can any man treat women with such disrespect!” you said to yourself. That’s an easy question. He can, because they want him to.

Keep in mind… they don’t want you to. You could never get away with treating women that way – not even with unattractive women. You aren’t famous and rich. But Trump can get away with it because being rich and famous has the same effect on women as being a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit model has on men.

From a man like him, being 'treated as a sex object' is seen as a 'huuuge' compliment. It means she's so hot she can even get a rich famous man like Trump. If you're attractive enough, women enjoy being objectified immensely. It's an ego boost. A compliment.

Why do you think good looking girls dress that way? Everything about women is really about sex. It's much more important to them than it is to us, and on a completely different level. They know their sex gives them power over us, and the most attractive of them use it as a weapon, while the least attractive want to enforce a political disarmament rather than having to go around unarmed.

That Trump can get away with treating women like that seems unfair to you, and it is. It’s one of the many things about life that remain unfair no matter how we try to use the law to change them. But women are attracted by what attracts them, the same as men. No law is going to change that. But that isn’t going to stop Feminists from trying.

If you’re a guy whose more like me, you weren’t put off by Trump’s comments in the first place. But it wouldn’t have mattered if you were. The new rules that Feminists want to see implemented won’t matter much to guys like me. I’m not famous or even super rich. But I am well off, and combined with the fact that I’m more attractive than average in other ways means that the new Feminist rules that apply to less attractive men will never be enforced against me.

That’s the thing. What Feminists want isn’t to limit the options of men they are attracted to. All they want to do is limit the options of men they find unattractive. They want the law to be a reflection of them and their egos. Remember, how attractive a man is to women involves more than his looks. You saw the ‘crazy-Hot matrix’ - if a man is rich enough it doesn’t matter to women what he looks like. But if a man has enough of a combination of looks, fame, wealth, and charm, the new Feminist rules won’t apply to him either.

But they will apply to you. You know this, and it’s why you embraced Feminism in the first place. You thought Feminism would make girls more promiscuous, and it has, which has opened up some options for you, but no options that you actually like. What you’re trying to do by embracing it is to be an ‘insider’. Get close to the women by agreeing with them. And while they rant and rage about the ‘dick’ who mistreated them (who they can’t get out of their mind and would go back to in a second if he'd have them), you plan to take what opportunities present themselves.

Sure, you can have some blue haired, drunken, tattooed freak for the night if you find yourself in the right place at the right time, and that’s a nice release. Certainly better than nothing. But you wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with anyone like that, let alone raise children with them. And in the meantime, guys you think are total dicks, like Trump, and sometimes me, will still be the only thing those women can think about. They’ll forget about you as soon as you get your pants back on.

But it will always be different for guys like Trump. Leonardo DiCaprio will still be able to have anyone. That isn’t going to change. And while Trump will continue to bed supermodels, and guys like me leave with your hotter than average dates while you’re in the men’s room, the new rules of Feminism will close in on guys like you like a trap. What Feminists really want, but will never admit, is they want to make all the choices of who gets who. Put another way, Feminism is really just a complicated and convoluted strategy for ugly girls to ‘better deal’ guys like you. If they make thinking like a man illegal, Feminists imagine that men will stop finding the young swimsuit model so much more attractive than them.

Think about it. It’s true that not all Feminists are repulsive, but did you ever wonder why repulsive women all seem to be Feminists? It holds a natural appeal for them. They see it as a way to remake the world of what men find attractive. And in a world where virtually no one wants them, they see absolutely anything else as a big improvement.

It’s not about morality. Since when did Feminists ever care about morality? Sure, they make it seem like a moral argument, but it isn’t. It’s about sex and access. That’s it. The thing they’re so angry about is that no man who they want, wants them back. They think that’s a problem with men but it isn’t. It’s a problem with their expectations.

I’m the first to admit that this is complicated, and it doesn’t seem ‘connected’ enough. But modern Feminism is decades of bad ideas layered on bad ideas, with the most effective motivator known to man as an incentive. And you need to recognize what it really is far more than I do. Because life under a Feminist sky is not going to change things for me or Trump. but it will be world that you really don't want to live in.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

- Black Votes Matter (Don't They?)

I used to look at National Review to get some kind of idea of what politicos who don't support the Democrat are thinking.

So much for that strategy.

These days I don't really know where to go. Breitbart and Drudge are just as biased for Trump as the NYTimes and the MSM are against him. Fox news is a shipwreck if you're more interested in facts than personalities. It's very hard to find a place that gives any idea of what's really going on. There is far too much noise and far too little signal to get any idea.

Central to my concern is this story. It's a few weeks old, but still highly relevant, and I can't figure out what there isn't anyone who is talking about it:

Per Politico, in 2008 and 2012, Obama received 95% of the 1.7mm votes cast by black voters in Florida. Unfortunately for Hillary, a recent poll from Florida Atlantic University found that she is only polling at 68% among black voters while Trump is polling at 20%. Now, if you assume that black voter turnout drops just 5% in 2016 and that Hillary's support drops from 95% to 70% that could cost her over 500,000 votes in a state that Obama only won by roughly 75,000. When factoring in the higher support for Trump this could swing the overall Florida race by 7 points...not a good sign when Obama narrowly won the state by less than 1%.

The same basic rule is going to hold true in all the swing states. But as far as I can tell, none of the polling is incorporating lower black voter turnout into their models. So unless you believe that Hillary really is going to garner the same adoring attention from black voters in 2016 as Obama did in his elections, there is really going to be a major problem with the polling this year.

I'm sure all the 'Trump is a raciss!' talk on the left will drive a few blacks out to vote on election day, and they'll reliably do what they're told. But they don't hate Trump nearly as much as they love Obama. He's the greatest thing to happen to black America since Martin Luther King first landed on the moon.

I also don't want to fall into the trap of simply ignoring the polls as they stand. There is real information there, particularly with those polls that expose their weighting decisions and process (which are several). But why isn't anyone talking about this?

Maybe with the defection of National Review and half the Republican party insiders to the Democrat team, there isn't anyone supporting the Republican candidate who actually understands this stuff? I realize the campaign has it's own agenda to talk about and a limited amount of air time to discuss it. Discussions about polling usually fall to the talking heads. But with Trump's general media antipathy, and the out and out panic he's causing in the establishment right, maybe all the people who know, are now people who don't want to discuss it?

And all told, I can't believe no one has taken notice of the fact that Hillary Clinton is not in fact a tall condescending black man from Hawaii.

And by the way guys, if you ever wanted an example of the kind of frame control the media does to turn news into propaganda, I think this is a good example. I didn't say that NR is supporting Hillary. I could deny saying it, and challenge anyone who accuses me of it to show me where that language is. It's not there. It's assumed. It's unquotable. You can't paste it into twitter and make me look like an a-hole. Bring on your idiotic 'fact checkers'. That blurb has what the Clinton's like to call 'plausible deniability'

Do I think NR is supporting Hillary? I think it's pretty clear what I think. But I still get to deny it anyway, and no one can prove what I think one way or the other. And that's coming from a totally amateur hack like me, who can't even manage to get his spelling and punctuation right with a spellchecker involved.

Just imagine all the bias the MSM who do this professionally are adding to their 'news'.

Monday, October 10, 2016

- Other Men's Wives

I started to make some notes on the debate, but I don’t think I need to. I have no special insight into what happened, no special perspective to offer. Trump did what he had to and the polls will tell the tale. I think they’ll show that he was persuasive. So I’d prefer to talk about something else this morning.

When I first got started studying decision making, my fascination with it was all based on my own humility. I simply couldn’t understand how 10 people could look at a problem and come to one conclusion, while I looked at it and came to a completely different one. I honestly assumed that I must be doing something wrong. It took me a long time, but i think I eventually worked it out.

Ego. That’s the secret. That’s what I came to understand as the difference between how I saw things and how others did. We are all ego invested in our opinions even, (and in some cases especially) me. Whatever attitudes we hold, we convince ourselves that our solution to the problem is not only the best for us, but is also the best solution for others. This applies to big problems and small. And the more insecure someone is, the more fervently they will believe an unsupported falsehood that allows them to preserve their self image.

Some of us by our individual nature, don’t particularly trust our egos and will usually look to facts, statistics, and other readily observable phenomena for support of our views. In not finding them, or finding others which contradict them, we will then usually change our minds. But not if we’re insecure. For those people dealing with those questions, their ego's make it impossible. The risk of pain from changing their mind about something which they view as a core part of their identity, is too frightening to ever face down.

I used to think this was a ‘left-right’ phenomenon, but nothing in real life is ever so simple. The ‘men’ of the right and their reaction to Donald Trump’s ‘locker room talk’ video has taught me that. They may be able to have a rational discussion on race, or immigration, or most public policy questions. But they are very much not able to do so when it relates to women. They're too emotionally invested in their opinions on the subject.

In what looked to me to be a fairly well orchestrated and organized move, they immediately reacted with horror to the ‘locker room talk’ video and demanded that Trump step down. I viewed what Trump said as a bit of harmless chatter about the effect of fame on women, but they saw it as a direct challenge to the way they relate to women as a whole. What success they may have had with women is based on letting the woman tell them what to do and how to do it. It hasn’t occurred to them that there are secondary cultural fallout from unilaterally choosing that position.

They don’t realize that what they’ve embraced is a losing proposition for them personally and for men generally. They don’t see it as giving women control over their lives, and they don’t realize the contempt that women feel for such behavior when they demonstrate it. Most of all, they very much do not realize that to preserve their personal narrative about men and women, they need to ignore a great deal about the actual behavior of women. They need to be as blind to female motivations as the left is when discussing the issue of race.

Let me tell you establishment conservatives a few hard secrets. Secrets you won’t actually like and will be difficult for you to face, but are widely supported by actual behavior. Here’s the big one: Roughly 40% of your wives will be unfaithful to you at some point. 40% is no outlier, it's a major and pervasive trend.

It's not because you’re so awful or that you're lacking in some way, but because your wives feel like they need to for their own reasons. They need the validation of a strong man with lots of sexual options. They need to feel like they’re as attractive to men as they ever were, and because of the nature of their relationship with you, they can’t get that from you. If you want to feel like that 40% is some other men’s wives, that’s fine. That probably serves everyone’s interests, even yours. But it's not something we should simply ignore.

In terms of social status, women look above themselves with lust and look below themselves for comfort. This is why, as Donald Trump so inelegantly stated, Fame is such an enormous turn-on for them. This means though that your job, as far as the woman is concerned, is to be steady and reliable. Your job is to provide for the children, provide for your wife, and to be emotional support. But unlike in men, In women that ‘emotional support’ and sexual validation come from two very different places in their psyche.

Here’s another hard fact. As much as you crave the peace of a contented household, if you want your wife to be more likely to be faithful it’s probably a bad idea. She will be more likely to be faithful if you’re the kind of man that she believes has more sexual options than she does - as counter-intuitive as that may seem. This will not make her happy, but it does make you the focus of her physical desire.

The man she is unfaithful with will probably be the kind of guy you think is a jerk. A guy in some ways, not unlike Trump. It goes without saying that he’ll be self centered – he’s sleeping with another man’s wife after all. But to her he won’t seem that way. To her he’ll be providing her something she feels she needs and can’t get from you.

This is what Feminism is really about. It’s not about ‘equal pay’ or ‘respect for women’ or ‘man-splaining’ or ‘sexual assault’. It’s about giving women the emotional justification for gratifying both sides of their desire with men. It’s about making it emotionally “OK” for her to live in your house and to raise children with you, while still making it “OK” for her to sleep with the other men who excite her but that she knows she can never rely on.

I’ve spent some time thinking about the married women I’ve known who have expressed interest in me ‘in that way’. There have been quite a few over the years. Most were coworkers, but others were friend’s wives, or old friends from school. The vast majority I turned down out of hand (particularly my friend’s wives), but if I want to be honest about it, I didn’t turn down all of them.

Look, I’m not just messing with your mind with that confession or trying to make you even more insecure. I’m trying to help you, and in the process help all of us. You need to learn a new way to think of this issue – one which takes into account the real behavior of women, not their behavior as they like to describe it.

You need to learn a few things. You need to open some emotionally dangerous doors. I know you view it with contempt, but you need to take a hard look at ‘the red pill’.

In terms of a decision making process, the red pill is the same as other philosophies embraced by much of the right. It has a basis in evolutionary psychology, and is widely supported by facts and behavior. Feminism is based on equalism and subjective feelings, which we know is nonsense. The Red Pill is the unequal and objective response to those views. It recognizes that men and women are different, and motivated by different things.

You probably think the ‘red pill’ is about ‘game’ or being a ‘pick up artist’, but it isn’t. Many immature young men have used it to achieve immature goals, but that isn’t what it’s about. It’s about trying to have some kind of honest framework for understanding the relationships between men and women. It’s about admitting to ourselves what it is that women REALLY want (even if they would prefer not to admit it), and deciding for ourselves in that full honest light, whether we want to give it to them or not.

Go get yourself a copy of “The Rational Male” and read it. It’s not the most elegantly written book, but it’s clear enough for you to understand the basics. It’s not about being a pick-up artist at all. It’s about recognizing the differences between men and women, and understanding the differences in their motivations toward the opposite sex.

It won’t make you into an ‘alpha male’. It won’t make women fall at your feet. But it will open your eyes to who women really are. And we’ve all labored under the delusions of Feminism for more than long enough.

Sunday, October 9, 2016

- Election 2016: Where We Are

Those things which can’t continue, won’t. That’s simply a fact. Muzz mentioned in the comments section the gap in belief that’s become a common theme in this election. Trump supporters (to the degree that they are not simply anti-Clinton) believe that we are nearing the end of the line, where the beltway Never-Trump right seems to think we can simply go on forever with only minor adjustments to our course.

I’m of the former belief, but not because of economics (though that part of the discussion is obvious to anyone with the requisite background and honesty). I feel that way because we’re losing the ability to make rational judgments about public policy. That’s the ‘root cause’ of our situation. If we cannot make rational judgments based on facts, it will become impossible for us to solve any of our problems, or even provide the kind of minor corrections that we require to maintain the status quo for a few more years.

Central to that is the willingness and strength to recognize facts we don’t want to address. Facts which are uncomfortable for us. This election cycle has taught us that the left aren’t the only ones who ignore facts they don’t like. The right has begun to recognize that there are issues with our ideology the same as there are for the left. The facts of race relations and open borders have finally begun to creep into the Overton window. The boldest of the right have begun to openly discuss them. But we haven’t broached the toughest of the topics.

Those of us who can recall what life was like during the cold war, can remember the last time we were a country with a single unifying principle. But since then we have become deeply fractured. One of the thoughts I’ve always tried to keep in mind in my personal life was that hardship can be trying, but if you really want to know what a man is made of, try giving him everything he’s ever hoped for. That, far more than hardship, will tell you what a man is really made of.

In a way, that’s what’s happened to America. The destruction of our single existential enemy meant that we no longer faced any serious threat. The asymmetric warfare provided us by the Arab world may be inconvenient on a national and cultural level, but they will never invade. Even China, with its inward looking philosophy has no imperial ambitions that will involve conventional warfare with America.

So we did what most young people do when they win the lottery. We descended immediately into decadence, and unintentional self-destruction. The frivolity of our current political discussions can’t be overstated. While the much more serious issues of our direction are all ignored because we’ve convinced ourselves that they can be.

Economic failure is inevitable, and in my opinion, unavoidable. And I don’t mean a little blip like the bubble or the mortgage crisis. I mean genuine economic failure. Our lives are built around a level of expectation that cannot be maintained indefinitely. We are eating our seed corn – the seed corn that was supposed to be for future generations. Liberals believe that if we simply import more people we can solve the demographic crisis that Feminism has created by lowering our birth rate, but we can’t do that without changing who we are. There aren’t enough ‘winners’ out there to get only the ‘right immigrants’.

So here then is our choice. Either we revert to the global mean by choosing the liberal route and in the process become something other than the America of the past, or we deal with the short term immediate pain of dealing with what will be the worst economic downturn in human history, and correcting our course afterward.

But if we can no longer make rational choices, how can we possibly hope to make a correction either now or later?

The culture of America changes more slowly than it’s politics, and politics is downstream of culture. I support Trump because, inelegant and immature as he may be, he is the only candidate I’ve seen who is unaffected by the post cold war decadence that America has descended into. And he’s that way because he doesn’t have to be.

Think about that a minute. Think about it honestly. If you were given a billion dollars, tax free – with no caveats, would you still go to work in the morning? How about 2 years from now after you’ve gotten accustomed to the private jets, the winters in St Baarts, the fashion show runways, and taking your Yacht to the Cannes film festival? What would your marriage be like after a few years of being openly hit on by Israeli supermodels and California actresses, one, two, and three at a time?

In that kind of environment, what would your next ambition be? Public school pension reform? Redistricting in suburban Texas? You’re a super-national now. You can live anywhere, buy anything. The entirety of human experience is available to you in all its varied shapes, colors and sizes. Why should you care what a few of the plebs are up to? The odds are you won’t. And that’s more likely than you’re probably willing to admit.

We on the right have not fought the culture war in a very long time. We’ve ceded all the ground upstream of politics to the left, and they have been as decadent and as irresponsible with their power as the circumstance I just described. It’s become so pervasive that as a culture we are about to lose our ability to make rational decisions.

To elect Hillary Clinton is to give the left the last bit of power it will ever need. They already have the only real megaphone. Electing her will give them both the authority and the time they need to encode their moral judgments into law. And once that happens, there will quite literally be no going back. The ego salving emotional reasoning that the left embraces, will become ‘the only way problems are solved’ in America. That reasoning will have behind it, the full force of law. And that will be the end of the Republic.

Trump may be a poor messenger, but he’s the only hope America has. He is the cultural mean reversion. The pushback. Crass and base as he may be, he’s the only choice we have. He’s the only American man in public life, who is prepared and willing to tell the left he doesn’t care how ‘naughty’ they think he is. He is the only man left with nothing to lose and who feels no need to surrender. The rest of us have been so defeated by incremental Feminism that he’s all we have left.

Whatever you think of him, you need to vote for him. That’s a rational judgment. Maybe one of our last.


Here is Maggie Gallager not seeing the forest, but getting a glimpse of the trees.

- America's Last Man

If we were going to measure all the various components of American society by the degree of dishonesty involved, at the very top would be the gap between what women want from men, and what they say they want. This is the central idea behind the red pill – the post feminist male response to Feminism.

Feminism says that what women want is men who treat women like other men. But they only want that if they can change the way that men treat each other into something more like the way women treat other women. This is where the concept of ‘toxic masculinity’ comes from. It’s necessary for men to be gentle, compliant, and not do or say anything that differentiates them from women.

What women really want in men is a two fold thing. They want a man who is the post feminist version American image of a man – what is called a Beta man in red pill conversations. They want him to be reliable, faithful, and to put his personal priorities below hers. The pudgy, incompetent, stable man who will be loyal, consistent and never consider leaving her.

But that isn’t the man she’s sexually attracted to. What she’s sexually attracted to is a man who, when measured against other men in male specific ways, is considered a leader. She wants rich, powerful, strong and commanding. An alpha male. But decades of Feminist perversion of reality have sold her on the illusion that men can be changed so that they can keep the leader and purge the emotional things that have made him lead.

If your only understanding of women is from the ‘blue pill’ mindset, this seems contradictory, but it isn’t. By their biology, women are by nature, more invested in the next generation of humans than men are, so it makes sense that when it comes to choosing fathers they would want the best genes available. Sperm is cheap and replaceable, but eggs are biologically very expensive. The genes that are most likely to lead to advantage for their children come from the strongest, most dominant men. But there is only one leader and a lot of followers, so that tactic does very little for her personally.

The result is that women want both things. Sexually they want the leader to give their children good genes, and emotionally they want the follower, who will hang around and help with raising the children, even if they aren’t his. Feminism’s answer to this quandary is to bed the alpha, and then do everything they can to change him into a Beta.

This is the central lie of post-Feminist male-female relationships. And women, being women, aren’t even honest with themselves about it. To them it’s all instinct and urge. They do it because of how they feel, but the reason they feel that way is invisible to them. All they know is that they find one set of behavior in men ‘sexy’, and another ‘attractive’.

We live, in a post Feminist world. Feminism’s influence in American society is utterly pervasive, and is the defining moral benchmark against which all acts are measured between men and women. But what about between men? Should one man dealing with another always be on the terms that Feminism sets? According to Feminists the answer is obviously yes. According to Feminists we should purge our ‘masculinity’ and suborn it to Feminine priorities for relationships.

And they have a lot of allies in this fight. There are far more men out there who know in their hearts that they will never be leaders. To them, the opportunities for sex that are afforded the Alpha’s have always been a source of resentment. They’re only too happy to join in the Feminist goal of taking the alpha down a peg or two.

Trump is crass. He’s a lowbrow business man with no real depth in political principle. But he’s an alpha man. A leader. He may lead the parade in the wrong direction, but there isn’t any doubt that he’ll be in front of it. His fame gives him opportunities for sex that most of the beltway insider talking heads will never have. They don’t just resent that, they have worked Feminism’s version of morality into every fiber of their being.

Trump doesn’t hate women. He just doesn't naturally think like a woman. Men should be allowed to behave as men with other men, even if it means women and non-dominant men find it crass. That frat-boy banter used to be a normal part of life. He didn’t insult anyone. He wasn’t rude to a woman. He didn’t offend anyone in any way. He was simply being a man. Do you think Navy Seals don't speak to each other this way? Do you think policemen don't? Does that mean they all 'hate women'?

Thanks to Feminism American culture has very little masculinity left. Our special forces soldiers train in high heels, transsexual-ism has become fashionable (98% of which is male to female) and there are no positive masculine role models anywhere in our popular culture. Feminism won’t be the thing that destroys America, but it will be the reason American men will be unable, or far more likely unwilling, to fight back.

We've all seen what having a black president has done for race relations. What do you imagine having a woman president will do for relations between the sexes?

Saturday, October 8, 2016

- The Latest Teapot Tempest

I was out with some friends for happy hour Thursday, and one of the other men there is another recently single man in New York. We compared notes and talked a bit about how to be successful in the dating market at such an advanced state of ripeness. Neither of us is famous, but we’re both successful. I’m taller and better looking, but he has considerably more money than me. The conversation sounded quite a bit like the ‘hot mike’ video from Donald Trump 11 years ago.

It’s really not the end of the world. Men (or at least boys) have spoken to each other like this basically forever. But in our Feminized culture, its considered immoral for men to act like men. If Hillary and the sisterhood have their way, it’s going to become ‘illegal’ for men to act like men. This is no reason to disqualify him, and I doubt anyone but Hillary’s already converted sisterhood is going to.

“Sexual Assault” for instance, is now defined in the academy, as “any unwanted sexual attention”. But “unwanted” leaves a lot of room – too much for our legal system unless we want to abandon the premise of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. The problem there is that it’s the woman who unilaterally get’s to decide what sexual attention is wanted and which isn’t.

Take for example that man – the man that no woman wants. He’s overweight, short, bald, has a poor job with little prospect for advancement, he’s socially awkward, and has poor hygiene. If he so much as says good morning to a woman, under a law crafted the way the sisterhood wants it, he would be guilty of ‘sexual harassment’.

I on the other hand, have personally had women that I met seconds before, respond very positively to me putting my hand on their bottom or some other overt sexual act. Under the law as Feminists would have it, all that would be perfectly OK. At least until I meet some famous woman at a party someplace who would never consider a peasant like me no matter how good looking I may be.

You need to understand the goal here. The goal is for women to be the sole arbiters of who dates who, and to completely eliminate male input into that equation. All the choice for women, no choice for men. But the process for getting there involves making masculinity first, unfashionable, then immoral, and eventually illegal. Right now we’re at the bridge between immoral and illegal. The NYTimes, National Review and the rest of the MSM on the right and left, are all arguing for a continuation of the trend. Opposing it, are the Alt-Right, and Donald Trump.

A longer post is justified for this, and I’ll try very hard to get to it this evening. For now I think it should be enough to say that I think the Trump tape is a tempest in a teapot, and won’t change anyone’s minds.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

- Good To Know

A few months ago, I was the only white person at a wedding in Jamaica. The bride was black, the groom was black, my date (a former coworker of the bride) was asian. She and the bride work in finance, the groom ran his own rapidly growing small business, and everyone was as polite as they could be. We all had a good time.

This event was held at a mid-range Jamaican resort, so the racial make-up of the guests was mixed. At one point I passed a woman in the hallway who was of an obviously different class than the wedding party, and in my opinion she carried herself like she was from the hood. When I saw her, she was wearing a shirt that made me laugh out loud in spite of myself. On it, written in very large letters, was the single word: "DOPE". The irony of it was several layers deep.

These hoodies should say that on the back.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

- Regarding "The Narrative"

It’s hard to overstate the importance of this particular Steve Sailer piece. It’s not very excerpt-able, but I definitely recommend you go read it.

The narrative is all the left has, so they’ll defend it at all cost. As Steve says, it isn’t a conspiracy per se. It’s a perspective. A frame of reference that is a starting point for all their attitudes and opinions. Steve may be right about the people at the top and their malicious intentions, it certainly seems to apply to a person like Hillary Clinton. But the people at the bottom, the true believers, they embrace it because they feel they should. For them it’s a moral paradigm and is essential to their virtue signaling, and they need that signaling to ensure their social acceptance.

The need for social acceptance is an interesting thing. Like all other means by which people can be compared, the need for social acceptance is a normal distribution. Some people require it utterly, some need it not at all, and most, are somewhere in between. And I think that need correlates very strongly to personal insecurity.

Let’s not mince words here. Personal insecurity is about SMV. As an example, I’m convinced, right or wrong, that I have a higher than average SMV. Is that the ‘truth’? Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t. But because I believe it’s so, I don’t feel the need to be the same as everyone else. The places where I deviate from ‘normal’ are all things that I think give me an advantage, so I see no need to seek acceptance by people who are average, because I think that’s less valuable than I really am.

But for the people who believe they have a lower than average SMV, social acceptance becomes a vital thing. They may be unattractive, or not very smart, or not make a lot of money, and those things may make them less desirable to the opposite sex. But virtue signaling is ‘superiority on the cheap’. It’s a small price to pay for those people who feel like they lost the genetic lottery, and would rather be considered ‘the same as everyone else’ than to be seen for who they really are.

You may find this strange to hear, but I have sympathy for those people. It must be very difficult to go through life always feeling like you’re worth less than others. It’s got to be painful to be reminded of your deficiencies every time you’re in public. To be overlooked (or worse) by women you think you’d like to meet, or if you’re a woman, to be ignored by even mediocre looking men. To be passed over or disregarded agin and again, simply because you lost the genetic lottery in some small way. I can definitely see where that overwhelming desire for acceptance springs from.

But the cultural poison comes from the fact that their insecurity makes them so easily manipulated. Women and unattractive men are manipulated by radical feminists who despise men and want to overturn the natural order of male-female relationships. Blacks are manipulated by race baiters who seek to exploit their anger at those who are more intelligent and therefore more successful than they are.

They buy into ‘the narrative’ because they know that in the natural order of a free society, they would be forced to settle for less than they want. The narrative promises to overturn man’s unequal nature and create a world where we are all equal by force. It’s an effort to make equality a moral imperative, and to shatter anything that makes some people naturally better or more appealing than others. In short, it’s a perspective that holds an amazing appeal to the people who believe they would otherwise lose.

That’s the left. They’re losers – or at least believe they are. They believe they can’t ever win if the playing field were level, so they are doing all they can to unlevel it in their favor. They believe it’s a moral imperative, and they’ll support anyone who promises to give them something for nothing, because they believe they need it. It all ties together for them and intersects in their most hidden insecurities. It’s all one thing. And that’s why they don’t need a conspiracy.

Monday, October 3, 2016

- Donald Trump's Taxes

I'll leave it to the conventional right to explain to the NYTimes how Donald Trump's tax documents don't reveal anything about him having broken any laws, violated any regulations or done anything unethical or improper in any way. (Quite unlike the NYTimes who are going to extraordinary "semi-legal' and certainly unethical lengths to prevent anyone from knowing that this came from the Clinton campaign). but I do want to say something about the effort to use this as an indictment of his business acumen.

Given the numbers Donald Trump is working with, I can't see any reason to believe that a 900 million dollar loss in a single year proves that Donald Trump doesn't understand business. On the contrary, it may very well say the exact opposite. The tax law is a byzantine collection of carve outs and political give backs to every special interest over the last 75 years who managed to buy a congressman. Managing tax liability is a deeply strategic issue for a growing company, and 'write downs' in one year can reap considerably larger benefits in later years, if properly handled.

Had Trump filled out a short form it might be a different story, but that is clearly not the case. His taxes are a reflection of a snapshot in time of varied interests, and any businessman worth his salt can make a snapshot looked either good or bad given the complexity of our current tax rules. in fact, in most cases that's precisely what you want to do. You want to make things look as good as you can for the quarterly report, and as bad as you can for the IRS. And that process is performed 4 times a year by every public company in the country. Trump's interests are private so the rule set is even more easily manipulated, and the goal is very much the same.

As far as I can tell, the goal of team Clinton and the Times isn't to say that Donald Trump is stupid, or that he lied, cheated, or broke the law. The goal is to show him as having been 'unfair' by not paying more in taxes, even though the law said he didn't have to. They want to paint him as having 'denied the government its fair share of his earnings'. This strikes me as a very tough sell. There isn't a single working American who doesn't wince a little on tax day, and if Trump, as a private citizen, managed to use the rules to his advantage, I don't think it's going to annoy anyone but the Times and the rest of team Clinton. He didn't tie the girl to the tracks or drive the train toward her, he just bought a ticket on the train like everyone else. But they want us to believe he's a villain anyway, just because he sat in the first class car.

I think this says something very important about the state of modern liberalism. The whole enterprise has completely lost touch with reality. The reason they believe Donald Trump should be paying more in taxes is because they 'feel' he should. That's it. That's their only real complaint. No law broken, no rule violated, no unethical goal achieved. But they are still acting like he's done something wrong. That says an awful lot about their worldview.

In my mind, it means they are no longer capable of having a discussion about reality. Their perspective no longer intersects with it enough for them to recognize it when they see it. It isn't just racism and misogyny where they have abandoned reality, it's everywhere - every political discussion. They can no longer see the forest, or the trees. To them, it's all just so much unprocessed wood pulp that the people are being denied the use of because some rich guy refuses to come chop them down for them, or something like that.

Thankfully, they are making their views clear, and the people have begun ignoring them in droves, like they always deserved to be.