Wednesday, November 30, 2016

- Better than Much If You Ask Me

Most of the visual arts ... let me be generous... escape me. Maybe because I'm so bad at it. I love a movie because it tells a story, and I can tell a story, but a still image whatever it's content usually escapes me. I think most modern art is sarcasm, and I'm told by experts that much of it is. But that seems overdone to me.

This does not. I think this woman's approach to art is sincere and genuine, and that's enough to get me interested. And having a sense of humor about things forgives many sins in my book.

Ripped off from FR member VAviper, the same woman that does NR's 'weird links'.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

- The Alt-Right's "Final Solution"

America’s Jewish conservatives are all a flutter about the evil Nazi, white supremacist alt-right, and are doing all they can to prevent it’s ‘normalization’. So whenever and wherever they can, they’re mixing up the alt-right with the klan, the Nazis, and any other group that the American public finds reprehensible.

Since this is so, as someone who thinks of himself as alt-right, I thought it might be a good idea to come clean about our loosely knit organization’s 21st century ‘final solution. Right here I’m going to tell you exactly what the alt-right’s plans are for the tribe of Abraham, and how we plan to see it through. You ready? Here it is.

No one cares about the Jews. No one is out to get them, to see them persecuted, or rounded up, or put in boxcars, or sent to camps, and into ovens. Your paranoia really is getting a bit excessive Jewish America, you should really dial it back a bit.

We are not the klan. But even if we were, the klan claims it has 5000 members in the world. Common speculation is that 3000 of them are FBI agents, but for the sake of discussion, lets say they’re all card carrying “I wish Hitler were still alive” full blown anti-Semites. If they all got together and tried to round up west 91st street from Columbus Avenue to the river, they’d get their hooded asses handed to them. Come on… who are we really kidding here?

The anti-Semitic fringes of the alt-right will never be anything but the fringe. They have no power or credibility. They will never have any. They believe in an idea, which is morally wrong, (an idea that millions of Americans gave their lives in order to defeat) and it will never gain any traction in the American heart and mind. They will never be anything but a bunch of harmless, albeit slightly more disagreeable than average, kooks. Let’s all please stop treating them like they’re the newest big player in the game of identity politics.

But identity politics does have a new player. The left calls them ‘the people responsible for ruining everything’, but the right usually calls them ‘the people responsible for building everything’. They are of course, white people. Or to be just a hair more specific, people of European descent - subscribers to the proto-European civil tradition.

This was bound to happen. You spend a couple of decades telling people that they qualify as awful human beings just by being white, and sure enough, the Irish, Norwegian, Polish, French, German, Dutch, Swedish, Belgian (and yes even) German people look around and say “Hey … you know what? They’re right! We are all white! Maybe we’re all in this together after all?”

The next thing they say of course is, “Wait…that one’s a Jew… Get him!” No, just kidding. That’s not what they say. When they look around and see black people and brown people who behave very differently with regard to law and order than they do, and a billion Muslims who tell them every day that they want to murder them, and who are all unified in telling the white people that everything bad is all their fault, a peaceful, industrious, intelligent, Jewish population is not seen as the big problem.

Right now you’re probably saying “Well first they came for the black people!” But that’s a mistake too. They aren’t coming for the black people. They are coming for the black people who don’t want to start acting like white people, and asking them to stop it. They aren’t coming for Barak Obama who acts very white… well, in his specific case maybe they are coming for him. But they aren’t coming for the educated, intelligent, peaceful black and brown people. They aren’t coming for the poor, uneducated, black and brown people either. They are coming for the guy who stole the DVD player out of your mother’s car. That he happens to more likely be black or brown than white is relevant only in statistical terms.

OK, I’ll grant you that Richard Spencer and the NPI took things a little too far last week when they started throwing around Nazi salutes and screaming “Hail Trump” into the cameras at their annual Washington meeting. But to paraphrase a quote from one of the drones at National Review, there were only about 200 people there (and one of them was Tila Tequila) so the “my little pony for president” fan club probably has more overall influence on American culture. You really don’t need to worry about them. It’s a shame too because there were reasonable people there with thoughtful and reasonable ideas. The whole thing made me say to myself “This is why we can’t have nice things.”

But look, the political left is the one that said that what people look like is much more important than what they think. If that’s true, and all races really are as equal as you say, then surely it’s fair that white people get to be part of ‘equal’ too. You made the game, you made the rules. Don’t be so shocked that the people you blame for everything also want to play by them. White people didn’t even think of themselves as “white people” until you brought it up.

What the alt-right really wants is for America to start noticing that they don’t commit crimes nearly as often as some of the other groups you advocate for. They aren’t the lawless savage, disseminators of hate that the left makes them out to be. In fact, John Derbyshire, one of the intellectual leader of the Alt-Right, has been complaining for a long time that Midwestern white folk are simply too nice to survive in this kind of political climate.

This last election puts a bump in that theory since they’re the very people who elected Trump, but that’s not the point. The point is that there should be a single standard of behavior, and we would all do very nicely if the standard we adopted is the one that this country was built on and is still very much relied on, by those nice Midwestern white people.

I’ve heard it said by leftists that white people don’t commit crimes as often as people in other groups because they don’t have to, but white people feel differently about it. Civilized people can politely disagree. And regardless of motives, the government statistics clearly show that white people do behave very differently when it comes to peaceful law and order than some of the other groups of people. Those differences are the “multi” in multi-culturalism. So surely we can have a civilized conversation about it which involves real data, real statistics and real thinking, and not just more of the same hyper emotional name-calling we’ve heard for the last decade or so?

By the way, you know what other group tends to feel very similar to ‘white people’ when it comes to civil society and obeying the law? Jews. You don’t see Jews rioting. You don’t see them torching cars, throwing rocks at policemen, or getting worked up when people say that ‘all lives matter’ instead of just Jewish lives. In fact, until the left made ‘white people’ into a thing I always thought Jews WERE white people. They seem pretty white to me. They had lived in Europe very peacefully since the Roman era until Marxism and “National Socialism” came along looking for a villain.

All my life I thought that was more than enough to get them in the club, and I’m an Alt-right guy. As I said, I only recently learned that Jews may not be white after all, and I learned it from watching CNN. We can disagree about CNN’s broader reliability as a news source, but I think we can agree that it’s certainly not a bullhorn of white supremacist ideology.

As for the rest of what the Alt-right is really after, there is an excellent example out there in the real world, that most of the Alt-right would agree is doing things the right way in the nation state department. The feeling is that it should be looked to as an example of how a unique, civilized, and homogenous people can rule themselves peacefully and without boxcars or ovens. It isn’t Cambodia with it’s psychotic anti-urban-dweller purges, or or South Africa with it’s apartheid. It’s Israel.

So lighten up Francis, you really do sound silly. There is no mustached monster under your bed with a can of Zyklon-B. It’s just a bunch of kids acting out. Just like the ones screaming at each other right now outside Trump tower.

- It's Raining In NYC

Rain in NYC will reliably drive the local Manhattan population into the subways for their commute. So in the Trumptastic new post feminist world, this is provides an opportunity to update one to one of the most recently invented acts of micro-sexism.

Manspreading: When a man spreads his knees so wide that he takes up more than a single seat on mass transit.

Womanspreading: When a woman let's her ass get so big that she no longer fits into a single seat on mass transit.

Take a wild guess which one I saw more of this morning on the uptown 6 train.

My bet is that you'll have better luck asking a guy to move his knee than you will asking a woman to lose some weight, but I'd strongly recommend you try both and videotape the reactions. I promise to post the results here for the next time some Feminist goes off on a rant about the rudeness of men.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

- Today Your Love, Tomorrow The World

It's apropos of nothing, but this is on my mind today. The Alt-Right has been compared to what the Ramones did to music in the 70's. If that's so, then this should probably be it's theme song.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

- A Comment On The Brave Browser

I'm a multi-browser guy. I have one which I use blockers and turn off Javascript for everyday use. It takes some doing, but you can configure it to eventually disable those page hijacking movies that start playing the minute you click on the page. But when you go to all that trouble, it makes it damned difficult to get to something like a youtube channel.

My solution is to have a second, fully enabled browser. If I get a link to something I want to see, three clicks, and I've got my volume turned down, and the page running, in the second, fully functional browser. It may seem inelegant, but it takes so much to turn off all the auto-run stuff, I find it easier. I plan on sticking with this strategy, but I think I'm going to change my default browser to "Brave".

Brave is a new broswer that the newspapers and other publications despise. that alone would be enough to go for it in my view, but the phone based version of it is considerably faster than any other browser available on my iphone6. I say this from personal experience. It's blistering.

So even if you don't agree with my view on the traditional media and would love it simply because they hate it, it's blinding speed should do it for you. I was so impressed I decided to go to the trouble of mentioning it here.

By all means try it for yourself. I think you'll be impressed.

- The Derb as Seer

I was performing a household errand this morning and listening to The Derb's 2013 speech to the Amren conference. Good stuff that, and very instructive. I'd suggest you listen to it. But it isn't what this post is about.

I don't care for youtube's autoplay feature, and under normal circumstances I'd stop the video before having to listen to the smug imbecile below, but in this case my hands were full so I had to let it play. Good fun this. Turns out that whatshisname's smugness was off base by just a tad, and the Derb, (with inspiration from Steve Sailer) was 100% right.

That makes this a very satisfying thing to watch for me, in light of the election:

- That's One Less Thing

Hero of New York's upper west side, Fidel Castro, finally Dead at 90.

Friday, November 25, 2016

- Truthiness vs. Newsiness

I don't recall who it was that coined the phrase "Truthiness". I don't think it was John Stewart, but that brand of media venue where it's comedy when the facts would be right leaning and 'serious topics' when it seems to favor the left are a staple of information gathering for the rank and file of liberalism. Lots of the kids screaming out in 5th avenue outside Trump tower are certain that something they heard is true because they saw it on the Daily Show.

Well I read the news professionally for a very long time, and I'm here to tell you it has very little actual information content in it. I designed one of the very first (and arguably most successful) rudimentary AI's for sifting fact from the fluff, and in terms of word counts, you'd be shocked how little actual 'news' there was. It's mostly innuendo, inference, and lots and lots of careful framing to make sure the rubes readers get the message the editors want them to get, and absolutely nothing else.

Now that the media is doing it's best to avoid facing the facts regarding its utterly collapsed credibility, and that lack of credibility is a known quantity to the majority of Americans, I think it would be useful to have another word handy.

Truthiness was the degree to which the facts could be bent to fit the liberal narrative, the latter being what the left leaning comedian/fake newscaster in question saw as 'the truth'. If a story was easily shoehorned into the 'narrative', it was more truthy than a story that could not be so easily managed.

Well to describe the degree to which the 'news story' contains actual objective information and not subjective slant, spin, and nonsense, I'd like to nominate the word "Newsiness". That word already has a meaning, but common usage of a word can change. And it has the same catchy, 'not quite a thing' sound to it, but still conveys that there may be something there however small it may be.

Even if it doesn't catch on, I'm sticking with it.

- When Obama Comes Down From Olympus

One of my often repeated little catch phrases is that if you want to see who a man really is, don’t give him hardship. Instead, give him everything he’s ever hoped for. Then you’ll see the real him. I’ve seen men handle adversity with heroics, and men who made billions without becoming decadent. But I might have to amend my phrase now because I’m going to see something new. A man who had (almost nothing) go to king of the world, and then back, to almost nothing. What happens to your psychology at that moment I wonder?

In a few weeks, our great lord Barak, first of his name, will be thrust unceremoniously from his seat on Olympus and be returning to earth with we mere mortals. For a man like him whose currency is power, this is going to be a very long fall. He’s already said that he has no plans to remain respectfully silent like many part Presidents, but that he plans to be actively involved in politics for years to come.

The world may have other ideas for him. His legacy, such as it is, is also about to be unceremoniously tossed down from the mountain as well by the first right leaning President in living memory, who has no intention of allowing the press to set his agenda. Obamacare? It’s as good as out. Title IX? I’d call it gone. De-socializing the ‘Social Justice” department? It’s the first item on the new guy’s list. Bit by bit the agenda that Obama has spent the last 8 years shoving down the little guy’s throat, is all about to be forgotten as well.

What will Obama be like when it happens? He’s a young guy comparatively speaking, and in pretty good shape for his age. He’s probably got a good long life ahead of him. But what he won’t have is the immediate ear of everyone who has been flattering him for the last 8 years. A year from now the only people who will still be treating him like a god are the people who most wanted him to be in the first place. And when his agenda is tossed by the new shirrif in town, most of the people who have been showering him with praise in corporate America will abandon him like yesterday’s fish.

They didn’t buy into his vision because they loved it. They bought into his vision because it was his, and he was the guy making the rules. But he didn’t build anything that will last. His people will be removed, and their influence will be negated. In short order it will be just him, Michelle, and Valerie Jarret hanging around in the kitchen in their robes and slippers, wondering who ate the last of the Captain crunch.

What is he going to do then do you think? Will he become an Ivy league version of Jesse Jackson, shaking down corporate America to keep the race riots away? Will he become the country’s head community organizer, sending the little people in to mix it up with the riot police? He can’t exactly take control of the Dean’s office, because he already has it – at least by proxy. The 60’s radicals that think like him are now virtually every dean in every college in the country.

Maybe we’ll get lucky and he’ll decide to get involved in international affairs. He can spend his time glad handing it around Africa and helping their princes and chiefs steal from them, or complaining about climate change. There’s a movement that can really use a grounded, rational thinker like Obama.

But the thing that get’s me is that no matter what he says 2 years from now, no one is going to care. And I don’t recall every seeing anyone who was so enthralled to his own press as he was. Jimmy Carter was a bad president and continues to occasionally pop up someplace offering his poor judgment. But he was an otherwise accomplished man, and had other things to do. What in the world is Barak going to do?

When I think of it, for some reason I’m reminded of Michael Jackson. In his field he was extremely talented, much like Barry, and spent a long time at the top of his game. But when he pseudo-retired, things took a dark and twisted turn for him. (my daughter’s favorite joke: Why does Michael Jackson like twenty six year olds? Because there’s 20 of them.)

So does Barry end up strung out on seconal, and fondling teenagers for a living? You never know. One way or the other though, after a lifetime of doing nothing except running for office, and being affirmative actioned to the very pinnacle of American political society, I don’t think he has the emotional wherewithal to cope with losing all his influence. I think he’s too fragile to cope with obscurity.

People fuss and fret about it. The left wants him to run for ‘speaker of the house’ as if he can magically transform the House of Representatives into a majority Democrat institution just by his presence. The right worry’s about him leading riotous ‘activism’ with the Black Lies Matter crowd. Not me. I’m just wondering what his flavor of debauchery is going to turn out to be.

I don’t think he has the character for much else.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

- Some Reflections On The Day

Today is thanksgiving, and most of what you’ll see online today are reflections in that regard. But not here. You see, today is also my birthday, so for me it’s a reflection of another sort.

I’ve never been a huge fan of the holidays. Ever since I was a kid it’s always felt more like a burden than a celebration. I don’t begrudge others their joy, quite the contrary I envy it a little. But the arrival of the day never does much for me. I’m just one of those people.

At my core, I’m an intensely self-critical guy. My failures get a great deal of my attention, much more than my successes, and away from the holidays, I’m not generally much for victory celebration either. I’m too serious for that. I’ve always seen it as fleeting. And after no more than a momentary smile of self satisfaction, I quickly refocus on the next problem to solve.

My life, like most people, has had plenty of both successes and failures. I like to think that my failures loom larger in my mind because I’m trying to learn from them, but that probably isn’t true. I don’t imagine I learn from experience that much better than anyone else. And for all my decades of “honest” self reflection, I don’t seem to have accumulated any great wisdom or insight - nothing that makes life any easier. Maybe there is something to be said for at least trying, but probably not. A fool is still a fool, no matter how hard he tried to be otherwise. And since my life is getting no easier, I have to believe I fall more closely into the latter category – efforts to the contrary be damned.

One thing that was made very clear to me this year is how little “intelligence” really matters both in terms of problem solving, and in terms of personal virtue. It just doesn’t do that much for you, and in most people it’s often wasted. Low cunning and cleverness seems much more productive, and I possess little of either. For the purpose of self reflection though, I think a much better question is “How strong are you?” That’s the real differentiator. If you don’t have the strength to look at the facts that you personally are most uncomfortable with, your intelligence will put to the purpose of rationalizing and avoidance. And that does no one any good.

We all have our weak spots; our dark corners of the soul where we dare not look. And because I tend toward being self-critical, I usually spend much of my birthday taking out the mental flashlight and poking around in them. But sometimes I notice afterward that there are whole corners of my character that I had unconsciously avoided, because I don’t really want to learn the truth about myself any more than the next guy. So much for all my bravado about courage.

Emotionally, I think I’m pretty good at surviving, and in the end, what surviving means is coping with loss. I buried my youngest brother Brian several years ago. He died the week before his 21st birthday, and I wasn’t ready for how dramatically it affected me. This year, I buried my oldest friend – a man much closer to me than anyone in my own family. And it affected me every bit as dramatically as burying my brother did back in the day. So… no new wisdom there. None I can make use of anyway.

I don’t write about it much, but I think the connections between us and the people in our lives are very important. Calling it an emotional connection is too thin and weak a description for what I’m talking about. I mean something bigger and deeper than that, though I don’t have useful words for it. Too little connection and we feel isolated and lonely, too much and we feel like we’re tangled in a web of other people’s expectations. Individual results may vary.

When it comes to managing it though, I’ve always been one of those people who is very particular about who I allow to get that close, because loneliness was always easy for me than letting down people I care about. That’s the truth, but it isn’t the whole truth. There’s another corner to that, which I’ve very cleverly managed to ‘fail to notice’ as I examined my own motives.

The truth of it all is that it hurts me too. I avoid more of the connections because I don’t want to be hurt. And in my opinion, a great many people are very cavalier about how much they hurt the people around them. I’m not sure that avoiding it by mostly choosing loneliness over greater connection makes me a coward exactly. But at the very least, I’m probably not as brave as I like to think I am.

Humility is not one of the virtues that spring immediately to mind when people think of me. I’ve been masquerading as one of those “Exeter/Harvard” masters of the universe types for most of my life so wearing my smarts on my sleeve has always been very useful. (Professionally I saw it as a necessity.) That’s not an excuse, just an explanation. And the masquerade has been over for a few years now. These days I’m much more comfortable admitting that I’m a small man with a small life, who will never have a particularly big impact on the world. Such is the way for virtually all of us. And I’m slowly making my peace with it.

This year I’m gonna try to renew my resolve to have courage in the places where I’m not looking. I think that's about all I can manage.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

- Nothing To See, Move Along...

From the DailyNews:

Cops busted a Queens man for trying to push a straphanger onto the subway tracks in Harlem and yelling, “I hate white people!”

I know this is a tired old game, but can you imagine the media reaction to a white man from say, Brooklyn, pushing a black man onto the tracks and screaming "I hate Black people!". In fact, can you imagine what would happen if he walked into a public park and screamed it without so much as shoving anyone?

There would be a code blue, all hands on deck media scurry to find anything and everything the guy had ever done that had anything to do with Republican politics, or any of the hated groups of the right like say... the NRA. And if he so much as voted for Reagan, Reagan would be posthumously slammed as an obvious racist, because this guy once voted for him.

I'm telling ya, in a just world there would be a journalist swinging from every lamp-post on the upper west side. I don't hate all black people, but I absolutely hate all journalists.

- Minorities Flock To Gun Stores

From NBC "News":

Michael Cargill, the owner of Central Texas Gun Works in Austin, told NBC News he had given up on advertising to African-Americans — but now he's seeing as many as 20 a month, and they're filling up his training classes; along with Muslim, Hispanic, and LGBT patrons with heightened worries about being targeted.

Black gun owner groups are seeing an uptick too, led by African-American women. They report receiving an increased number of emails from across the country from concerned minorities looking to learn more about gun safety, training, and firearm access.

While my position on black gun ownership is very well recorded here (I'm strongly in favor of it), the rest of this article is straight from the coloring book section of the NBC safe space. Ben Popkin the author apparently cares nothing for his credibility, and the article itself is little more than innuendo, supposition, and inference designed to make Trump look like the worst most racist, racisty racist, since racism was invented.

NBC "News". Come for the "newsiness", stay for the laughs.

- The Rise of the Super-Villain

Here is King Douche, Mark Zuckerberg. Why should I hide my disdain for this mutant? After all, he not only wanted to saturate the US with cheap foreign labor through open borders, but he is a pro-censorship mongrel. 
People feared George Soros or the Koch Brothers. The real danger is when you get a megalomaniac like Zuck who will undoubtedly do his very best to be a bigger douche than either Soros or Koch Bros.
Zuck wants to censor "Fake News" which is hyper-liberal code for "any news that challenges any of his pet positions." 
The new liberals are far more scary than the old proto liberals. Soros dumps money into pet causes based on the human wave theory. If you employ enough epsilons to do your bidding, you can certainly tip some scales. 
Zuck is a pro-censorship elitist schmuck. Rather than paying for pawns, he goes right to the top of the chess-board. So much so that he is in China promoting his new Orwellian version of Facebook or in the vain of Ira Levin's "This Perfect Day" we can all say "Thank Uni!" He should rename Facebook to what it truly is: Two-FaceBook.
I have deleted Facebook from my smart phone and other devices. If anyone sends me a Facebook link, I gladly decline and ask them if they feel comfortable opening their personal diary to "the Zuck"? 
Most people find Facebook and other social media platforms to be innocuous and pretend there is some sort of "convenience" to "sharing" incredible amounts of data to random strangers as well as the nefarious operatives that inhabit the digital underworld.  
With the recent Twitter Purge of the Alt-Right (as well as some not so Alt-Right), we see the lengths of desperation of the cyber-sore-losers. Zuck isn't a sore-loser, but he's destined to be the most powerful billionaire the world has ever known. Unfortunately, he won't be like mythical rich guys using their wealth for good, nope. This "kid" is drunk with power and surrounded by sycophants that tell him he can do no wrong. He has made himself into a demi-god within his corporate confines, but he still hasn't gotten a seat at the "cool-kids' table". Zuck doesn't need to pal around with jocks and cheerleaders or rock stars or movie stars. Zuck knows that he can buy the cafeteria in which the cool kids' table resides. He has his sights set on a bigger dance than being the darling of the US Liberal Political Prom.
Gleefully working with oppressive nations and promoting tools that enable oppression Zuck is on a path  of villainy that could only be equaled in the Marvel Universe.
Most Mythical Villains became that way by accident or by twist of fate. Usually the tech-villain invents something for the good of mankind and it backfires. Not Zuck. He is purposely developing technology to limit freedom and to expand the control of an oppressive regime. It would be very difficult for anyone on the right side of history to applaud these efforts. This is akin to constructing remote gulags to facilitate Stalin's reign of terror. 
Look at the reason why Facebook became popular. I recall Facebook when it was a college thing. Zuck invented it to help his friends stalk coeds. Even in that farcical film about him, in the end he is stalking some chick on Facebook. We'd have college interns working on our trading desk and they would show us their Facebook pages. There would be photos of college coeds and soon it became a new Wall Street toy. Traders would get the logins from their interns and try to score chicks for the kid in advance of the weekend. It was fantasy football with an open season. It's probably the reason why Facebook became so popular. It became creepy rather quick. Suddenly, the college kids' parents and uncles were on Facebook. Real friends of mine were telling me about "old-flames" looking for a hook-up on Facebook. We used to joke that Facebook should be called "Homewrecker". With half the population of the world online, the future bodes well for Facebook. But I don't see any good coming from it.
Mark my words, if Facebook doesn't go the way of Myspace, this creep will be freedom's worst nightmare. It won't stop with Red China. I believe one day we will read about Zuck meddling in an international affair at a specific boiling point and tipping the balance in favor of the bad-guys. That's what villains do.
Speaking of nightmares, he does resemble HP Lovecraft. Maybe he is Wilbur Whatley.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

- The New Incremental Liberty

I’m starting to see this a bit more clearly I think. Racism is the new ‘communism’ for the left to play defense against.

When Obama was elected, a portion of the right leaning base was totally convinced that though he may never have attended a meeting, and certainly would never admit it, he was a communist. Now the a portion of the left, looks at President elect Trump, and although he’s never attended a meeting, and would certainly never admit it, he’s a racist.

Whether Trump follows through on what he says is still a question, but assuming he does, by the respective standards of right and left, both are probably true.

By the standard of judging a man by the content of his character that the right embraces, everything Obama has ever done supported a general philosophy of Communism – albeit a new kind of communism where the actual ownership of the means of production is left in private hands with the technocrats in government so drowning them in regulation that it’s they not he, who actually control it.

By the standard of judging people by their willingness to ‘check their identity privilege’, Trump is certainly a racist, even though he may never had a single racist thought in his life. In fact, ‘who a racist is’ seems to have morphed sufficiently in recent years to specifically include any white heterosexual man who hasn’t. By the left's standards, that's all it takes.

This opens an interesting cultural door I think. The door to incremental liberty. For 100 years the left has been whittling away at the liberty of the average American, bit by microscopic bit, with the right putting up token resistance that only ever had the effect of slowing down the speed at which the left was winning.

Now, with a truly independent leader, who is beholden to absolutely no one but the people who elected him, who see’s the media for what they are and treats them accordingly, we may actually have an effective offset to that. A 'Trumpist' philosophy of the elimination of regulation wherever and whenever possible, may put the left on defensive, and only slowing the growth of liberty.

The left hasn’t figured out yet that this is what multiculturalism really looks like. They thought they could show up with their coalition of the fringes and simply take the civilization that they had only a minimal part in building. They could show up like thieves in the night, slipping across the border then trudging in from the desert, and declare the culture, the infrastructure, and all the past achievement their own.

Well the actual builders are a part of that culture too. And it looks like they’re finally going to get their say.

The entertainment value of this idea for someone like me is right off the charts. I can’t wait, for instance, for that moment when Chuck Schumer or Elizabeth Warren points up at Trump tower and tries to tell Trump “You didn’t build that!” I can only imagine the response.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

- Tucker Carlson Joins The Culture War

This is an example of Tucker Carlson doing to a liberal journalist, the very thing that liberal journalists typically do (or at least used to do) to politicians on the right. This piece of video should be shown in every journalism school in the country.

While I have policy disagreements here and there which Carlson, I have always believed that he was smarter than the average bear. I think this video further demonstrates that, and shows an actual journalist empowered by the Trump movement to finally (FINALLY!) challenge a journalist on their overt bias. and in the process he has proven himself to be one the exceptionally few journalists of the opinion right, who is willing to join the culture war.

You can't imagine how good this makes me feel. For me, this is almost as good as the Trump win, and would fully be except for the fact that without Trump shattering that barrier, I don't think Carlson and Fox News would have had the never to go after this guy. I none the less would like the cheer the name of Tucker Carlson to the high heavens, and welcome him to the battle. Until now I was afraid the alt-right would have to do it all on their own.

I'd say this should become a standard feature of rightward leaning opinion journalism where they bring on liberal journalism and make them defend their bias, but journalists are too lazy and cowardly. They'll quickly figure out that they shouldn't do this, and it was only this second rate guy's ambitions that probably convinced him to do it in the first place.

Maybe I'm late to the party here. Maybe Tucker Carlson has been at this sort of thing a while, and I just never noticed. But I'm noticing now, and Tucker Carlson, you're my new hero.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

- No... Screw YOUR Feelings Aleksandar Hemon

This piece from Slate should win some kind for award for it's breathtaking lack of self reflection. In a piece hysterically titled "Screw Your Feelings", Aleksander Hemon applies his purely subjective view of Trump as an "Unabashed Racist" and projects it hither and yon to invalidate the 'feelings' of 50 million Trump Voters:

But the only ethics that matter are act-based ethics—it’s what you do that matters, not what you feel. After all, the legal system in this country, as yet based in reason and belief in the rationality of law, is contingent upon the ethical value of the act. And an act is a fact—what you do is what is. The Trump voters committed an act of voting for an unabashed racist, whose hate speech is an act and a fact in public space.

Hey moron, Donald Trump has never been charged under a 'Hate Speech' regulation. To date, believing he is guilty of 'Hate Speech' is a purely subjective view (based on absolutely nothing more than your individual feelings), and is not an act and a fact. By your own admission, your 'feelings' on the matter are irrelevant, it's only your acts that count.

So I guess you didn't become an unethical and myopic imbecile until you committed the act of publishing such a laughable attempt at moralism. But based on its blatant inconsistencies, I'll bet you were an imbecile long before that.

(These days the folks at Slate are sounding an awful lot like the liberal version of those "Hitler in the bunker" videos that people have been spoofing for years. Give it up girls. Racist and Misogynist no longer have the bite they used to. Because "When everyone is a racist... suddenly no one is.)

- A More "Fact Based" Reality

I resisted the urge to read this because of the source. But now that I have, I find Maggie Gallagher one of the few establishment right writers who is correctly identifying the problem with Ameircan culture:

In the week since Donald Trump was elected, the Left has been quick to hype the crisis of “fake news” on Facebook, complaining that the social-media giant swung the election by allowing the spread of false pro-Trump stories. There is no doubt a kernel of truth to the charge — fake stories were shared on Facebook during the election, and that is worrisome — but insofar as it allows the mainstream media to avoid even a moment’s introspection in the wake of Trump’s victory, it is a convenient distraction. The much bigger problem is we no longer have a consensus, centrist view of what is true and not true: There is no mainstream media anymore.

Of course, in the same editorial breath, Ian Tuttle from NR has said that the Alt-right, in my view a predominantly fact and evidence based worldview that is unusually willing to consider uncomfortable and difficult to accept evidence, is too immoral to be included any discussion of what reality is. So National Review hasn't exactly settled on this themselves.

While I appreciate the instinct to call the NR team a worthless bunch of cucks and dismiss them, I disagree with that. I've seen rational people change their minds, and I believe there are people in the establishment right who are rational. So the burden then falls on us to frame our discussion in a way that a rational person can accept, even though they are uncomfortable with what those facts point to.

Hardcore Feminists will never change their minds, and that probably goes for the operatives who work for the Democrat party, academia, the majority of the 'mainstream' press - about 25% of America. But I believe the right is salvageable. And we would be better off for it, if we can just find a way to express alt-right views in ways that don't 'trigger' them into seeing things as purely moral argument.

We should probably start with these three assertions:

Women and men are (on average) not equally skilled in all things.

Black Americans and white Americans are (on average) not equally skilled in all things.

Equality can only be imposed by force, and it would be immoral to do so.

Please feel free to tell me where I'm wrong.

- Things I Learned From Watching TV

It’s been coming on for a while now, but especially since the election of Trump I think politics has gotten boring. It’s all inside baseball, and I’m not a baseball fan really. If it hasn’t already been clear to you for months, these days I’m much more interested in culture, because that’s where the left has taken our ‘warfare by other means’.

But unlike politics, culture is immersive for everyone. In politics there are more or less two separate teams. But where culture is concerned, like it or not, we are all peeing into the same bathwater. So I think there is a lot to be learned by looking at your culture from the outside if you can. The problem there is that you kind of have to leave it, to see it.

As a virtual approximation toward that end, I’ve been watching the made for Netflix series Paranoid. It’s a British detective drama that I was first attracted to because the star is Indira Vandi, the actress who played Niobe, the wife of Lucius Vorenus in the HBO series Rome. There are a few other cast rollovers as well - the kind of actors who I think do well in the UK, but don’t bother much with the American market so they aren’t immediately recognizable here.

A UK based cop-drama provides a more interesting window into some of the cultural differences between the US and the UK than you would expect. But since we’re only divided by a common language, it’s all things you have to absorb between the lines. As a simplistic example, Police procedure is very different there than here. The UK police are mostly disarmed, and only special squads carry any weapons at all, so it tends to fall into the shootem-up formula a little less reliably than the US equivalent. But there is a multitude of other differences illuminated if you know how to pay attention.

For instance, they seem to me to have great writing in the UK right now compared to the US. I suppose it’s possible that their entertainment is as formulaic as our is, and it’s just a different formula. But to American eyes it’s precisely the kind of ‘outside in’ look at things that I described above.

They seem to utterly lack the American compulsion to underline our collective guilt as the “white heterosexual male oppressor of all that is good and just”. There are no obligatory female experts in hand to hand combat or black PHD/concert cellists. I think they give their audience a bit more credit than we. And although I believe the UK is even more enraptured to political correctness than we are, it manifests in their formula in comparatively interesting ways.

Without putting to fine a point on it, in America we live in a society where all the street crime looks the same, both in real life, and in most cases on TV. It’s always drug addicted descendants of West African slaves, with semi-illiterate 1968-ish 'black power' names grafted onto the front to protest against “the man”.

When you meet angry 30 something Jamal Washington on the urban basketball court or his erratic brother Dazhawn sitting homeless next to a dumpster on a US TV series, you know exactly who he’s supposed to be. The archetype has more recently been given a ‘heart of gold’ to soften him up for the American viewing audience and to raise his status in 'victim culture', but the expectation is already hard wired for the TV viewer.

But the brits live in a country where the street crime is more of a mix between eastern European whites, blacks, and middle easterners. The effect of this is that to American eyes, the victims and heroes are somewhat less cartoon like and visibly predictable than ours.

It’s interesting to see the british white heroine addict commiserating with his mostly white criminal friends. That isn’t close enough to reality in America for anyone to believe it, and social justice Hollywood generally doesn’t have the cojones to try it. If they did, then I’m certain all the homeless will be poorly dressed but healthy looking down on their luck fashion models. Even our TV hookers are all emotionally well adjusted, with perfect skin and hair. In the UK they apparently don’t need everyone to have quite so much sex appeal, and the effect is that the heroes and victims both take on a slightly more realistic patina.

Their villains are all the same rich white businessmen and corrupt politicians that ours are, but they don’t universally look quite the way an American has been trained by Hollywood to expect. We immediately know, for instance, that anyone with a British accent is automatically a super-villain with countless gun toting minions. Meanwhile their formulaic villainous equivalents in Britain are either in the House of Lords, American, or German - in some cases all three. Such is the power of “ingroup-outgroup “ preferences I guess.

That further British immersion in political correctness provides some other interesting plot issues as well. I think because it’s already so utterly emasculated the typical British man that the women no longer see the need to incessantly make the argument for their equality, and are therefore unafraid to be more realistic with it.

For instance, the Heroine in this particular series is a mildly emotionally unstable 38 year old woman whose primary source of distress is the fact that she’s single and childless, and her reproductive window is slamming shut fast. In real life this woman is a staple of the coastal cities, there are about a million of them in Manhattan alone, and they are all unprepared to cope with it in the same sorts of ways. But as a culture, we don’t have the guts to put them on TV in America yet. We prefer the ridiculously attractive 22 year old bikini model turned FBI pathologist with a superpower like mindreading or the ability to time travel.

My thinking is that American Feminists are afraid to put a woman like that on TV because they are afraid it will weaken their position. If women young enough to do something about it start realizing that the path of the “strong independent woman” more often than not leads to the “lonely middle aged cat lady”, then what use will they have for Feminism? A small minority of American men are still pushing back on Feminism, so the feminists still leave the cultural ramparts under constant and heavy guard. But because Britain sees this as a battle that’s already been won as a matter of law (there are people in jail there for ‘hate speech’), there is no need for them to be so diligent about it.

British Netflix has tried its hand with the “strong independent woman” cop drama before with a series called “The Fall”, but to American eyes it’s an unwatchable amalgam of misandry, both overt and sublimated. The only emotionally stable person in that entire series was the mildly sex addicted, single 40 something woman, and the men in the series are either psychotic rapists and killers, or are so weak they can’t get through their morning coffee without bursting into tears. It comes off as a blue haired Feminist’s delusion put to film, where you basically take the way things work in real life and reverse all the genders of all the roles. But in Paranoid, they seem to get it closer to correct. It strikes me as tragically funny that a more devastated culture actually leads to better and less defensive entertainment, but that’s the way the civilization crumbles I guess.

In Paranoid, the female lead spends her time equally divided between bursting into tears, and getting furiously angry. Her job is something she does in the moments in between worrying about her real priority, which is herself. Her loser boyfriend just dumped her (which is his only recognizable alpha trait) and she’s screwing around with the handsome 20 something co-worker. She’s all “me, me, me, me, me, me me, but enough about me… what do you think of me…. Oh look, a bad guy!” Replace "Oh look a bad guy" with any other job related task, and that description reads as a chillingly accurate example of life as a coastal, urbane, thirty something feminist.

With that said, I’ve long thought that criminal interrogator would be a job that women would really excel in, if they could quit thinking about themselves long enough. They are at their core consummate liars compared to all but the best of lying men, and are therefore more likely to detect lies in others. They are exceptionally well tuned to read the emotional state of others as well, and both these traits would be important career boosts to the woman who could simply detach her own emotions long enough to get through a criminal interview.

And sure enough, the heroine in Paranoid has exactly those skills and exactly that problem with them. She blows up at a perfectly innocent witness for flirtatiously flashing her perky tits at her boy-toy coworker, is too empathetic to the suffering father to properly interrogate him, and is too self-absorbed to ever bother to explain why to her boss and coworkers. But put her in the room with someone who is actually guilty of something, and she notices all the tiny body language and details of dress and environment that inevitably give them away.

Her male coworkers spend the series sweeping up around the edges for her, while coping with their own overly dramatic backstories. It’s still TV after all, so I suppose you have to expect that. But the overall result is something that any red pill man would recognize as being much close to the way real life works than anything done in America. That makes me think well of the people who wrote it.

The Directors in Britain are very different as well. Important plot points are exposed in silent visual images that you really need to be paying close attention to see, and then they’re never revisited. Multitasking is not an option if you expect to keep up with the byzantine plot lines. I can’t say if this is better or worse exactly, but it’s more subtle. Hollywood is happy to hammer you over the head, particularly on TV, and I guess I’m a bit conditioned to that. Maybe the Brits have fewer immediate distractions.

Still, I find the whole thing very gratifying viewing. It’s complex, well acted, and the characters are drawn in a way to make them all likeable in spite of their flaws. Shakespeare it ain’t, but it’s a lot close to that tradition than “Batman meets Ironman”, or “Southbeach CSI” or whatever. It’s comparatively realistic people thrown into admittedly unlikely scenarios for drama’s sake. I can live with that.

And it’s actually a little heartening, especially in light of an oncoming Trump presidency. Trump has no apologies for Feminists. If his cabinet ends up all male his only response to the media onslaught will be, I picked the best people for the job”. Blue haired heads will certainly explode and white knights are already puffing themselves up in anger at the whole thing. In my mind I'm already enjoying the insultingly dismissive way I brush them off at the bar or water cooler.

And I read something the other day that said that 2/3 of young American women have no interest in Feminism or it’s dogmas, and would rather be wives and mothers. In light of the gender collapse of Britain this is REAL cause for joy. If that means another decade or so of plucky female tibetan-buddhist journalist/bikini models who kick the hell out of special forces soldiers in between medical school classes and yoga lessons, I think that’s something I can live with. At least the new iteration of Top Gear is finally on the air.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

- Where I Rip Off Something From Steve Salier

I make no excuses. This is ripped directly from Steve Saliers blog over at but he didn't write it either, and it's too good to let any of you guys miss it.

Check out this gem:

The KKK is really small. They could all stay in the same hotel with a bunch of free rooms left over. Or put another way: the entire membership of the KKK is less than the daily readership of this blog.

If you Google “trump KKK”, you get 14.8 million results. I know that Google’s list of results numbers isn’t very accurate. Yet even if they’re inflating the numbers by 1000x, and there were only about 14,000 news articles about the supposed Trump-KKK connection this election, there are still two to three articles about a Trump-KKK connection for every single Klansman in the world.

Or this one regarding the "rash of hate crimes:

Oh, also, I looked on right-wing sites to see if there are complaints of harassment and attacks by Hillary supporters, and there are. Among the stories I was able to confirm on moderately trustworthy news sites that had investigated them somewhat (a higher standard than the SLPC holds their reports to) are ones about how Hillary supporters have beaten up people for wearing Trump hats, screamed encouragement as a mob beat up a man who they thought voted Trump, knocked over elderly people, beaten up a high school girl for supporting Trump on Instagram, defaced monuments with graffiti saying “DIE WHITES DIE”, advocated raping Melania Trump, kicked a black homeless woman who was holding a Trump sign, attacked a pregnant woman stuck in her car, with a baseball bat, screamed at children who vote Trump in a mock school election, etc, etc, etc.

But please, keep talking about how somebody finding a swastika scrawled in a school bathroom means that every single Trump supporter is scum and Trump’s whole campaign was based on hatred.

In the original, all those examples are linked, but I have a social life so you'll have to go there yorself to see them.

You really have to take 10 minutes and read the whole thing. A better fillet and roast of the hyperbolic liberal media mythology machine has never been written, in my humble opinion. And it strongly supports my assertion that liberals are engaging in nothing but psychological projection.

- Angry Democrats

The last time Democrats were this angry was way back in 1860, when the Republicans took away their slaves.

Just Sayin.

- Who's Afraid Of Pepe The Frog?

We are all so vain.

We all believe that everyone else thinks just like we do. The establishment right believes the left is just like them - open to rational discussion, persuaded by evidence, and willing to change their mind when facts indicate otherwise - so those are the tools they use to argue. The left believes the right is just like them - motivated primarily by their emotions of hate and fear, dogmatic in their opinions, and persuaded by consensus - so those are the tools they use to argue.

We all do and say the things that we ourselves find persuasive, but in reality we’re just talking past each other. The left holds massive rallies with nonsensically emotional rhyming phrases that don’t have much meaning or any specific goal at all except to express anger. And the right crafts long carefully reasoned diatribes citing statistics and recalling statements of the great thinkers of the past, but the left can’t be bothered to get past the first sentence without falling back on it's standby accusation of 'hate'.

Since neither group responds to the other’s arguments, the right thinks liberals are stupid, which is the left tail of our primary political bell curve, and liberals think the right is evil, which is the left tail of theirs. None of this is true. There are smart liberals and generous hearted conservatives. It’s all just a problem with communication.

You cannot reason with the irrational. We on the right believe that irrationality is a temporary condition because it always is for us. But on the left it can be a permanent state. They don’t face up to and conquer their fears the way we do. Instead, they rationalize around them and pursue elaborate exercises in self deception.

If you step back from it this is obvious because it’s what they are constantly accusing us of doing. As an example, the left believes we’re lying about our evil motives for supporting someone like Trump and deluding ourselves about our ‘inherent racism’. This is their way of accusing us of doing exactly as they would, when they ignore facts which they find emotionally uncomfortable. They believe the fact we're ignoring, is our own 'real' motivation. To them, that hidden motive is just another 'fact' and it's evidence is manifest in our disagreement with them. This is what happens when two groups use the same words, but one is talking politics, and the other is talking morality and culture. The words all match, but the frame of the argument does not.

In my mind, the best communicators are those who make themselves fully understood by their audience, not that express themselves artfully. If I want art, I’ll read poetry. Give me a guy who can speak to the person whose mind he needs to change. Those are the most important voices in a political discussion, and the ones that affect the largest audience.

Right now, both the left and the establishment right are absolutely losing their minds in an effort to delegitimize the alt-right. CNN has gone so far as to lend its megaphone to Glenn Beck – not exactly a well respected voice in their world. And they do so with good reason since his emotional arguments speak directly to their thought processes. But Beck’s deeply irrational ramblings notwithstanding, I would expect something better than that from the establishment right.

Richard Spencer is no bomb thrower. Neither is Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, or my friend John Derbyshire. Those four frighten the wits out of Glenn Beck, because if Beck ever had an original thought it would die of loneliness. As intellectual leaders of the Alt-right, they think and communicate well outside Beck’s very small box, and their words ‘frighten and confuse him’. But they shouldn’t scare the right’s actual thinkers. Not one of those three dreams of ‘camps and ovens’ as the alt-right is often described by the establishment.

I’d say that the 4chan guys, who operate at the other end of the intellectual spectrum and who do give the impression that they dream of "camps and ovens", shouldn’t scare anyone either. But that would be missing the point. It would be better to say that they shouldn't scare anyone who is thinking rationally.

What those guys have actually done is found a way to communicate with the left in terms they understand. They are speaking to their fear, and their hatred. They are offering an argument filled with emotion, and lacking entirely in information. They are telling the left that there is an emotional resistance to their cultural bulldozer. A bulldozer that the establishment right with it's carefully reasoned logical arguments, has been unable or unwilling to push back against.

The fact that they also scare some members of the establishment right, should tell the establishment thinkers something about themselves as well. It’s all just words after all; protected political speech. Something the rational right claims it holds in higher regard than the emotional left. Yes, much of it is offensive, but the offense is the point. It’s designed to crack the egg of the emotional left and get at the soft parts underneath. And if you establishment right guys really believe what you say, and aren’t just another flavor of leftism, then maybe you should step back from your own emotions, and think about it a bit more rationally.

The establishment right has sounded exactly like the left in its opposition to Trump, and there was a reason for that. Many of the establishment right's arguments against him bought into the left's cultural arguments about racism, misogyny and anti-semitism to one degree or another. And that’s why they’ve been included in the emotional diatribes of the 4chan crowd.

But now that Trump has gotten 50 million votes, the establishment right has demonstrated a willingness to admit to itself that it might have missed the mark. It's my sincere hope that they can step back from their own fears about the alt-right, and begin to see it for what it really is as well.

This is America - a nation founded on a set of ideas. And the 4chan guys believe in those ideas. There will be no pogroms, or camps. Any effort to turn those feelings into policy by the infinitesimally tiny minority of people in America who really do feel that way, will be crushed by the millions of good hearted and rational people who do not. WWII isn't so far down the memory hole for the 4chan crowd, that they have unlearned it's lessons. Their only real point is that to fear American 'camps and ovens' is to be as irrational as any member of the left.

The 4chan guys aren't really arguing for anything else. They are just the Alt-right, slapping the face of the left in an effort to snap them out of their stupor, and frighten them into using their reason again. It’s an argument about culture, not politics. And if they really do frighten you, maybe there's still a component of the argument you’re missing too.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

- On The Alt-Right Twitter Purge

If you really want to know what the Alt-Right is and who these MANIACS!!! are...

See for yourself.

- About That Rash of Hate Crime

When the Tea party launched a massive protest in Washington to try to influence electors into voting against Obamacare, they cleaned up all their garbage afterward. That's how conservatives protest. when Liberals decided to protest ... it's never really been perfectly clear what they were protesting, probably western civilization or something... they put together a smelly ramshackle campground in a park in NYC, and tried to sell drugs to the locals. That's how liberals protest. If there was ever any doubt in your mind who was responsible for the 'rash of hate crimes' that have sprung up since Donald Trump's election, then you haven't been paying very close attention. When the first reports of a hate crime spree came in right after the election, I wrote half a blog post about it, willing to bet real cash that 100% of the new 'hate crime spree' would eventually be proved to have come from hysterical liberals. But I never posted it because when I reread it I thought it was boring. That happens a lot when you've been complaining about the same mass delusions for over a decade. You start to get repetitive.

Well the narrative collapse continues apace., and here we all are, still talking about it.

Liberals have a great deal of trouble separating reality from their imagination. They are ruled by their own irrational fears in a way I think it's difficult for most conservatives to understand or appreciate. But at times of stress it turns into what I think anyone would call a mental illness - a delusion so pronounced and perverse, that is certainly qualifies.

Conservatives tend to be afraid of real things, with real consequences, and spend much of our time trying to choose between two or more (at best) imperfect solutions to real life problems. Liberals spend their time imagining how perfect the world would be if only they could just kill off the last few monsters who lives under their bed. but their aren't any real monsters, just frightened children who swear they heard a bump.

I can all but guarantee that the liberals who drew all those swastikas, or pretended their hijab was pulled, or had "go back to Myanmar" screamed at them or whatever, all though that those stories would be more believable because they imagined tens of thousands of real hate crimes being perpetrated by Trump supporters, and they would help them cover their tracks. They were probably just trying to get to the front of victim queue, for the added social status it buys them in liberal-world. They didn't realize that the couple of other hate crimes (reported by liberal journos and the MSM as "hundreds of chilling examples of hate") were all just fakes too.

As a guy who spent most of his life working with probability, I say 100% very reluctantly. I know there is always that last outlier, and instead I say things like "non-zero probability" or some other equivocation. But I'm absolutely sure that 100% of ALL the hate crimes reported since Trump was elected, will either be tracked back to some liberal perpetrator, or will remain unproven, with a liberal as the leading suspect.

Conservatives build worlds, not destroy them. We clean up our garbage, not spray paint it on cars and around the campus. Only a liberal could imagine otherwise.

- Steve Bannon: "Suck My Balls Liberals!"

I'm with Ann Coulter on the appropriate reaction to all the media whores calling Steve Bannon a racist and anti-semite. The right reaction is not to apologize. If the last decade has taught us anything, it's that you never EVER apologize for offending a liberal. It will only be taken as a tacit admission of guilt, and you apology will be codified into the liberal mythology as fact.

The right response is to say (in as emotionally clear and confrontational terms as possible) "Go Fuck Yourself Liberals! Am I a racist? Fuck yes I'm a get down on your knees and suck by enormous balls!"

You cannot reason with someone who has abandoned all reason. And in post Obama America, nothing is a greater example of irrationality and the utter abandonment of reason, than an accusation of racism. It's an emotional argument that requires an emotional response. It's what liberals are really after anyway. Like a petulant and irrational woman, they want to be certain that we are emotionally engaged. Once they get that, they'll snap out of it.

What's a racist anyway? What do you have to do to be a racist? How do you qualify for racism? Where do you get your klan hood, swastika and jack boots? Because I don't know a soul who has any of them. But you'd never learn that from the media. To them the Klan, the Nazis, the Cossaks, the PLO, the skinheads, the Hitler youth, the young republicans, and the mormons, are all the same thing. They all defend the evil white patriarchy. They all defend tradition and meritocracy. (And those things to them are clearly racist too.)

This argument will not be won by being reasonable and rational. We cannot calmly and cooly coerce liberal America into looking at the facts. Ignoring facts they don't like is their one outlier skill. What we need to do is slap them in the face, and thrown their fatuous accusations right back at them. Only then will they begin to listen to reason.

Trump understand this. It's why he never apologizes. He knows in his bones that we must deny irrational liberals the ability to define the morality of the discussion. They're not thinking, they're feeling. And until we change how they feel, there can be know way to make them take this issue seriously.

This is all the hysterical liberal media deserves from us:

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

- Bring It Like A Boss

My brother is prepping for his own half of our little adventure in modern medicine. He's going to the gym, working on his strength, and doing his best to physically prepare for what he assumes will be a few of the most unpleasant weeks of his life, with a small chance of dying at the end. His dentist has been through this very thing (in the very same hospital) before so he's given him excessively graphic descriptions of what to expect. Even second hand, it doesn't sound pretty.

So this one is for him. Fro some reason he finds them hysterical. Me?...I don't know. But I do think it's important to remember that the guy behind the wheel come January is beholden to no one, is an Alpha male (even among other alpha males), and cares for no ones opinion but his own.

I've been a business executive. And... not unlike Trump, I've been occasionally been called arrogant. But that's not a bug, it's a feature. Being in charge of a large organization requires a clarity of vision and a self confidence that I don't think many of the people who haven't been there can appreciate. It's necessary to do things the way you see it. You can get input from experts on specifics of course, but management by consensus only leads to disaster. In the end it has to be you as the one who's making the choice and taking responsibility for the consequences.

In that regard, when Trump gets to the Whitehouse I think he will bring it like a boss.

- Letting Reality Seep In

Maybe it's the Catholic in me, but I do believe that no-one who chooses to repent is really beyond redemption.

This video is a long one, so it might be good for the bus or train ride. I think it's worth it. It's Morning Joe assessing the media screw up of the election coverage, and the New York Times' persistent bias. In my mind morning Joe occupies the space between Slate (which I read for the laughs) and Vdare (which I read for the facts). It's liberal of course. And cosmopolitan. but they don't utterly ignore ALL of reality.

Because it's so long, I'll give you my comments first.

I don't think the New York Times, or NBC or any of the other REALLY big media losers in this election will change their spots. (cough... Megyn Kelly... cough) They created the narrative and will defend it to the last man. But it's possible that we might get just a bit more fairness around the edges of the media.

My hope is that the culture of the media changes somewhat. If you worked at a major media outlet a month ago and told people around the water cooler that you supported Donald Trump, you'd be waiting tables today. You'd have been quietly walked to the door with your fuzzy desk gnome and your student journalism awards piled into a box.

But tomorrow, it might be possible for some of the clearer thinking kids coming up to admit that they don't think that white men ruined the world, a return to slavery is right around the corner, or that everything equals Hitler, and still have a job in media. There will be arguments sure - but they might not be career ending.

Right now, about 40% of Manhattan thinks they live in a nation which is host to 50 million Hitlers. They're wrong of course. But there is no convincing them of that because they are too lazy to think about it. Those people, there is no fixing. But that other 60% might have their minds changed if we just quit being polite about it and keeping our mouths shut. Morning Joe looks to me like the media equivalent of that 40%. They're mostly wrong at first, but if you slap them in the face with reality, they don't just double down on the delusion.

- Molly Hemingway Is My New Hero

I only wish she could have told Dan Rather to go Fuck himself (and his double wide). After all... who knows more about trust in the media that the 'fake but accurate' Dan Rather.

Journalists are all scum.

- NSFW (language): Gavin McInnes Celebrates

If you're a Trump voter in NYC, you know what it's like. You've had that woman at the Deli tell you that the thing to do is to "eliminate the electoral college". You've heard people talk about how Giuliani as Attorney General would mean the end of the world. You've seen people on the train who simply can't stop talking about their pain, and fear, and rage. You've sat silently trying not to laugh out loud, and keeping your opinion to yourself because you know you're outnumbered 50 to 1 in some neighborhoods, and you're a polite guy who doesn't feel the need to make people feel any worse than they already do (I'm looking at you VV). You have a serious job, with serious responsibilities, and having people hate you for your politics won't make your life any easier.

Well this is what you should have been doing.

We all need to come out of the closet. It's the only way to change the culture.

- You Think Liberals Are Scared Now!

...just wait until CCR passes.

One of Trump's big campaign issues was "Concealed Carry Reciprocity." The law would make a permit to carry a concealed weapon, issued by any state, is valid anywhere in the country just like a driver's license. This would mean that your Minnesota and Pennsylvania Concealed Carry permit would allow you to carry a concealed Firearm in New york City, Chicago, or Washington DC.

As you can imagine, I've been looking at a law like that as my 'last chance' to legally arm myself in public for a very long time. Neither New York City, nor NJ will issue Concealed Carry Permits to normal citizens. But under CCR, my Virginia Concealed Carry Permit will be valid in New York. My friend, who lives around the corner from me in Manhattan, will be able to crry due to his Florida permit as well. It's a brave new world in the Liberal cities.

As of today, the house supports CCR and has a law on the docket, the Senate supports CCR and ha another law on the docket, and we have a President elect who has committed to sign a law, once it reaches his desk. There is nothing left but the details and the triggering of the opposition. (I'm on a pun roll today.)

There are details though. For instance, most of the laws I've seen involve the permit holder to obey local laws. In New York City special permit is required to possess a handgun of any type, and I would suspect that will foster an effort to wiggle around the new law.

New York might also designate special 'safe spaces'. Government buildings and a few other places already prohibit legally armed citizens from carry firearms - like government buildings. Errors in that misunderstanding have resulted in a number of arrests in New york City, and are always prosecuted.

Well New York City could simply designate the entire island of Manhattan as a gun free zone, and though it probably wouldn't be legal, it will give the liberal New york courts all the ammo they need to tie the whole thing up in court for a few years.

The right thing to do would be for New York and New Jersey to come up with some reasonable standards of their own for concealed carry, so that we citizens who wish to do so, can. Then there would be no need for CCR, and they would retain some measure of control over the process. They can insist on training, for instance, which some states don't do, or other 'safety measures'. But failing that we'll continue to simply get the Concealed Carry permit issues by the state with the lowest requirements. In my case, that was Virginia.

Yes, that's right, I can carry a concealed firearm in Virginia legally, but in New York City, since my application is only 4 months old, I still can't possess a firearm, even fully disassembled, in my own home. 2 more months and at least that situation will be rectified. The only question is whether that process will move forward faster than my Virginia carry permit becomes legal.

- Ditching "Most" of National Review

Just when you thought National Review would never get it, they go and publish something from Victor Davis Hanson, and make their peridoic review worth your time.

With regard to the rest of the magazine, I sometimes wonder if there isn't a little more left in them than they like to admit. Specifically, I wonder if the outsized paranoia exhibited by Jewish Academics of the right, isn't anything more than a little psychological projection. This phenomenon as you know is an extremely common theme for the left. Maybe America's right leaning jews imagine that everyone hates them because they hate everyone else. I don't know.

Speaking as an Irish (Anglo-Norman) Catholic, American born Alt-Righter, I don't hate Jews. Never have. I don't have dreams of camps and ovens and I know no-one who does. I don't think that's me having a Pauline Kael moment. If you'll forgive a pun in obviously poor taste, I simply don't think that's on anyone's menu. I don't doubt that there are a few people who believe that getting rid of the jews, contrary to all evidence, would help America. I just don't think anyone, anywhere takes them seriously. Especially the alt-right.

The cultural differences between Jewish tradition and the western tradition don't seem like such a big deal to me. If you believe Jonathan Haidt in "The Righteous mind", then you can imagine that the Legalistic society of Jewish culture might have some conflict with the 'honor society' that the west has always fostered. But I don't see this as very important. In my mind it's a very small distinction, and if they are comfortable letting their wives bully them like that, then who am I to judge?

Even if America makes a small deviation to the mean on that legal-vs-honor system, it won't kill the jews, even if they think it will. If they continue to over-react to the few remaining truly anti-jewish alt-righters out there, I think it will only make them sound like the left - eternally envisioning the klan and the nazi's marching through the Arch in Washington Square park. So it's a comparison that will be difficult to avoid.

I'd imagine the Jews of the right would prefer not to meet the same fate as their emotional allies - sidelined, marginalized and irrelevant.

What's worse is, it genuinely doesn't have to be this way. The jewish right represents an enormously talented and persuasive bunch. There are great minds there, that could be incredibly useful in steering the country to a more rational place. If they would simply punch left instead of right, they would no doubt continue to be incredibly influential voices. But to do that they have to do what the left never seems to be able to - they need to conquer their own irrational fears.

I'm hoping this occurs to them and they manage it.

Monday, November 14, 2016

- Attacking The Winners From 2 Sides

All this talk of disbanding the Electoral College is fun, but silly. It's serving the purpose it was supposed to. Liberals want it gone, but they don't have any power left, and you can't change the electoral college without getting rid of the twelfth amendment, and that's not gonna happen. You would need to get the states to ratify it, and small states would be idiotic to submit to the will of the big states. The children can stamp their feet and hold their breath till they turn blue, but the debate is already over really.

But I'm beginning to wonder if the media isn't prepared to incite a coup in order to preserve their equalist worldview. Jamelle Boiue certainly seems prepared to go the distance. OK... It's Jamelle Boiue. Fair enough.

But Jonah Goldberg seems pretty ticked off too. If you think neither of those writers is 'mainstream', I beg to differ. Between them I think they are representative of a very large chuck of the typical elite coastal dweller opinion. They may not be what America looks like, but they definitely represent most people in NYC.

There is a danger in the kind of mandate of the moment that Trump won. Yes, Obama and the Social Justice department have vastly over-reached. The Gay Mafia, the Feminists, and the borderless nation advocates have too. And now there will be reversion to the mean. But these people are very unstable. Their paranoia and in some cases delusion, define who they are. And they are not going to give up that worldview easily.

Jonah Goldberg has a paranoia that I think is very common among New York Jews. I don't think he'd ever incite someone to violence. But if it happened, he'd convince a lot of influential people to say something like: "well it's for the best I guess". But I think Jamelle is clearly another story. If a whack job black man were to put a bullet in President elect Trump, I think he'd do a fist pump and end zone dance in private, even if he might not in public. And in a year or two he'd write about the 'man that saved America' praising the shooter.

There is no solution to this exactly. I don't think we should suppress their speech. But I hope someone out there is taking all the assassination threats seriously because with the media on total 'Trump is Hitler' mode, I don't see it ending any time soon.

- Make Bone Marrow Great Again

I have another day of pokings and proddings at the hospital today in order to finalize my suitability as a donor, so I might not be around much. But I wanted to leave a personal note.

The last decade has been very hard on me personally, and even harder on my family. But I approach things today with a genuinely renewed hope. Am I hoping to put blacks and women "back in their place"? No. All I'm hoping for is a return to objective standards of excellence. I'm hoping that I and the next generation of my family will be judged by a single standard, and to not be vilified for the things they may be better at than some others, simply because they're not 'diverse' enough.

I've been called a racist and misogynist of course, and I've suffered some of the same low growth consequences of the 'rule by delusion' policies of the last administration. But apart from that, I don't think I've personally been affected by the descent into subjective reasoning that has come to look more than anything else like a mass delusion of the Obama years. I've always worked in industries that value results above all else, and that has insulated me to a great extent.

But I've been deeply worried for my daughter, and my nieces and nephew - all of whom will be entering the workforce during the Trump administration. They deserve a clear and rational view of themselves, and their future. They deserve to feel that same sense of personal empowerment that I and my brother and sister did when we were in the same place in our lives. They shouldn't have to feel like objects - utterly without personal agency - like the philosophy of the left demands of them.

With this last election, we have stepped back an inch or two from the brink. Now we need to follow through on applying a single standard again. We shouldn't be vindictive. We shouldn't do to the liberals what they would have no doubt done to us had they won. We should be the grownups in the room. But that doesn't mean we compromise with them either.

The key here is to implement policies which are fair in an objective sense, and in the interests of American citizens. If they have disparate impact, that's on the individuals, not the policy. So long as policy is based on an objective definition of 'fairness' then the Democrats wailing will continue to seem ridiculous to most Americans. And that's as it should be.

Anyway, I'm off to be poked and prodded. Today I only worry about making bone marrow great again. America can wait till tomorrow.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

- Let The Protests Continue Forever

I’ve changed my mind. Upon reflection, I’m now hoping that the nightly protests in our hyper-liberal cities continue forever. Whenever I see one I’ll be yelling “You go girl! I want to hear about your rage and fear.” I want them to tell everyone that they don’t accept the democratically elected leader of the US. I want them to scream, and wail, and cry and burn their underwear.

Because as long as they do, Americans will never take them seriously. And why should they? They have never really had anything serious to say. For them it’s all false rape allegations, phony hate crimes, and imaginary pogroms. They live in a fantasy world and it’s intersection with reality that they’re protesting.

Bot don’t let that stop you sister. Tell me about how you fear for all the innocent black men out there who are soon to be killed by bands of roving white thugs. Tell me how you fear for your vagina, and your ability to legally kill children you didn’t plan for. Tell me about all those poor illegal immigrants who will no longer be able to vote, work and collect social services like the other 6 billion ‘world citizens’ who are obviously entitled to it.

I want to hear about it all. Every nightmare, every triggering, every visit to your therapist. Reality has come calling for you sugar, and how can anyone be expected to cope with something like that!

And while she’s busy crying and wailing, let me tell the rest of you something. Not only did the Democrats lose the presidency, the Senate and the house, they also lost all but 13 of the state legislatures. If they had lost 1 more, they would no longer be able to prevent Republicans from implementing the constitutional amendments of their choice.

We could repeal the commerce clause. We could end the income tax. We could do anything we want to without fear of opposition. We would only have to agree among ourselves. You have to appreciate how big that is. No one is suggesting this but it illustrates the point pretty well. Had the Democrats lost one more state legislature, in theory we could take away a woman’s right to vote. Now wouldn’t that be an entertaining protest to watch?

For something like that I’d be happy to be kept awake by a few low level helicopter passes.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

- Feminism Is About Denial

I'm sitting in manhattan right now, listening to the helicopters flying overhead. The FAA declared manhattan a no fly zone as soon as Trump became the President elect, so you know that those helicopters are either Police or military. No one else can be up there.

The reason they're up there is that they're monitoring the "protests" that have been ongoing since the election. But it isn't the race baiters that have been protesting, it's the Feminists.

Women are irrational compared to men. But feminists are irrational compared to everyone. All the most hyperbolic responses to Trump's election have been Feminists. They cry, they wail, they accuse we voters of 'hate crimes'. Nothing could motivate that kind of psychosis, except for Feminism.

As you may recall, Feminism is about sex. It's about making sex as risk and cost free for women, as it has always been for men. It's about empowering female promiscuity as a tool for getting access to the most desireable men. It's about letting women be the only arbiters of who matches up with who, and the morality of what behavior between the sexes is right and just.

Trump's election represents a return to traditional masculinity. that's what all the girls are protesting. And I can't help but laugh at them for it. They've always been in denial about the true nature of men and women. Now they have a specific target for all their fear and hate. this is what a failing movement looks like.

We men should look at them, and simply laugh. 20,000 crying girls do not get to over rule 50 million voters. If you think they should, you're in denial about a little bit more than we thought.

- The Twin Pillars Of Liberalism Begin To Crumble

Personally, I found this piece on Slate regarding Donald Trumps ‘obvious racism and misongyny’ very instructive, and I think it takes the discussion in a useful direction:

People like me—members of a desperate and discombobulated coastal elite—have floated a number of different explanations for this outcome. Maybe Americans don’t mind that Trump is racist because we’re racist, too. We live in a racist, sexist country, and Trump has given the racists and the sexists the chance to vote their true beliefs. But what about all the counties and states that went for Trump after having voted Barack Obama into office? Maybe Americans are more sexist than they are racist, in the end, and their votes for Trump were really votes against Hillary Clinton. A third explanation blames white women for the outcome, given that a majority of them voted for Trump in spite of his misogyny. Or perhaps it’s the case that millions of people—including, for example, the third of Latino voters who lined up for Trump—are living in a world built from outright lies and fake news reports from Macedonia. Perhaps these people didn’t know, or would not believe, the truth of what Trump has said and done. They failed to understand that he’s a racist pig, and so they elected him.

Here’s my theory: Tuesday’s surprise had less to do with dueling facts than rival definitions. I suspect that many Americans—an electoral college victory’s worth, at least—would agree that we shouldn’t elect a racist to the presidency. By that logic, Trump should have been defeated easily; he failed a basic moral test. But if racist is to be a decisive and disqualifying label then we need to have consensus on its meaning—my understanding of what it is to be a racist must be the same as everybody else’s. What happened Tuesday tells me that it’s not.

He’s right of course. The definition of racist and misogynist are very much not a consensus. I think the author correctly identifies the problem, and I commend him for his relatively honest take on it.

But the reason that’s so is because leftist’s have been using those subjective terms in a blatantly opportunistic way. Bit by bit, they have expanded the definition of both ‘racist’ and ‘misogynist’ to include… well … everyone. Or at the very least everyone who doesn’t agree with them about the solutions to these ‘problems’. And to paraphrase the great animated movie “The Incredibles”, when everyone is a racist and misogynist, no one is.

I’ve been saying this in part for decades, and very very specifically for a year or two. We need a hard definition of what these words actually mean. But Liberalism doesn’t dare give us one because the minute they do it will be judged as either overly broad and politically self serving, or overly specific because it doesn’t deliver the demonization they want.

None the less, admitting the problem is an excellent step. Now maybe we can begin the discussion about what ‘racism’ and ‘misogyny’ really are, and in the process bring some ‘facts’ into the conversation. Facts that detail the very real and obvious behavioral difference between blacks and whites, men and women. Facts about biology, genetics and thought. Facts which are objective, and will therefore be much more persuasive to most people, than all the subjective nonsense the left has been trying to sell.

These won’t be easy circles for the left to square, but if they were ever going to start thinking rationally about what they really believe or ever seriously engage in honest introspection, this would be the time. They have suffered a crushing and … let’s be frank… utterly humiliating defeat to the twin pillars of leftist ideology. And that’s the kind of thing that fosters genuine self examination. The entire movement to demonize and marginalize white heterosexual men has been mugged by reality.

More than that, it was mugged, beaten, brutalized, and left naked and bleeding on the front lawn of its parent’s house. Trump was such an extreme example of everything they despised, that even the establishment right bought into their thoughtless characterizations of him, even though they subscribe to only the absolute minimum of the leftist pillars of ‘thought’.

This is a good, and healthy step for American liberals, and I’d like to once again commend Slate’s “Daniel Engber” for being so honest and thoughtful about it. When the rest of the girls are ready to put down their ridiculous signs and start talking instead of screaming and crying, I hope they begin to listen to him.

Friday, November 11, 2016

- A Word On The Establishment Right Press

I'm reading some stuff today in traditional right websites that are quoting the usual suspects from K street, which seem to be trying to tell us "what voters really want". Speaking frankly, I'm dubious. They have their own agenda and I'm not convinced they have any better idea about what the voters "really want" today than they did the day before the election.

In the case of the left, any reduction in their overt bias will be obvious if it happens. I don't think it will, but I think it will be easily recognizable if it does.

In the case of the right, specifically National Review et al, I'd like to see that they have bought into the basic ideas of what's going on before I take them at their word that they know 'what voters want'. That will be slightly harder to recognize, but I'm more hopeful that we'll see it.

If they want to offer their opinions, that's fine. But henceforth, anything they report to me as 'fact', I'm taking with a grain of salt. I'll want to see the raw data at the absolute very least.

- Right Equals Might

So I’m reading about Obama’s ‘neutron bomb’ – the one he’s taken to the Democratic party which wiped out over a thousand Democrat legislators during his term. And I’m having one of those epiphany moments when things all seems very clear to me. I think it makes sense to jot down some of this obviousness however poorly phrased, so we all have a set of language to describe the whole mess.

American do not like to see themselves as victims, but the philosophy of the left requires victim culture. So too does Marxism, it’s philosophical parent. In order for those philosophies to gain in popularity, people need to have a level of faith in their own powerlessness. This is the great weakness of the left, that Donald Trump correctly saw, and all the polite political talking heads of the right did not.

I’ve seized on the Trump locker room talk pretty aggressively I know. And I’ll be honest, at first I wasn’t sure why. All I knew was that it struck a chord with me – filled a gap I knew in my bones that America was missing. Here was a man, talking about being a man; about being in control and in charge. About being so possessed of personal agency that even the rules of decorum were suspended for him. He was relishing that power that being a ‘real man’ gave him. He was celebrating the personal power that fame had wealth had provided.

I understood the importance of it right away, and not being particularly possessed of the sin of envy, I was happy to hear him say those things. I thought it was a good example of the kind of prize that awaits any man when you compete like a man and win like a man. And in that respect I was glad to hear his words publicly stated instead of in private.

What I didn’t quite realize at the time was that in itself it amounted to an argument about our culture. It was the perfect offset for all those wimpy little male feminists who decry their ‘privilege’ before speaking in public, and demand safe spaces for the girls. Here was the nation’s real “anti-feminist”, that was clear. At least it was if you saw Feminism not as a valid argument about equality, but as a brutal will to power argument of the female ‘losers’ in the sexual marketplace.

The Derb (quoting Steve Sailer) has said much about the “coalition of the fringes”. That’s the people at the very top of society, sprung from ivy league institutions more or less born to seize the reigns of power, and those that see themselves as utterly powerless – the losers and failures in every endeavor. Well the latter half of that group are the ones who advocated victim culture because it delivered power to their ‘allies’ at the top.

Academics who knew that they couldn’t actually compete in the private sector and defaulted to the secure life of tenure instead, all inwardly saw themselves as the latter, while they were able to describe themselves within their spheres of influence as the former. In their inner mental world they were utterly powerless because they knew they lacked the things it takes to compete in the private sector. But they believed that if they could just get enough people to think the way they do, they could make the hop into the ‘powerful’ class. Then THEY could be the ones in charge and making the rules.

So they openly advocated for victim culture - for investing the idea of being a victim with as much moral virtue as possible. And with their fervent advocacy in their limited areas of influence, the role of ‘victim’ has greatly expanded to include virtually everyone except heterosexual, white, males. This is the concept of intersectionality - the leveraging of one's 'victimhood' in one measure, to lend moral weight to one's arguments in another.

The chattering classes of the right saw this as simply more ‘crazy talk’ from the academics. But with an Academic in the Whitehouse, himself a black male of dubious masculinity and limited marketable skill (apart from making speeches), the idea took a firm hold in popular culture outside Academia as well. It got the support of the justice department, the law, and thanks to a compliant press and celebrity class, in other areas as well.

Political correctness and social justice are nothing more than the moat and barricade around victim culture. They defend the psychological principles necessary to promote the idea that failure is triumph, and to lose is the moral equivalent of a win. But they are all cultural arguments, not political. So the talking heads of the traditional right ignored them. They saw policy and politics as the battleground and they used their tool of reason to argue their positions in that 'downstream' sphere. They didn’t realize that the left had already moved upstream to “bigger game”. They were now fighting for the definition of morality, not politics.

Victim culture, social justice, and political correctness are all a single argument with their basis is the subjective emotional reasoning of the women who are biggest failures in the sexual marketplace. Even third wave feminism with all its baseless nonsense about ‘rape culture’ is a derivative argument rather than a root cause. It’s really “Failure” in and of itself that the left holds in the highest moral regard. It’s the contest itself that they are trying to destroy. The striving, the competition for achievement. The very idea that there are winners and losers. This is what the left has set its sights on. And with 8 years of Obama controlling the government and the press, and with the right unwilling to engage in an argument of culture rather than politics, they very nearly pulled it off.

You can’t oppose that kind of thinking with reason. You cannot reason someone who is hysterical back to reasonableness. That’s why the arguments of the NR crowd and the establishment right were failures at it. Because they treated the arguments as if they were real, when they were actually all imaginary. Like two people in a bad marriage, they talked past each other. The left wanted an emotional response, and the right gave them only the reason of political principle. The right won on arguments of policy, but were bowled over time and again, by the wave of moral outrage that flowed down to them from further upstream in culture.

Enter the Alt-Right. The Alt-right is utterly unpersuaded by subjective emotion and moral outrage. They think it’s unconnected from reality, which in fact it is. Uncomfortable facts are their bread and butter. Their arguments all spring from the facts and data, and how you feel about those facts is seen by them as ‘your problem’. They were willing to fight the culture war and made the right points. But they were excluded from the discussion because they were considered ‘too controversial”. Political correctness, which the establishment right embraced to some degree in the form of common courtesy, kept their arguments from being ‘allowed’. So with the megaphone held by the 'polite' conservatives who were all adequately constrained by political correctness, and the Alt-Right who could withstand the moral arguments but excluded from the broader discussion, the right ended up losing both the argument of emotion and the argument of fact.

Then came the candidacy of Donald Trump – the Anti-Feminist. He has never believed in failure. Like all men, he fails from time to time, but he doesn’t believe in it. To him, losing will NEVER be on par with winning, and he isn’t afraid to say so. Since he's had success, he doesn't feel political correctness should apply to him. He is unconstrained by it, and with his example the Overton window can finally change to empower the data driven arguments of the alt-right. We now have a leader who, for all his personal faults, is much more worried about winning than he ever will be about giving offense. And you can't succeed unless you look at the real problem - no matter how much it will 'offend' the offendable class. This unwillingness to concede the moral argument for victim culture makes him seem intensely dangerous to its advocates. So they make emotional arguments to try to reclaim the moral high ground. Trump is Hitler, and Trump runs the KKK aren't factual in any way. They are simply an expression of leftist moral outrage, which they see in Trump.

That moral lack is actually his best argument. And is the reason the devotees of victim culture have so seriously over-reacted to his election. They know that if political correctness and social justice can’t continue to be used to end the argument before it starts, their entire house of cards will finally fall and being a ‘victim’ will lose all its moral superiority. Failure will no longer be seen as proof or moral virtue. And that will leave them all right back where they started – as losers in the game of life who lacked the skills, ability, and courage to become winners. This is what the advocates of the left don't want to 'go back' to.

For a very long time now I’ve been arguing that we should be ridiculing the advocates of political correctness, social justice, and victim culture. I still firmly believe that. Our role as private citizens, is not to make the careful data driven arguments of the Sailer’s, Derbyshires, and Brimelow’s, but to provide the emotional support for them. We need to be the nation’s ‘shock troops’. We need to laugh in the face of those that support the victim narrative at every opportunity. We need to make them feel ‘triggered’ and then give them nowhere to take their triggering that won’t include further ridicule. We need to laugh in the face of the people who say it's racist to enforce one law for everyone. We need to let them know that most people see them as silly.

This is vitally important to the survival of the nation because the left still controls the press, academia, and the law. But there is no law against rudeness. There is no law against making the advocates of a visibly baseless and stupid philosophy feel stupid. There is no law against letting a little sunlight of reality creep into the very long shadows that victim culture, political correctness, and social justice will continue to cast in the Trump administration.

There is no need for actual violence when Feminists will happily tell you that a harsh word has the very same effect. There is no need to use force when their psychology is so fragile that they think simply disbelieving or ignoring them absent any evidence is the same as an assault. There is no need for hate, when simply to disagree with their view is considered a hate crime.

All we have to do is stop pretending that they have a valid point, and begin treating them as if they do not. Time and energy will fix the rest. We have all the thinkers we need to win this fight for western civilization. But if the Overton window is to move, it’s we who need to move it. We need to be the ones who make it OK to say things that the left can’t abide. And we do that by publicly laughing in their faces and ridiculing them, like they always should have been.

The fact that Obama was a 'neutron bomb' means we have the manpower. Those Democrat office holders have all lost their jobs because there are enough Americans out there who don't want to see themselves as victims. And we need to let others know that we reject the topsy turvy morality that makes losing into winning. That's the key to the Trumpening. We need to stop caring about the losers and start caring about winning again.

You don't have to have won, to want to win. You don't have to be the top of the heap to want to climb a little higher. It's not oppression of others to personally strive for more, or to be better at something than someone else. It isn't hateful to admire success and the personal agency that comes with it. Might doesn't make right, but in a virtuous world, being right, should (and will) lead to greater might. And there is nothing immoral about saying so.