Saturday, April 30, 2016

- A Simple Human Truth

When people are protected from the consequences of their bad decisions, you get more bad decisions. Decisions that center on intent rather than result. Decisions that reward the ego or signal virtue, rather than making our lives better. You can’t sit on the couch and eat junk food all day today, and expect to win a Marathon tomorrow. Your loss won’t be a result of cheating on the part of the other runners. It will be a product of your decision not to train as hard and as much as they did.

The right answer to that problem isn’t to make junk food eating mandatory, or to make training in advance of a Marathon illegal. It isn’t a different starting line for each competitor based on their weight or fitness. The answer, is to make people accountable for the consequences of their bad decisions.

We insulate a great many people from consequences. The women of our society (and the men who think like women) all believe this is a necessary condition of fairness. This idea has become so pervasive that the most extreme advocates of this view now demand that those making bad decisions need to be insulated from having to hear that their decisions are bad. They proclaim that anyone with a different view be silenced so their egos won’t be challenged. They scream with great passion that any disagreement is a product of ‘hate’, ‘racism’, and 'misogyny'.

It isn’t. It's only a reflection of a simple human truth.

This is what I meant when I said that we need masculine solutions to our society’s problems. We need policies which challenge instead of nurture. We don’t need to protect the ‘victims of oppression’, they have been too protected as it is. We need to tell them that they are on their own, and need to fend for themselves.

Children never like to hear this. Who would? When you’ve been raised in a world where others handle your responsibilities, and you receive all the benefits of their labor, sweat, and risk, who wouldn’t want more of the same? This doesn’t make them bad people. It makes them children. And it’s time for America to grow up a little.

Under the America I was raised in, blacks, minorities, and women are all equal under the law. We should begin holding them to an equal standard. No more preference based on how ‘downtrodden’ they are. Just because they declare themselves victims doesn’t make it so. But they are victims in a sense - victims of a culture that lacks the confidence to treat them equally. That needs to stop.

There will be tantrums of course. They will cry, and stamp their feet, and hold their breath. They’ll chain themselves together and wail about unfairness and the need for someone else to handle their lives for them. But this is the wailing of children. Women are persuaded by this, as are men who think like women. But men, are not. Men know that even though they tell us how much they hate us, we are doing what’s best for them.

It’s a cold, dangerous world. Our enemies abound. And we will never fight them off if we become a nation of children and the women who care for them. We need to start acting like men.

Friday, April 29, 2016

- Making Trump's Case For Him

Even the LA Time, THE LA FREAKIN TIMES, is making the case for Trump with video of the protesters burning American flags, rioting, and generally creating mayhem so serious, that Trump and his secret service detail had to sneak into his hotel through what amounts to a hole in the fence.

These protesters have been nurtured along by Obama and his Justice department, and a generation of idiots in academia and in the media telling them that everything bad that's ever happened to them is a white guy's fault. And just wait until Cleveland.

I can't wait to hear the media cornering Hillary and asking her how she defends people like this as a part of the Democrat party, and getting her response as to why they were carrying Mexican flags, and burning American flags .... (cue crickets.)

- Smart Guns Are Still Stupid

From Politico:

While the “smart gun” element of the actions drew little attention earlier this year, critics are gearing up to fight back against the possibility that such guns could be required for government firearms purchases. A source familiar with the plans said that type of mandate isn’t on tap right now, but critics are still worried the administration is laying the groundwork for such a move. Among the biggest skeptics are cops worried about testing an unproven technology on the streets. “Police officers in general, federal officers in particular, shouldn’t be asked to be the guinea pigs in evaluating a firearm that nobody’s even seen yet,” said James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. “We have some very, very serious questions.”

I resubmit my assertion, that I will not ever buy a smart gun UNTIL it's been proven out by the Police, The secret service, and maybe the armed forces. If it isn't good enough for them, it isn't good enough for me. Instead, I'll just stick to using one of the other 100 million or so other handguns available on the secondary market.

The simple fact is, the only people who think smart guns are a catchall solution to anything having to do with guns or as the left calls it "gun violence", are the people who don't know anything about guns. People who do know something about it all know that you can't legislate stupidity, and with 400 million guns in the country, a few people are going to embrace Darwin, and get injured or killed.

There just isn't any way to solve this problem for the lazy legislator. If they want to address the actual problem, then they're going to have to go out there and throw a bunch of young men (who commit the vast majority of violent felonies) in jail. That's it. There are no shortcuts, no matter how much Obama may wish for one.

- The Capitulation Of National Review

The tone has changed at National Review, and I think we can take that as a kind of capitulation. Certainly this piece by Rich Lowry seems to be. I’ve met Rich, and like him as far as it goes. And I’ve never been one to criticize a man’s character just because he takes action or makes a decision that I disagree with. People are motivated by a lot of things, and no man ever truly knows what’s in another’s heart. So unless it’s blatantly obvious, I like to give people that I usually agree with, the benefit of the doubt with regard to motives.

Kevin Williamson, on the other hand, I know better, and call him a friend (though I’m not certain he feels the same way these days.) And knowing him as I do, I do feel capable of speculating on his motives. So I’d like to say a few words on what I think this tiff about the Trump candidacy has taught us about these two members of the intellectual wing of the Republican Party, and what I hope it indicates for the Future of America’s premier political publication of the right.

First, I still maintain that Rich was dead wrong to fire John Derbyshire. I think that event was the beginning of a broad misread of the changing political currents that inevitably led to the very same cultural tsunami that gave us candidate Trump. In his defense, when you’re in a bunker fighting, it can be hard to see the whole battle field.

But with that said, I think Rich and National Review got the nascent Alt-right completely wrong. I think John’s piece in Takimag was a part of what led to the Alt-Right as a political movement – or rather, was an early indicator that it was being created by the same things that inspired John’s piece. Decent American’s were being told by the left that they were guilty of a cultural sin that they manifestly were not. John felt the need to push back on that, and Rich thought it was too much.

But in that belief, Rich was letting the left set the terms of ‘civility’ for our political discussion, and those terms were set up in a way that prevented the left from ever losing an argument. Rich assumed that people could see past the hyperbole and unsubstantiated nonsense that the left continues to constantly repeat about race, and that they didn’t need the kind of sharp ridicule that John was bringing down on them. In this regard he gave people too much credit. And in the process, he put one more obstacle in the way of a more competent politician taking on the ‘tough talking’ role of Trump in this election cycle. Had he supported John instead of vilifying him, who knows how the frame of the discussion might have changed for the mosre established political classes.

I don’t believe men like Rick Lowry are too deeply influenced by anything in particular other than facts and evidence. There is no cabal of Zionists pulling his strings. That’s nonsense for the conspiracy minded. But I do think he labors under all the mistakes about the political left that are neatly summed up in “The Rational Male” with regard to how women think. I think Rich is a blue Pill man, and if he took the red pill, and began to understand what it is about Trump’s overt masculinity that has had such a broad appeal, he would be much more effective in the next battle than he has been in this one. The red pill is a paradigm shift in one’s thinking. One that I don’t think Rich has made.

Or to put it another way, I think Rich’s frame of mind with regard to the political debate aligned him with the left in ways that he didn’t then appreciate, and maybe still doesn’t. But I believe he’s smart enough and clear headed enough to see that if exposed to it, and to then throw off the blinders that our profoundly Feminized culture has put on him. He clearly thinks that black lives matter and the social justice left are just as silly as the rest of us, but he thought it didn’t matter. He believed he could argue with reason, and achieve the ends he meant to. And while Trump’s success is teaching him how wrong that was, I don’t know if he’s actually learned what would be better next time.

When he wrote ‘The Talk”, John Derbyshire was doing the right thing with regard to our ‘discussion on race’. He was pushing back on unprovable assertions in a masculine way, all supported by evidence, and was at least trying to change the frame of the discussion. He was ridiculing the piece he sites in the article, and doing so to great dramatic effect. Rich wasn’t objecting to the facts sited in the piece, but the frame change of the piece itself. He thought it ‘outside common civility’ and he was right. But that 'common civility' was specifically designed by the left to prevent rational arguments from being effective, and Rich never saw that. And going outside it is precisely the thing the right should be doing because against the left it’s really the only effective option. It's been wildly successful for Trump. So maybe Trump’s success will let him see that. I hope so.

Kevin Williamson is another story entirely. Kevin is no blue pill man. He isn’t even a beta. I’ve seen him in action in NYC’s bars and taverns. And even though he’s a big, bald, fat guy, women topple over like dominoes to his game. Kevin is a guy who came from poverty and dysfunction in west Texas, who used his intellect and wit to great success. He's a man of considerable courage. And is very much not the type of man to back down from a fight. He might not be right about everything, none of us ever are. But he’s one of the smartest guys I know and labors under no illusions about who the left are, and the lengths they will go to accomplish their goals.

I’ll tell you something else, I think Kevin is right about Trump. I think Trump lacks the character, principles, and intelligence to be a good President. And I think Kevin made that case with such fervor and to such great effect, that it brought down upon him the wrath of the know nothings. They have spent the last several months doing little other than slandering him and lying about his motives. Kevin will tell you that he doesn’t care what people think of him, and that’s true as far as it goes. But that assumes that the things they accuse him of are true, and where Kevin’s is concerned, that is most certainly not the case.

I’ve never cared much what people think of me either, it’s one of the many things Kevin and I have in common. I will cop to any sin that I believe I’m actually guilty of, and I think Kevin would too. But when people lie about me, it makes me very angry. And a whole lot of people have been lying about Kevin very loudly, and in very great numbers. I believe it’s made him angry, and he’s right to be angry. All he’s trying to do is point out what to him seem to be obvious facts. But what Kevin seems to have forgotten (to me at least) is that American’s no longer care about facts.

There are a lot more people in the world of average intelligence than there are geniuses. And since Americans are no longer taught the difference between facts and feelings, they often mistake the two. Only the geniuses are able to make the distinction anymore, and only because they were smart enough to ignore what they were taught. I am. A great many of my friends are. And I believe Kevin is. But the people attacking him are not. Instead of arguing with his ideas, they are slandering the man. And I would have trouble standing for that if I were him too.

When people are trying their best to crucify you, it’s hard not to believe the worst of them, especially if many of them actually deserve it. But I think Kevin is making a mistake as well. I think he’s been a little overzealous in his perfectly justified self-defense, and in the process of striking his erstwhile political enemies, has accidentally injured some of his allies.

There are outright racists and anti-Semites in the Alt-Right, and many of those people support Trump. But that doesn’t make the Alt-Right into a movement of racists and ant-Semites. The leaders of the Alt-Right are men of reason. And that is how the movement should be defined. The left would have it otherwise. They feel it’s important to set the frame of such things in the worst light possible for anyone who opposes them. And since Kevin is being attacked by the bigots of the Alt-Right, for the moment anyway, he’s inclined to agree with the left about who the right is. But I think too highly of Kevin to believe that this is a permanent condition. And when the attacks on his character begin to subside, I believe he will see things for what they really are.

All of this has to do with a ‘frame change’. We need to change the frame of our political discussion to include a masculine solution to our problems as well as a feminine one. Trump will never be a great president, but has been great at changing the frame. And by doing so, he’s done America a great service. Now we need the real intellectual fighters of the political right to embrace that frame change as well. We need them to see the forest for the feminized trees, and make room for a more serious intellectual approach to our political problems, framed in a masculine way.

Hopefully National Review's capitulation that Trump is likely to be the nominee is the first indication that this is coming.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

- The Last CCW Holster You'll Ever Buy

I'm left handed, have a PX4 in 45acp with a laser on it and ... what's a good way to say this... I don't have quite as much natural padding as some other shooters my age. So when I go looking for an Inside the WaistBand holster so that I can carry my gun concealed, I'm basically out of luck. There isn't much out there to fit a PX4 with a laser, particularly if you are leaner like I am and can't hide much in the way of bulk with your normal clothes. And in a left handed version, there is almost nothing.

Then I found the item above.

It's called a Versacarry, and it's a must have for all gun guys who will ever even consider carrying concealed. There are a ton of reviews on Youtube for it, and I suggest you go watch them. But that isn't the reason you should run right out and buy one. The real reason you should go get one, just on my say so, is the price. It's $19.95 from the manufacturer, and even cheaper on places like ebay and Amazon. It's ambidextrous, it fits any gun, in any size, with any attachments, it weighs nothing, and adds virtually no bulk.

You don't have to wait, you don't have to think about it, and you don't have worry that you'll never use it. Even if you might maybe just think about using it one day, you should have one.

I may not have many great ideas, but I know one when I see one. And this is simply brilliant.

- My Policy Wish List For 2017

Regardless of who the next President turns out to be, there are things I think will help us all, and things I think will hurt us all. Some of these things will be easy, some will be hard, and all, if Hillary Clinton is elected, will be impossible. But I thought I’d toss them out there in the hope that these thoughts might become small part of the conversation. I’m listing them in priority order:

1. Conservative Judges
What Obama has done to our immigration and ‘refugee’ settlement policy has been done outside the law (if not outright illegal). But if we don’t get conservative judges, then those practices will become the legal standard. Even more important than a rollback of those suicidal policies is making sure we’ve built a system capable of withstanding the next generation’s attempts to mimic him.

2. Concealed Carry Reciprocity
I list this issue second because all the other items on this list will likely result in violence from the constituents that benefit from the current practices. I’m not afraid of any one man, but I am afraid of a mob. And I’d like to be able to defend myself and the people I care about, without having to resort to criminal activity.

3. Revoke access for illegal aliens to all social services & support
The wall is a cute idea, but it’s a long border, and is basically impossible to completely secure, and most illegals don’t come in that way anyway. The wall will help, but a better way to address the problem is to eliminate the incentives for jumping it. I have many immigrant friends, and believe there are people of worth in every country. So my problem isn’t the fact that we are asked to assimilate immigrants, but that we are asked to assimilate the wrong immigrants. As a partner to this program, I’d like to see E-verify implemented, but I’m less anxious about someone who want to come here to work, than someone who wants to come here to lay about.

4. Complete Immigration Rule Reform
The system is a mess, and needs to be fixed from top to bottom. For more on this, see the works of John Derbyshire at Vdare.com or his archive website.

5. Elimination of ALL Corporate taxes
I’ve made this case before. A policy like this will send up wails of anguish from the left, but those complaints will be drowned out by the spectacular economic boom that comes with it.

6. Repeal of Obamacare
The doctor shortage is just getting started, so this one will only get easier as time goes on.

7. Suspension of Affirmative Action & Disparate Impact
I believe black Americans are capable of participating in the American experiment, but so long as we treat them like children incapable of taking care of themselves, there will never be a reason for them to try. I know several very successful minorities who attended top schools, and their legitimacy has always been questioned thanks to these two programs. We need to hold all Americans to a single standard, in all walks of life. Will that mean fewer black doctors, lawyers, and academics? Probably. But it won’t mean any less back success, which has always been individually realized.

8. Entitlement reform
We spend FAR more money that we will ever collect in taxes. But being honest about it, at this point this will be just as dangerous to accomplish economically as it will be politically. The federal balance sheet is a disaster, and any attempt to take it seriously might put US debt at question, set of a run on the currency, and bring the whole house of cards down on our heads. It can be accomplished, but it would require a financial virtuoso of unprecedented skill, and those people just don’t go into government. And even if they did, the masses and media would never trust them. (And no… I can say with certainty that Donald Trump is very much NOT that guy, even if he believes he is. Every major financial mistake I’ve ever seen involved a guy believing he understood something he really doesn’t. I’ve spoken to Trump on this very topic, and he doesn’t.)

This is a short list but I can go on and on rattling off department and bureau in DC that I think should be reduced or eliminated. But this gets us the biggies. Massive Economic and job growth, immigration reform and self-deportation of illegals, and a change in direction reverting back to the checks and balances process that made us one of the longest enduring democracies in history. It will be interesting to see how much of it is ever considered, whoever gets elected. Unless it’s President Hillary. Then we know that not only will none of this ever be considered, we’d actually get the opposite plan.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

- Likely Failure Better Than Certain Failure

I once wrote that we needed a recession, because it would collectively purge us of our bad ideas about how the economy works, and the practices those bad ideas fostered. We could then return to a more rational, clear headed way of seeing the economy and the financial markets. What I didn’t realize then was that those in government had gotten clever enough to prevent bad ideas from having a negative impact, and replace them quickly with other bad ideas.

So when our idea that everyone is ‘equal’ with regard to credit risk failed and caused a collapse of the housing market, instead of a recession that we could have all learned from, the government stepped in and prevented what they linearly saw as ‘bad economic consequences’. They disguised the cause of the failure with rhetoric about ‘the rich’, made taxpayers responsible (inevitably) for the failed investments, and then replaced one bad idea with another. They flooded the market with enough federally guaranteed debt to shore up the bank balance sheets, and provide credit for those insiders who managed to avoid the worst of the wreckage, all in the name of ‘stability’.

The financial world moves quickly these days, and though we got a mild slowdown in economic activity, through creative modification of our economic reporting practices, we never saw the consequences of our poor decisions. And the world rolled on, run by the same poor decision makers, making another set of poor decisions. All of this is replacing one fantasy driven bad idea with another. Instead of poor people trying to flip a house on their own, we have politicians spending tax dollars (actually future tax dollars that we will never, ever actually collect) to ‘invest’ in them with public support.

Our culture has another bad idea that’s a part of our every decision. It’s the idea that women are capable of doing everything as well as men. Operating on this mistaken belief, we have vested women with huge political authority and since they tend to be more collective in their decision making, they have manipulated our democracy into a kind of suicide pact where masculinity is considered morally vile. They have encoded into law huge advantages for women, and now that they have successfully feminized our society, we see our culture collapsing from within. Our men act like women, our women try to act like men, and when they fail, they call it the fault of the patriarchy. As a result, we are no longer able to resist an imminent and violent threat from without in the form of mass Islamic immigration, which our women welcome in their ‘peace through unconditional surrender’ style.

We need men in America. We need to remember our masculinity and to make it fashionable again to act and think like men. And I’m shocked to see that the Establishment Republicans still don’t see that this is the source of Trump’s strength in the polls. He is the only candidate acting and talking, like a man. I believe this lack is the thing that lost Romney 2 elections. But instead of putting up a man that projects strength like Trump has, the establishment puts up more equivocating, posturing soft speakers who try to split the difference. Even as much as Cruz is hated by the insiders, he’s seen by the voters as being the same as them, because this is the dimension against which America is taking the measure of the man.

Had they put up a man more competent than Trump who spoke the same tough way, I believe he would have easily trounced Trump early on. In a way, their failure to do so opened the door for a man as unproven and unworthy of the presidency as Trump is. And that failure is now weeks away from utterly destroying the Republican party. Instead of fighting for our culture and resisting the feminization of American decision making, they tried to embrace it. But the public is having none of it this cycle.

I’ve already lost friends over this election who will no longer speak to me. And I’ve done so without actually supporting Trump. Just supporting his more masculine take on politics and advocating it for establishment Republicans has been enough. Their opposition to Trump is supported by reason, but it isn’t being driven by it. Their objections are driven by passion and fear. Fear that a man who speaks the way Trump does will do more harm to our nation than good. It’s an objection to his masculinity. And I feel like the establishment can’t see the forest for the trees.

The central thesis of my professional life has been that you are a reflection of how you make decisions. If you make them based on objectivity and reason regardless of how uncomfortable the conclusions that come from it may be, then you are one kind of person, and if you make them based on fear, emotion and political calculation, then you are another. For the second kind of person, Hillary is the perfect candidate. And I think she’ll fit very well into the establishment Republican’s view of the world.

Trump may not be the perfect candidate for the other kind of person, and I’ve certainly got my reservations about him. But when offered a choice between certain failure and a vanishingly small chance of success, I will always take the better odds. That’s who I am. That’s how I decide. And I would rather have even the tiniest chance of success with an unproven and not particularly bright man, than a certain chance of failure with any woman. Be they Hillary, Romney, or anyone else the establishment puts up.

- Regulating Away Economic Growth

The government doesn't do things for you, it does them to you:

What’s the cumulative impact of all these rules, regulations and mandates over several decades? A new study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University tries to get an answer, and what it found is mind-boggling.

The paper looked at regulations imposed since 1977 on 22 different industries, their actual growth, and what might have happened if all those regulations had not been imposed.

What it found is that if the regulatory state had remained frozen in place in 1980, the economy would have been $4 trillion — or 25% — bigger than it was in 2012. That’s equal to almost $13,000 per person in that one year alone.

Looked at another way, if the economic growth lost to regulation in the U.S. were its own country, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world, as the nearby chart shows.

That country mentioned above sits in Washington. It's a nation of porn surfers, obstructionist bureaucrats, layabouts, and idiot cousin - political appointees. It's a country inhabited by academics who believe you can't be trusted to manage your own decisions. And every day they come up with a new way to bring you further under their thumb. They are taking that $13,000 per person (an average mind you... a number which applies to someone making the US average wage of $51,939), and re-distributing it to themselves. What could you do with that 13K, or your multiple of it?

We are all serfs. We're working for an absentee landlord that see's us only as a meal ticket. And has convinced the women of America (many of whom have male genitals) that direct competition is immoral, that being a victim is virtuous, and that winning is evidence of having cheated.

They treat us like we're idiots, and the fact that we let them do so, means that we probably are.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

- White Is The New Black

David Horowitz makes the argument of the Alt-Right:

In this destructive enterprise the left’s chief weapon is race, which it uses to attack departures from its orthodoxies as racial bigotry. But even as progressives prosecute this race war, racial bigotry by whites has ceased to be a factor in public life. Progressives deal with this intractable reality by inventing a fictional construct called “institutional racism” to which they attribute all the disparities affecting blacks. “Institutional racism” is a necessary fiction – institutionalized racism has been outlawed for sixty years – because actual racists have become so hard to find.

...

While blacks are only 13% of the population, they commit 38% of the violent crimes and over 50% of the murders. In Chicago and New York, two of the homicide capitals of America, blacks and Hispanics commit more than 95% of the murders. If one removes from the equation the criminal elements of the black and Hispanic populations of this country, America’s violent crime rates shrink astronomically until America looks more like European countries whose citizenries have no guns.

I say again, when trying to figure out if an organization is extremist, you should look at the opinions of the leaders as compared to the opinions of the supporters.

If the views of the leaders are further to the fringe than the opinions of the supporter's, I would argue that it's an extremist group. If the opinions of the supporters are further to the fringe, then I would argue that the group is mainstream because the leaders will have the effect over time, of pulling the group opinion to the center.

Under this model, Democrat = Mainstream, Republican = Mainstream. BLM = Extremist, Feminism = Extremist, Alt-Right = Mainstream. And under any model, SJW = bat shit crazy.

- This Is Not A Joke...

...but it sure starts like one:

A thinker, a talker, and the most fabulous Fag in America walk into an college auditorium...

Christina Hoff Sommers, Steven Crowder, and the one and only Milo Yianopoulos at UMass talking about the social rot that is Feminism. How ironic that the fate of western civilization hangs on the arguments that these three make.

- Atlas Shrugging

I can’t talk on the phone right now because downstairs and across the street from my office, is a bunch of union laborers are protesting Verizon, and they’re making too much noise. Their beef? They only make $140,000 per year. But I need to talk on the phone this morning, because the State of NJ has decided that I deserve a little harassment.

When I divorced, I changed addresses, and changed car insurance companies. But I stayed completely within the law. My car was never uninsured – not for one second. But due to a bureaucratic issue, the state seems to think it has been. They sent me a note the other day demanding that I send them a copy of my auto insurance card, which I promptly did, along with the threat that if I did not they would suspend my registration. They promptly ignored it or lost it, I’m not sure which.

I also lent that same car to my college aged niece who used it to drive to her class at the local community college. When she came out of her class, she discovered that the police had come in her absence (probably looking for sexual harassers) and found a ticket on her windshield. What was the ticket for? Suspended registration.

This ticket was issued to her in absentia. What the police were really doing was assuming that college kids are more likely to commit vehicle crime than non-college kids, so they troll the local parking lots scanning the plates of the cars that are parked there. Someone somewhere had made a bureaucratic error and my car came us as a problem. This in spite of the fact that I had violated no law, and committed no offense.

The ticket is court appearance required.

So now I have to rent a car for myself, drive out to middle of nowhere NJ and defend myself in an evening of traffic court, all because our enforcement of the law is enabled by technology that they can’t learn to operate properly. I will bear the expense and not insubstantial nuisance of all this not because I am operating on the fringes of society or have violated even the most obscure regulation, but because the government of NJ has in essence said to me … fuck you… pay me.

I’d like to at least get the registration re-instated, but to do that I have to call the DMV, which I can’t do because the noise in my office is too loud, from the protest 20 floors below me. Because the Verizon people can’t get more than $140K per year.

Monday, April 25, 2016

- Being In Favor Of War

It was a lovely Sunday yesterday, so a young lady friend and I decided we should take her dog for a walk to Washington Square Park. For decades Washington Square has been an epicenter of leftist thinking and rebellion. It’s surrounded on all sides by NYU, and has long been a home to petty drug dealers, homeless crazies and the kind of human flotsam that an upper middle class white guy like me would usually like to avoid.

One afternoon back in the late 80’s, I saw a man and a woman there who had maneuvered around their running clothes, having sex in the middle of the grass. A small crowd had gathered around them to watch, much like the driveway scene in boogie nights. About an hour later on the same day, I watched a drunken napoleonic Latino no taller than 5 foot 4 pick a fight with a biker who was at least a foot taller and 75 pounds heavier than him. The bigger man did nothing but say “I don’t want to hurt you man!” as he backed away from the smaller man. But when the Latino broke a beer bottle on the bench and waved it threateningly at the unarmed biker, the bigger man dropped him cold with a single ham sized fist to the face. All this was a typical Tuesday in May. But that was the 80's. It's nothing like that now.

These days, Washington Square Park is safe, clean, and prosperous, just like the rest of Manhattan. Instead of drug dealers and homeless people, children play on the swings with their Russian and Haitian nannies, while Mom takes a yoga class or has brunch with friends a few blocks away. While not exactly a testimony to traditional American values, it is another of the Giuliani ‘urban success’ stories of gentrification. What was close to urban blight has become the playground of upscale aging hipsters and their kids.

None of it would be possible of course except for the wild success of banking and finance industries that dominate New York, and the windfall taxes they generate. But the progressives in Greenwich Village are as blissfully unaware of that as always, and are happy to bite the hand that feeds them at every opportunity. Just a week ago this same park was stuffed with 28,000 Bernie Sanders fans for an election rally, and you can still find the Bernie stickers everywhere. But these were the kind of ‘spoiled rich kids' posing as rebels that typify 21’st century American politics. And it's clear that they only love Bernie because he's promising them the most 'free' stuff.

Which isn’t to say that some people aren’t still terrified in Washington Square. And this weekend one of them was scared of me.

So there we were, reclining on a sunny bench and enjoying the global warming, while my lady friend’s French bulldog sniffed the area around us and charmed the people sitting nearby. We had been there only a few minutes when we were approached by a small group of prosperous looking kids carrying clipboards. One young lady marched straight up to me, smiled and asked me if I’d like to sign their petition “against war”.

I found the description ridiculous, but thought that maybe they were being overly broad in their description of the petition. But sure enough, when I craned my neck to take a look it was very clear. They weren’t protesting a specific war, but the concept of war in general. And for some reason they thought a petition was the right way to express their will in this regard. Who the petition was for and how they expected that person to effect a stop to ‘war’ was a mystery. It wasn’t spelled out on the document in any case, and I doubted very much the girl could tell me. So instead of asking serious questions, I decided to have a little fun with it.

When the young girl asked me to sign I quickly responded, “Oh no, I really couldn’t, you see I’m in favor of war.”

The look of horror on her face was genuine, as was my attitude of smug bemusement. And she responded with the kind of clear eyed certainty that I’ve come to expect from America’s youth.

“Oh… um… wait… um... did you say… um… you’re in favor of … um…”

I smiled. “Oh yes. I’m very much in favor of war. These days your idiot professors may teach you that violence is never the answer. But even a glance at history will tell you that on the contrary, violence is almost ALWAYS the answer. It may not be a particularly good answer, and I would strive for others. But any time I’m attacked I’m not only in favor of war, I insist on war.” She was undeterred by my argument and responded with more of the confidence and passion of well informed youth.

“Uhhh… so um… like… really? Like... you’re in favor of war?”

“Oh absolutely. And heaven help the person that makes the mistake of getting into a war with me or my people. We’re polite civilized people you see, so long as you treat us that way as well. But if you make the mistake of using violence against us, we’ll see your entire civilization in ashes before we’re through. Taking cities that were once ancient and glorious and turning them into so much rubble and dust is one of the things we do best.”

Her next question was probably offered because at the time, I was wearing a Kilt in black watch tartan with a day sporran and tan army boots. I’ve taken to wearing one in the nice weather because it simultaneously declares my masculinity and my white privilege all at once. I think of it as thumbing my nose at all the people who hate the identity I represent. It’s as if I’m saying “you’re goddamned right I’m a white man, and not only a white man, the kind of white man that conquered the world. All the world feared people like me, and if you don't play your cards right you’re gonna have to fear me again.” I didn’t actually say any of this of course, I let my manner of dress speak for itself. And her next question was almost certainly just reacting directly to my unusual attire.

“Um… oh my god.” She said. “Um ... so … who are your people exactly?”

“Me? “ I said “I’m an American.”

She gasped a little, and then shuffled off with her friend, while glancing over her shoulder and whispering. She was probably horrified, and I was pleased with myself. My girlfriend, who was much more accustomed to my antics, smiled and shook her head a little.

It was a lovely Sunday.

Friday, April 22, 2016

- More On White Male Privilege

It takes a certain learned skill to read the New York Times because what's between the lines is often the most important part. It's no secret that the NYT will perform a twisting and turning with the truth that rivals any Yoga instructor to keep the 'news' on point with the liberal narrative. But a great deal of that can be addressed by simply reading the last few paragraphs that they're trying to bury, first. Here is the first and last paragraphs of a story from today on rising suicide rates among white Americans:

Suicide in the United States has surged to the highest levels in nearly 30 years, a federal data analysis has found, with increases in every age group except older adults. The rise was particularly steep for women. It was also substantial among middle-aged Americans, sending a signal of deep anguish from a group whose suicide rates had been stable or falling since the 1950s.

...

The gap in suicide rates for men and women has narrowed because women’s rates are increasing faster than men’s. But men still kill themselves at a rate 3.6 times that of women. Though suicide rates for older adults fell over the period of the study, men over 75 still have the highest suicide rate of any age group — 38.8 per 100,000 in 2014, compared with just four per 100,000 for their female counterparts.

"Earth to be destroyed, women and minorities hardest hit!" isn't a joke at the NYT, it's a way of life. There is no conspiracy. It's just a focus on a solitary explanatory vision that all members of the press share. In this case of course, it's that white men are the evil bastards, and it's women and minorities who need white men punished even further by society to 'level the playing field'.

For decades now pop-culture and the media has been describing decent, virtuous, responsible men like my brother, my friends, and I as the utter destroyers of of society. We are all automatically thought of as racist, misogynist, haters of all things and people who aren't exactly like us, exclusively because our choices led us to a more comfortable life than than the choices those other people made. That, they proclaim, is evidence of our unearned 'privilege'. It's why we don't deserve to be thought well of for our self-sacrifice, and our honest labor.

It's no easy thing to do right by others your whole life and to be demonized as a monster because of it. And what these stats tell me is that clearly there comes a time in many men's lives when they give up and stops fighting it all. Self sacrifice for men is an instinct, and the best men do so for their families, and communities. But to do so your whole life and then be spit on for it, is tough to take. Beyond the ability of many men it seems.

I for one am glad to see that women are now enduring a bit more of this 'fairness'. Even if men are still coping with 3.6 times more of it.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

- A Pro Trump Point From an Anti Trump Guy

The Donald is all over the map ideologically, but he is at least from the private sector. Which means he has some basic understanding of efficiency. It's not impossible (nothing whatsoever guarantees it mind you) that when he gets to Washington and looks at the results of programs rather than the goals of programs, his idea of how to run the government more efficiently is to get rid of whole departments.

This is a perspective thing that has always puzzled me. The people who run our government seem to think that a major stakeholder in our public service is the public servants themselves. But they aren't like corporate employees where there are costs and benefits. They are all cost. They obstruct progress and growth not facilitate it. President Trump will no doubt see that. You don't have to be that good a businessman to do so. And anyone that Trump can fire would be a net benefit to the American economy. Even if all they did afterward was go sit on their couch.

I can imagine him waving away an apoplectic press corps as he eliminates things like the Education department wholesale, and greatly pares back things like the EPA. But the problem with this scenario is that it's all in my imagination. There is absolutely no way to be certain he'd even try to do it. And then there is the inevitable downstream issue of a Trump Presidency.

Eliminating the least efficient portions of the civil service will mean disparate impact. And the left only knows 2 things to cow Republicans into shutting up and doing what they're told. When they present his policies as being motivated by his hatred of blacks and women (it doesn't really matter what the policies are, you know that's going to be the argument) the racial tensions that the left and team Obama have been nurturing and cultivating these last 8 years will finally bubble over. The ranks of the "black Lives Matter" movement will swell to unmanageably large numbers, and their hatred will become more open and intense. And that will mean riots, violence, and the national guard. Our transition to a third world banana republic, will be complete.

I have no idea what Trump will do in that circumstance, but I doubt it will be effective, or what the left can tolerate. Which actually brings me back to my vision of President Clinton. The only thing the left (meaning all of academia, all of the media, and a substantial part of what we call the Republican establishment) will tolerate is more appeasement of racial and gender grievances. So I think they're going to see to it that he never spends a night in Washington, regardless of the cost.

The simple and tragic fact is, there is no getting out of this without violence.

- Fighting The Real Enemy (The Left)

I think I’ve got it. I think I know where the gap is between the psychological position of the Alt-Right and the Establishment right.

We all want to fight the identity politics and collectivism of the left. We all want a more free society where individual effort and individual achievement are the thing that gets the greatest reward. And we all want the government, who is bad at basically everything, to make fewer decision for us, and to leave us alone to decide for ourselves. So why do we take such small difference and turn them into such a big argument?

The idea came to me when I was thinking about the NRA. The NRA has billboards all over their areas of strength, but nothing… at all… in the greater NYC area. They’ve determined that this investment doesn’t lead to membership dollars as effectively as it does in Texas or South Carolina. But I always thought they would do better by putting up a billboard between the NYC Tunnels and the Newark Airport. There it would be seen by the NY media community and in their anti-gun horror, they would run stories over it all over the news.

All that free media combined with the disgusted editorial horror of the NY media community, would probably mean even more membership dollars for them in a market where they have very little penetration. In fact, I always imagined it should be a billboard that specifically speaks to outreach in the black community like the image above. I don't want to modify the original image, but imagine that billboard with the caption:
"The NRA: to us Black Rights Matter."
Nothing and I really mean nothing, would send the NY media community into fits of apoplexy like the NRA trying to get the lawful components of black America to invest in their own safety and arm themselves. But the accountants at the NRA don’t see that.

I can hear what you're saying. "The cops will lose their minds!!!" Think again. The police chiefs probably will, but cops are not anti-gun. Politicians are anti-gun. And a police chief isn't a cop, he's a politician. The cops on the beat all know that no criminal can arm themselves legally. It's only the politicians who want to make voters feel differently. But I'm talking about strategy here, not specifics.

The establishment right wants to fight the left, and they think of that fight as a fight against an individual. When fighting an individual you hit him where he’s weakest. That’s where your energy does the most damage. Where you get the greatest return on your investment of calories and sweat. But that isn’t how you fight a mob.

When fighting more than one person you don’t go for the weak spot. You don’t slap around the weak little kid who’s giggling behind the bigger kids. You pick the biggest one of them, and hit him with everything you have. Take out their strongest point, and you show courage. You show that you aren’t going to be cowed.

In my youth I’ve been in fights with groups of other kids several times. One particularly episode sticks in my mind because by any objective account I was beaten pretty badly. But I gave as good as I got against a much larger, stronger kid. And though I had to walk around for a few days with bruises and 2 black eyes, not one of those kids ever approached me with hostility again. Over the following weeks, the hangers on who weren’t in the actual fight and just watched the whole thing, were so frightened of me that they whispered to others to leave me alone because I was so terrifying. Only showing courage does that. I was afraid of the bigger kid of course, but I was not going to let that stop me. That’s what courage is.

If the establishment right really believes that the left is wrong about identity politics, then they should step and do as the alt-right is doing. they should deny the validity of the lefts accusations of Racism and misogyny intended to shut down debate, and use science and reason to do so. They should aim for the strong spot. Because this isn’t a fight against an individual, it’s a fight against a mob. And if they take out that one, all the rest of the little cowards of the left will fall right into line.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

- Sick of Politics in America? Time to hunt hogs!

hunting scene
A Roman Mosaic from Tunisia - hunting Boar with Dogs

Its been awhile since I scratched out a bit more than a few lines for RFNJ. Its also great to see Tom back to his frequent writings.
The inevitable victory of Hillary Clinton will test the limits of sovereignty. I anticipate her Supreme Court will make dead Latin Revolutionaries jealous. You thought Obama was bad, you ain't seen Hillary's brand of scorned woman stalinism in action.  In preparation I've stocked up on plenty of firearms and ammo and sharp pointy things to boot. Also, keeping a lettuce-locker fully of Andrew Jackson $20's may be a sound investment. Those bills will be worth more than the Tubman's that will serve to eradicate the memory of Jackson - an undeniable and once indelible founder of our nation.

I was recently invited to the not-so-annual feral hog hunt in Moore Haven Florida. I participated in my first knife-hunt a few years ago (posted on RFNJ) and now I am being invited along with some important people in lower-tier of the firearms industry. Presidents and Directors of companies that manufacture well-known solvents and lubricants, import companies, and munitions manufacturers.
Quite a stellar line-up and it will be interesting to see what they make of the coming year in politics and serfdom.

Like last time, I will be using my Saiga 7.62x39 as I have become familiar with its quirks. Rather than relying on iron sights, I opted for a Bushnell TRS-25 Red-Dot. Still waiting for the Saiga mounting rail before I install it. Hopefully it will be at my door by Saturday, as I need to sight-in with this contraption.
I also purchased camo gun-tape in a very cheap effort to secure some of the Saiga's notoriously clanky parts. These were deal-breakers on the last hunt as a slight audible clank spooked a hog from my stand. We'll see if the tape melts or ignites from the dust-cover during the range session.
I will be sighting in initially with TulAmmo hollow-points and Herters since they are similar. Once I have a decent group, we'll try the Hornady Zombie-Max from 75 yards. I don't feel like burning through a box of this ammo and last time the targets were true at 75 yards with both loads.
Why 75 yards? My eyes aren't what they used to be for one, but Florida hog hunting is usually a close quarters affair. Sure there are farms, ranches and fields that will require you to hit the pie-tin no less than 150, but I am familiar with the terrain and the stand placements. Last time it was 30-yards from an elevated stand, this time I will opt for a box-blind at 50 - 60 yards from the feeder.
As is often the case, you get one shot in the morning sit and then the buggy picks you up for a bit of "Rat Patrol". Here is where the dog option is necessary but you have a chance at running hogs if the dog team is elsewhere. I missed a running hog last time. If I had buckshot from my Mossberg 500, it would have been a dead pig.
The outfitters don't allow buckshot in order to protect the dogs. I can't blame them. You can use a handgun, a spear, a knife, but no shotty-guns over the dogs.
It lead me to ponder what would be the best brush-platform for Florida hogs.
My nephew has always swore by his 12ga Side-by-side with 20-inch barrels. A coach gun or 'Lupara' for you Godfather fans. Like Pheasant hunting, but without dogs, pushing hogs requires a big shot payload, a good swing and pointing gun and the ability to snap off two quick shots. A pump action is a good second and a Lever Action 30-30 will round that field out. Emphasis on short barrels. I like the 7.62x30 because of mass and manageability. Not taking awat from the AR-15, but I have more confidence in .30 cal over .223 as a one-and-done proposition. The AR and AK platforms are just fine for brush hunting, but I am still confirmed that nothing screams dead-pig better than a short-barreled shotgun belching a tube of 00 Buck.
The buck shot itself can be military surplus 00. Nothing fancy required. I have used No.1 and No. 2 Buck in the past, but that tends to go everywhere. If you have those loads, I suggest a choke to IC or M to tighten the pattern. But for our purposes I'm happy with an 18-20" cylinder bore and 00 out to 30 yards.
I toyed with buying a Chiappa Triple-Threat shotgun for this purpose, but I prefer to keep the weight down. These hunts last all day and it is hot and humid in this neck of the woods. Even the Saiga proves to be clumsy after a few hours of shouldering.

I will be packing a side-arm and usually go with a Ruger GP100 in .357 Mag. This is only for emergency or in a situation where storming into brush with a long gun might prove unwieldy - as was the case when my friend had to crawl into dead-fall after the dogs cornered a pig. He couldn't crawl in with the AR-15, but reliable Glock Perfection closed the deal at extreme close quarters.

Clothing: I'm sure everyone on this hunt will be wearing the latest in hot weather camo, Some with face paint. I don't wear camo anymore. I usually wear jeans, boots and a shooting shirt. A change of clothes is a good idea since it may be chilly in the morning and being warm helps you to keep motion at a minimum. Under Armour is ok or a sweater or sweatshirt. For the brush hunting it would probably be best to wear your upland clothes, but again temps in the high 80's tend to steer me away from going that direction. I'll probably wear cargo shorts and switch out the heavy undershirt for t-shirt after the morning sit.

The knife: it is my belief every red-blooded American male must own a fixed-blade knife. If you don't own a pocket knife you need to get your head checked. I toyed with buying a Mountaineer Knife from Cudeman or a Jabali Knife from Muela, Both real nice Spanish made knives. I still have the Buck 119 Special that I used on the first hunt and I'll stick with it, pun intended!
I don't need a fancy bowie knife or dagger or even a survival knife. Just a 6" blade with a good handle and guard.
When one goes knife shopping, you will encounter chat boards and videos showing people doing the strangest things to hunting knives, only to break them in the process and ignorantly declaring "the knife failed!" Usually a lone voice of reason posts on the chatboards or beneath the video: "If you wanted to use a knife like a hatchet, you could have just bought a hatchet."
You will see videos of knife tests where some doughy looking guy in a boonie hat determines "performance" based on how well a small piece of metal can clear a field of brush, chop down a tree, lever a door open and baton-split a cord of wood. Of course the knife will fail if you use it for purposes other than it was intended. I did mention on a chat board that I decided to go with the Buck 119 and received a chorus of "you'll be sorry" from the peanut gallery. The absurd declarations were that the blades are not shaving sharp therefore cannot cut a pig's throat. I informed that one does not dispatch a pig by Halal means, but with a stabbing thrust into the heart from behind the shoulder - the perfect shot if you will. Apparently, the knife-chatty-universe is filled we people that believe certain brands of knives will fail out of the box and that he user will be placed in harms way...

My advice: Buy a knife that you like whether it is cool looking or utilitarian. If you need one for pig-sticking make sure its sharp and has some heft to it. When you are old, pass that knife onto yer kin and remind them of why we do this stuff. If you need further reminding, have another gander at the mosaic posted above. That was probably 2000 years ago and pretty good instruction for baying a pig into a fence.

You never know, but a  Hillary Presidency will result in Gun Taxes, Ammo Taxes, and animal cruelty taxes, that is if MEN don't do anything about it.

et capienda est vivere


- An Alt-Right Conservative's Guide To The Establishment Right

At the request of a very angry friend who likens the Alt-right to “Nazi worshiping bigots who have dreams of camps and ovens”, I’ve done a little reading and have come to the only rational conclusion I can:

Hillary Clinton is going to be our next President.

To date, I’ve gotten most of my information on the Alt-Right from John Derbyshire, and the manosphere. John is an eminently reasonable and polite man who is nothing if not thoughtful in his reasoning, and is one of the leading intellectual voices of the Alt-Right. Readers know I consider him a good friend, and have spent much time with him hunting and shooting. We’ve also spent a lot of time eating, drinking and most importantly, talking. Know him like I do, and I find it difficult to believe that you wouldn’t think well of him. Sit him down to dinner with Al Sharpton and after the meal is done I have no doubt that Al will rise from the table and say something like: “I hate his ideas, but I found the man to be a perfect gentleman”.

The manosphere is somewhat less thoughtful in its generalized take on things. There is the narcissism of the PUA movement, the resigned abandonment of MGTOW movement, and everything in between, all colored by an utter rejection of the equalist views of Feminism. Identity politics defines the manosphere, and it isn’t without irony that I think the best single voice for men’s rights today belongs to Karen Straughan, a woman from central Canada who is able to slip past the identity politics guards, and give a crystal clear voice to the excesses of Feminism.

Coming from these relatively thoughtful or at least measured voices, I was shocked to read such an angry position from my friend, who is very much a part of what the Alt-right would call the ‘establishment conservatives’. So I set about trying to find out why the rise of the Alt-Right has generated such an emotional reaction from my friend. And I began trolling around the web to see what all the fuss was about.

I tend to stay away from the Stormfront crowd, and I imagined my friend did as well. There are so few of them after all, and they mean so little politically. I thought it was only the imagination of leftists who keep the discussion of America’s last 1,000 or so true bigots in the media headlights as a meaningful political force. The Southern Poverty Law Center may see a Nazi behind every tree, but I thought they were the only ones. And who takes them seriously anymore? So to associate someone like “the Derb” with those people seems very much akin to slander to me.

OK... John has in the past described himself as a tolerant Racist. But when he said it he simply didn’t mean the same thing that the left means when they say it about him. He is not filled with hate and has no dreams of ovens…for god’s sake. Yet that is precisely what my friend, an establishment conservative, meant when he said it. But what bothered me more was the decision making process that he embraced was so clearly emotional. He wasn’t just saying the thing that the left says, he was thinking the same way they do. I don’t know for certain that he assumed that he can see into the hearts and minds of the Alt-right the way the left does, but by using their terminology he certainly seemed to be. It seemed like he was putting forward the position that any deviation from the left’s definition of the word 'racist' was not only off the table, but that he and the ‘establishment right’ were perfectly happy to use that term (along with all its implied emotional content) to describe the alt-right and their motivations.

And my research around the web made it perfectly clear to me that it wasn’t just him. The “Establishment Right” is in full and total freakout mode over the alt-right. They seem more worked up by it than having a socialist run for the Democratic Presidential Primary, or even the possibility of having Hillary Clinton becoming President. So much so in fact, that I feel like I’ve been making some kind of serious categorical error when I assessed who the “establishment right” really was. I had no idea that that this kind of emotive decision making was a part of their make-up. And I honestly can’t fathom what it is specifically that’s making them abandon logic and reason as motivators and embracing subjective emotion instead.

One possibility (I suppose) is the issue of ‘the Jewish question’. The Alt-right does have its anti-Semitic elements, and they have a much louder overall voice online than the intellectual leadership of the movement would like. I myself place no stock in Anti-Semitism, and though I wouldn’t call myself a ‘Jew-lover’, I have no doubt that the boys from Stormfront would. Not only have I happily worked with and for Jews for most of my adult life, many of my childhood friends are Jewish. The one moment in my childhood where I earned my father’s undiluted pride was when I got into a fight as a kid to defend my friend who was being threatened for being Jewish. And though I may be atypical on that score, many of the people closely aligned with the intellectual heart of the Alt-right and it's discussion around illegal immigration and race, are all Jewish. And I find it difficult to see an organization that includes many Jews as its leading thinkers as being openly anti-Semitic.

But the ‘Establishment Right’ clearly feels differently about it. For whatever reason, they are ringing all the fire alarms and going directly to “Defcon 5/code red” in order to prevent the views of the Alt- right from being included in the Overton window. And for the life of me I can’t understand that. They have to ignore at least as many facts about the Alt-Right as they pay attention to in order to make this idea workable as a political thesis. They say they’re speaking from a position of principle, but their writing and actions seem to be driven as much by fear and panic as they are reason and principle. That they’re even willing to make the claim seems... incredulous to me.

Objectively, I don’t think there’s much gap between the basic position of the Alt-Right and that of the establishment, so I can’t see what all the fuss is about. Yes, National Review doesn’t like Donald Trump. Fine. They don’t think he’s a conservative… fine. (I can even agree with them on that score.) But all that is just party politics, and I thought principle was about more than that. Attack the man, that’s fair game. Attack his policies or lack of them. Attack his manner, his wife, his hair… all legitimate in my mind. But attack the people that support him? Even more befuddling, attack the principles that are guiding the people that support him, and do so with such vigor that you’re prepared to endorse describing anyone who is white as a racist? That seems a strong departure from conservative principals to me.

This would have been an easy fight to avoid. All the establishment right (no I don’t know what exactly that is but neither does anyone else, and I’m tired of typing scare quotes) had to do was acknowledge that Racism and Misogyny don’t mean what the left says they do. That in a multi-cultural society there is a clear gap between the behavior of one group and another (which is the whole point of multi-culturalism) and to defend rational reasonable discussion on the potential causes of those gaps, rather than tacitly accepting the left’s view of it all as embedded hatred on the part of whites, justifiable rage on the part of blacks and women, and poverty.

Andrew Breitbart famously said that politics is downstream from culture. And these definitions are cultural issues. Why isn’t the Establishment Right prepared to lock horns on these topics? The left uses them as shortcuts to end debate. So is the Establishment trying to do the same thing? Have we become so fractured already that we can’t tell the difference between a thoughtful disagreement among friends and a pitched battle between political opponents? Everything my friend said seemed to indicate this this is in fact the case.

The left’s definitions on these topics (commonly known as the liberal narrative) is just about ready to collapse once and for all. Every day science comes closer to settling the specifics of the issues that John and his equally thoughtful compatriots have been speculating about. So the only conclusion I can come to regarding the motivations of the establishment right, is that they believe that when this big narrative collapse comes, it will result in widespread violence and disorder. And rather than choosing the path of Churchill and getting out ahead of it, they’re choosing the path of Neville Chamberlain and trying to feed the crocodile one last time in the hope that it eats the Alt-right instead of them.

And now that I’ve seen their full level of commitment to the destruction of the Alt-Right, which at this point greatly outshines their opposition to the political left, I think they’ll be successful. I think they will smash the movement, smash its supporters, and in the process, smash the Republican Party. All in the name of preserving the illusion that society is made of oppressors and the oppressed, and that you can tell who is who by looking at their skin color and gender. A corner stone of 21st century progressive philosophy, that the Establishment Right tacitly endorses.

I don’t want to write off my friend. But I can’t say for certain that he would say the same about me. If he would, then that’s a shame because we have far more in common than that which separates us. And when it comes time to man the battlements of western civilization, and more and more I think that time is coming soon, I would rather be fighting with him than against him. Because fighting against him will no doubt mean that the Republican party will be irrevocably shattered, and Hillary Clinton will be elected our next President. We cannot expend the energy that the Establishment is currently applying to the destruction of the Alt-Right, and expect to survive it whole.

That would be a shame. Because I don't think our Republic will survive it.

- Can I Apply To Be A "Retired" LEO?

OK, I’m gonna do it. I’m going to through the process (painful and expensive as it is) to getting my pistol permit for New York City. The ‘home’ permit is an achievable goal, though it’s akin in terms of effort required to getting a Top Security clearance from the federal government. It’s about $500 or so in fees, and takes from 3 to 6 months. But at that time, and after another couple of forms and an additional investigation, I can purchase a pistol with the condition that it be immediately registered with the police.

A carry permit is out of the question. I’m not rich or famous enough to make that happen in post Mike Bloomberg’s New York. But I had an interesting idea that I wanted to bounce out there to some of the more ‘rural’ readers. I’ve written about it before when I was trying to get around NJ’s ‘interesting’ laws regarding carry permits. I restate them here again.

One BIG exception New York City makes for Carry permits is that retired Law Enforcement Officers are not only given permits, but are often fast tracked. The process for non LEO’s is so burdensome, that following this route and actually becoming a retired LEO might actually make more sense. Let me paint a picture:

If there were some small town out there somewhere where the Law Enforcement community was notable pro-gun and was willing to hire me as a town Sheriff, I would be willing to pay an unreasonable ‘application fee’, for the privilege. I would then stay on the books as a Sheriff, and retire days (or potentially even hours) after my hire. At that point, I would apply for my New York City carry permit as a “Retired LEO” and be fully within the law.

I can find dozens of people who would be willing to do the same, even potentially hundreds. There might be a scaling problem with this tactic however because the New York City process is highly subjective. And when half of the West Side Gun club’s membership suddenly turns out to be retired LEO’s from upper-middle-of-nowhere Idaho (or some such place – no disrespect intended), I think they’ll probably smell a rat.

I’m a law abiding citizen. Never broken any law other than traffic offenses. I’m a better shot than most Police Officers, and no more about handling myself in a crisis than any group of people except soldiers who have been in combat. I’d be willing to attend any training, instruction or certification necessary to ease the mind of the afore-mentioned hiring police force. And will happily submit to any review of my background, medical history, work history, financial standing, or anything else anyone can think of. I’ll even unlock my iphone and let you have a look around.

I’m not trying to get over on anyone. I’m simply trying to find a way to legally satisfy the requirements of my local jurisdiction, in order to exercise my constitutional rights. If any of you guys think you might know someone willing to try this out, and would like a new (potentially meaningful) source of revenue for their small town, I think I can find a few thousand people who will go for it.

Everywhere I look these days, people in New York City flash me looks of hatred. It might not seem so to people who have visited New York, but this is new. This is recent. The Hostility to white males is palpable here these days. I've lived and worked here for decades, and have never seen anything like the open hostility with which I'm greeted. Total strangers make it perfectly clear that they despise me, simply because of who they think I am.

And if this bubbling cauldron finally boils over, and there is a very good chance it might, I want to be in a position to defend myself without having to break the law to do it.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

- Learning Who To Hate

Hate has become very fashionable, and this leaves me at a small disadvantage. Since I’m single now, I like to at least appear to be more fashionable than I used to, but I don’t hate many people. (I don’t even hate my ex-wife who has given me more than ample cause.) Off the top of my head the only group of people who really inspire hatred in me, are those people who drive 55 (or slower) in the left lane.

But, as the Harold Ramis said to the Army recruiter when he asked if he and the Bill Murray were homosexuals in the classic movie Stripes, “I am willing to learn!” So let me cast about a bit and see who hates who, and what the upside would be for me in joining one of these more popular ‘hate’ movements.

Feminists:
Feminists say they don’t hate men, but I don’t think you can take that too seriously. They also sponsor the incredibly popular hashtag #Killallmen, and as usually the case with women, you’ll do much better determining their true motives if you look at what they do, and ignore what they say. I myself am a man, so while I have indulged in momentary self-hatred from time to time, as a core philosophy I’d have to say it’s not going to work. Killing all men is especially out, starting of course, with myself.

Black Lives Matter:
BLM says that they hate white men, particularly white men with any authority. But like women, their actions tell a slightly different story. They propose policies and changes to police tactics that actually result in more young black men being killed. I can’t prove it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that BLM is actually the affirmative action wing of the Klan – newly revived and journalistically lambasted from Mother Jones to the National Review.

I thought the klan more or less died out in the 70’s with just a few withered and aging union reps holding the last remnants together. But once again modern journalism has corrected me. And given the prolific way the klan is vilified today as an active and central part of American politics, the only rational conclusion is that since BLM is getting black men killed, they must have something to do with it. BLM may hate the klan, but I'm quite certain the klan absolutely loves BLM.

Bernie Sanders Fans:
Bernie’s fans hate “the rich”. I’m certainly not as rich as I used to be, so this one might be a decent fit. But as Bill Clinton said, his fans also want to "shoot every third guy on Wall Street". I don’t expect these people to be terribly good shots, but if the odds are 1 in 3, you don’t have to be that good. Bernie’s fan also have a deep seated hatred of economic literacy and history, and I always did really well in both of those, so while the group might fit due to my reduced net worth, if I joined them, I don’t think we’d have all that much to talk about.

Cruz Fans:
Until about 5 seconds ago the guy Cruz fans seem to really hate was Ted Cruz. These days though, the long shadow of Donald Trump seems to have frightened them into loving the guy. Forgive me for doubting their sincerity, but I find it difficult to imagine a love like this driven from fear of someone else, being likely to last. Two seconds after he gets elected (even in the primary) they may go right back to hating him. Meanwhile they REALLY hate Donald Trump, and anyone that likes Trump, and anyone who likes people who like those people. Never before in history has the political right sounded quite as much (in terms of thoughtfulness and sincerity) like the political left.

I think Trump would make a lousy President, but isn’t nearly as bad a guy personally as he seems on TV. I have many friends who like him, and though I think they’re making an error, I’m not much in the mood to declare all of my friends my enemies or my enemies my friends, like the rest of Cruz's supporters have been doing. Call me quirky.

Trump Fans:
Trump fans hate illegal immigrants, and the illegal immigrants hate them back. Among the others that also hate Trump are the political left, the political right, neocons, free traders, Muslims, academics, Jews, blacks, Asians, journalists of all stripes, and every gay man in America except Milo. So many people hate him in fact that if anything it’s more popular to hate Trump than to hate with him. So much for the bravery of the ‘Truth to power’ crowd. I’m sure the pro Trump crowd hates more people too, but with all the shouting of the people in the protests outside, I wasn’t able to hear who it was.

Clinton Fans:
Hillary herself hates anyone who stands in between her and the Whitehouse. If Abe Lincoln, Ben Franklin and George Washington returned from the dead and endorsed anyone but Hillary, the next day Media Matters would be publishing hit pieces calling them traitors to the concept of America. Bill Clinton seems to Hate Hillary, but having been married I can certainly understand that. So who do her supporters hate? They’d tell you but then they’d have to kill you. In the meantime the people who don’t hate Hillary are the Democrat party bosses who fix the primary. We won’t get to find out who they hate until the general election.

Social Justice Warriors:
The modern SJW philosophy is a mix of political correctness and feminist theory, layered over the racial animus of BLM, and with a big side order of ‘rich hatred’. But the people they really hate is anyone who can accomplish virtually anything at all. SJW’s are mostly worried about people’s feelings and promoting victimhood as a great moral virtue. The greater the perceived persecution, the greater the virtue. So to them, a handicapped, black, lesbian, is overshadowed by a handicapped, black, lesbian, dwarf, and they’re overshadowed by a handicapped, black, lesbian, dwarf, with allergies. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, everyone will claim to be oppressed by everyone else, and then I guess we’ll all finally be equal.

Hating anyone but people who see themselves as victims might have some legs in a town like New York City where you only have high achievers and parasites. But if this group gets what they want, we’ll all be so busy cowering in our ‘safe spaces’ with our puppies and crayons that no-one will get anything done. Sounds boring. No thanks.

I guess as a successful heterosexual white man, there really isn’t anyone available for me to hate. At least no-one where I get to consider myself morally superior for hating them. And that means there isn’t any way for me to be politically correct enough in my hatred for it to do me any good. I guess I’ll have to stick with taking all the chances, facing all the personal risks, coping with all the responsibility and dealing with all the stress and anxiety of running virtually everything in the whole world, just like guys like me have been doing ... basically forever.

- A Bit About Goldman's Falling Profits

This is very interesting:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc's quarterly profit fell by more than half and revenue slumped to its lowest in more than four years as market volatility hit the Wall Street bank's bond trading and investment banking businesses.

Goldman, wrapping up a dismal quarter for big U.S. banks, reported a 40 percent drop in net revenue, reflecting declines in all of its main businesses.

As with other banks, Goldman's trading revenue was hit by sliding commodity and oil prices, worries about the Chinese economy and uncertainty about U.S. interest rates.

I probably read things in that which others without an experience similar to mine might not. Let me do the job of the journalist and tell you what this actually means.

The team at Goldman are first rate traders who don't make their money on trading volume per se. Volatility can, if you get it right, more than make up for any short fall you might see in volume. But the fact that they did not, doesn't mean they got the direction wrong, it more than likely means they tightened their risks at the wrong time. Banks work on the generalized risk management philosophy of "Delta neutral, Gamma Neutral, Rho positive." Translated, this means that if the market moves in either direction up or down, profits stay flat, if volatility moves up or down, profits stay flat, and if interest rates go up, they make money."

There are analogies I can use here, but they'll confuse as much as enlighten. The thing you need to realize is that if Goldman failed to meet it's financial goals, either one person (or one trading group) lost a lot of money, which in Goldman's case is very unlikely, or the entire Trading team reduced their leverage, which in turn lowered their performance. I find that the more likely scenario.

So If Goldman suddenly lowered their leverage, what can this tell you? It says that they were expecting a multi-market level event that they would have trouble hedging directly, or that would hurt them across the board. They were wrong about it, but the fact that they were likely worried about it tells me interesting things.

I think it means that my last paragraph on my "Red Pill" post, isn't so crazy after all. and maybe the Goldman team is seeing things the same way:

This is a very strange time where politics, economics and western culture all seem to be standing on the brink of an upheaval. And I’m convinced that the next president will have much more opportunity to do damage than to effect repair, and it may be in their power to bring it all down on our heads. It has a Russian Roulette kind of feel to me where the person with the pistol might as quickly point the gun at someone else as themselves - maybe intentionally, but maybe just by mistake.

Monday, April 18, 2016

- Making A Killing On Guns

The Mariana Islands has just imposed a $1,000 tax on guns. This practice will no doubt be followed by of the other stridently anti-gun states including NJ.

The usual suspects think this will cut down on murder, but there are already roughly 360 million guns in America in the secondary market, 15 million of them purchased from dealers in 2015 alone. Which means that the moment NJ adopts this silly law (which I have no doubt they will do) the value of my guns collection will increase by something very close to $1,000 per pistol. This will make my gun collection one of the best performing individual investments I've ever made.

Before a law like this I would have never considered selling any of my guns to anyone not personally known to me, or to a dealer. But now...? Well, let's say it will be much harder to turn down an offer from a sketchy looking individual than it was before. If all I could get was the price of the gun, there is no point in selling to a gang banger. If they're paying a $1,000 premium, it starts to look somewhat more appealing.

When it comes to the ammunition tax, I'm more than happy to drive over to ardently pro-gun Pennsylvania to buy in bulk and since it requires no license, to resell it in the aftermarket.

Just sayin.

The Red Pill Is Not Easy To Swallow

Red Pill awareness isn't a gradual learning experience, it's a total paradigm shift.

I was reminded of this when I read David French’s article on Donald Trump’s ‘Counterfeit masculinity'. David, who’s writing I respect, likens Trump to the PUA movement, and I can see the connection. So can the PUA guys who have in a certain respect claimed him as one of their own. But I think David is seeing things from a different angle than I am, and to explain why, I need to tell you a little more of my personal experience in choking down the red pill than I’m completely comfortable with. None the less, I’ll give it a whack.

I was raised by an abusive alcoholic, and though all my siblings suffered some ill effect from this, in my youth at least, it looked very much like I would be the most effected by it. I was an emotional mess in a thousand ways, and that persisted until early adulthood. But I was also very smart. Way far out on the right side of the bell curve. And when I finally matured a bit and got away from my dad, I began to look inward. And though it took years, that introspection eventually led to recovery. Over the fullness of time I’d say I conquered 99% of my inner demons, and was eventually able to achieve many of my life goals.

But there was a problem in that. My self-induced recovery made me arrogant. I survived something that many people assumed I would not. But in surviving those decades of trauma, I came to believe in my own emotional invincibility. I believed that having endured him, I could endure anything. This was what led me to what can be reasonably argued, was the greatest mistake of my life.

In my 30’s I married a beautiful, intelligent, thoughtful and considerate woman. Soon after our marriage, she became pregnant, and I was over the moon with delight. But about 2 months into her pregnancy (after stopping her medication) I discovered that she also had a quite serious mental illness. I want to be clear here. This does not make her a bad person - she isn’t. She is a generous hearted woman struggling with a now quite severe brain bio-chemistry problem. But back before her pregnancy, her medication was able to hide the symptoms so effectively that I couldn’t tell she had any problem at all.

Men, as you probably know, define themselves greatly by the roles they fill for others. And being a ‘good father’ was vitally important to me, since I had suffered so much under my own. His father had been an alcoholic as well, so I saw myself ending a generations old ‘family tradition' of sorts, and dedicated myself to the job. And in my arrogance, I imagined I could handle anything that life threw at me including a little 'crazy'. To a great extent I could too. The hoarding, the food issues, the social isolation from our friends and my family, the arrests, the medication side effects (that once caused her to drive into oncoming traffic and sometimes left her asleep 20 hours a day)… I was able to cope with it all.

It didn’t really matter to me how difficult my life had become, because I needed that role of 'good father'. My stress over it can be found in hundreds of past blog posts over the years, since I often used this forum to kind of ‘talk out’ what I was going through. And as her problem over the years became more severe and my life got more difficult, I said what I think men like me have always said when their life gets harder… I’ll just work harder at it! I thought that if I wouldn’t admit defeat, then no defeat would be forthcoming. But I was wrong.

When you live with someone with a mental illness, your world inevitably gets twisted around and bent in order to accommodate that mental illness. In the moment you see it as ‘picking your battles’. It's usually small things after all, not marriage ending issues. But for someone with a mental illness EVERY battle, no matter how tiny and ridiculous, seems like an existential issue. There is no give and take, because they can’t accommodate it. And eventually, your world becomes one tiny issue right beside a million other tiny issues. That was our life. A million little crazy idiosyncrasies. But taken together they added up.

That was all fine for me. I was 'able to handle anything' after all. And had that been all there was, I'd still be married and living in New Jersey. But eventually it became clear that my wife’s mental illness was also having a dramatic negative effect on my daughter. And when that happened, I realized that no, I couldn't handle anything because it wasn't just me who was handling it.

I won’t go into those specifics. But it suffices to say that I came to the conclusion that if I continued to stay in that environment where the priorities of our home had been bent and twisted to accommodate my wife’s issues, I would inevitably be doing my daughter more harm than good. I decided that it was better to have 1 divorced parent who interacted with the world in a normal way, than it would to have both of them together, where the world they lived in had an increasingly small connection to reality. So after much pain and reflection, I moved out and began divorce proceedings.

Family court was an experience. It is, in essence, a system specifically designed in every way to punish men. I got the best lawyer I could, and raised the subject of obtaining primary custody of my daughter with him. His words were the start of my Red Pill instruction. His direct quote (as near as I can remember) was this:
“No man will ever get primary custody of a teenage daughter in New Jersey unless he can demonstrate in court that the mother is incompetent. Since she’s been medically diagnosed, you have a better chance at that than most. But it will probably cost about 200K, will take years, and even in the best circumstances, your chances are no better than about 50%.”

In a venue that was anything close to fair, I don’t think there would have even been a debate. If my rights were as adequately protected as my ex-wife’s and there weren’t specific biases against men deeply embedded in the system, I would have been granted primary custody as a matter of course. I was a devoted father, who defined a big part of himself by the experience. I wasn’t sleeping with my secretary, gambling away my daughter’s college fund, drinking or doing any drugs. I was a high achieving altar boy of a man whose only goal was to give his daughter the tools she needs for a happy and successful life, and to minimize the damage to her self-image, being inflicted on her by her mother’s serious medical condition.

But it doesn’t work that way. Instead I was offered an even more difficult choice. You see, I mean all the things I say about my ex-wife. She is not a monster. She feels horribly guilty about the effect her illness is having on our daughter, in fact, her guilt is even the cause of some of it. But for reasons closely tied to it, she can’t see far enough around her illness to mitigate the effect it's having on our daughter.

But she is none the less, a generous hearted woman with a serious medical problem. And if I had gone to the trouble of having her declared incompetent, it would have shattered who she thought she was. Combine that with the solitude that would come for her with both her daughter and I out of the house, and I couldn’t be certain she wouldn’t have taken her own life. So the question for me was, did I want to save my daughter from her mother’s influence so badly, that I was not only willing to pay 200K for a 50% chance of removing it, but also have a hand in killing her to do it as well?

Inevitably I chose no. I let her keep primary custody, accepted secondary shared custody, and moved into New York City so that I would be both close to work and create a big lifestyle change for my daughter compared to what she was experiencing at home. In New York, she would have lots of opportunities for seeing the world differently, and maybe she would get a little of what New York had given me when I moved there. Maybe she would get that same sense of perspective about herself out in the deep pond that I had.

Now I see her as often as I can, and when she needs it, she has a place where she can get away from her mentally ill mother, and all the misery that brings to her life.

Then came the Red Pill.

I didn’t reenter the dating world right away after my divorce. Instead I focused on work and getting my own life in order. Spending nearly 20 years with a person with a mental illness can do real damage to your self-worth, and here I was all that much older than I had been the last time I was single. But I still knew I had some advantages. In spite of my six figure alimony I still retain a good six figure living. I still have assets (albeit much less than I did) and I am still tall, still thin, and still very youthful looking and handsome for my age. All I needed was some advice on getting back out there. So I did what I always do in that circumstance, I read.

Years ago “The Derb” had pointed me at Heartiste on a separate topic, and that led me to Rollo Tomassi, Roosh and eventually, the rest of the Manosphere. When I read "The Rational Male" I was immediately struck by it's natural fit into my personal experiences with women.

So when I started dating again, I took the tactics of Red Pill thinking and applied them to good effect (the beautiful 21 year old who lied and told me she was 29 explicitly so I would date her was a more interesting one, and there were several others). and though it salved my damaged ego and brought me back from the post divorce abyss, the PUA goals always seemed hollow and self-indulgent to me.

In a word, the goals of the PUA movement seemed very immature. It wasn’t that I couldn’t appreciate them, or that I was somehow still stuck in Blue Pill mode. I very much was not. Red Pill thinking was actually very natural for me. It’s just that as a man in middle age, I didn’t have that same all-encompassing desire for nubile young bodies that I did in my 20’s. The girls I was meeting and dating would to the PUA world look like a banquet. All of them were above an 8, several were heart stopping beautiful 9.x’s and none was within 15 years of my own age. And while they were great for reminding me where in the social hierarchy my own assessment fell, their immaturity, shallowness, and utter self-involvement left me flat.

Apart from that, I was already what most PUA's would call ‘a natural alpha’, while most PUA's are guys that come from the middle of the pack with regard to their natural desirability. I had none of their resentment at being treated badly by women, (because I never had been) and none of their general social angst. I had notched my bedpost all I ever needed to, decades ago. and was well past the point where that get's boring. At this point I had nothing to prove to anyone.

But after reading their stories and hearing their complaints, I did finally realize how difficult coping with women is for some men, and how easy I’ve always had it. It made me deeply sympathetic to these poor guys who really want nothing except the chance to prove themselves in a way that’s natural to them, and to be judged by something close to ‘male’ standards. So while I’m not all that interested in embracing the PUA goal of a different girl every night, I did once. I very much understood where they're coming from. So although I may not want to be them, I’m not at all interested in condemning them for it either.

This brings me back to David French’s piece about Trump. Personally I think it’s a shame that the piece has to be about Trump because I think it’s revealing about David. And there are so few effective speakers for the Red Pill that I’d be very interested in his take on it. He’s an evangelical Christian after all, so he already has a framework for understanding male and female roles as being different. He’s exhibited courage, and achievement, and has many traits that would describe him as a natural leader. I’d bet that if I met him, I’d like him. But I don’t believe he is Red Pill. And I think if he saw the Red Pill the way I do, it would actually go down much more smoothly for him than it does as a side issue of the Trump campaign. And the reason is that is that I think he shows many natural Alpha characteristics. But the PUA’s mistake him at least as much as he mistakes them.

In a world absent Feminism, the PUA goal of sleeping with lots of beautiful women starts to look less Alpha and more narcissistic. The real Alpha’s are the men who build, create, and protect. Henry II may have gotten a lot of poon, but that is hardly what defined him. And there is far more to being a man than getting in bed with girls. The PUA's know this of course. they talk about it often. But it isn't the kind of thing that grabs headlines in the thoroughly Feminist world.

The problem with the world under Feminism is that though masculinity has many virtues, feminism is only interested on those that involve self sacrifice on the part of the man. All the other virtues of manhood are thought of as either 'toxic' or useless, so they reject them. The PUA’s react to that rejection of what they aspire to rationally by doing exactly the same thing. they call them 'beta' or useless. But those are the masculine virtues around which an evangelical Christian man like David has built his life. He takes them seriously. So the PUA’s insult him, and he insults them, when they are really all on the same side.

I think most PUA’s will come around on that. Even Roosh is showing signs of maturity personally, even if he still has a product to sell others. But there is a legitimate question on whether a guy like David French will ever come around on them. The Red Pill is a bitter one. And even for a man who would by all observation, still be at the top of the social hierarchy if Feminism were ever rejected, it still doesn’t go down easy at all. Red Pill truths are hard truths. And few men will seek them out without cause. I know this from personal experience. And I only took the Red Pill because it felt to me like I had no choice.

This is a very strange time where politics, economics and western culture all seem to be standing on the brink of an upheaval. And I’m convinced that the next president will have much more opportunity to do damage than to effect repair, and it may be in their power to bring it all down on our heads. It has a Russian Roulette kind of feel to me where the person with the pistol might as quickly point the gun at someone else as themselves - maybe intentionally, but maybe just by mistake.

So when we who would rather preserve some portion of Western civilization are trying to figure out who is an ally and who is an enemy, I think we’d all do well to try to remember that.

Saturday, April 16, 2016

- Let's Talk About Milo

I'm late on this. But Milo (no last name neccesary... after all...is there more than one?) has written what reads to me a pretty thoughtful review of who the alt-right is and what they're thinking about.

The alternative right, more commonly known as the alt-right, is an amorphous movement. Some — mostly Establishment types — insist it’s little more than a vehicle for the worst dregs of human society: anti-Semites, white supremacists, and other members of the Stormfront set. They’re wrong.

Previously an obscure subculture, the alt-right burst onto the national political scene in 2015. Although initially small in number, the alt-right has a youthful energy and jarring, taboo-defying rhetoric that have boosted its membership and made it impossible to ignore.

It has already triggered a string of fearful op-eds and hit pieces from both Left and Right: Lefties dismiss it as racist, while the conservative press, always desperate to avoid charges of bigotry from the Left, has thrown these young readers and voters to the wolves as well.

Personally I find the whole article to be thoughtful and revealing without being inflammatory. It's the kind of civil discussion of outside the box views that I wish the intolerant left were capable of. Dare I say it, it's a perfectly fair and objective piece of journalism. The first I've read in a very long time.

National Review is slammed in the article and I'm sorry to say that I agree with their criticisms (though not of the specifics regarding Kevin Williamson ... who may defer to no-one in his hatred of Trump, but is nowhere near as obsequeous when it comes to kowtowing to the left as the other folks at NR). NRO trembles in fear at being accused of racism and misogyny, and hasn't figured out that anything other than complete capitulation to the left's most ridiculous demands will inevitably bring the charge to their door anyway. Kevin Williamson specifically excluded, they are not a very "red pill" bunch over at National Review, and don't know how respond to a "shit test", which is all a charge of racism or misogyny actually is. Though saying so makes me wish there were a more elegant name for it.

With that said, I think Milo has done journalism and civil political discourse a great favor writing this piece. And much of that is probably due to the fact that he was able to in part due to the pass he gets from the left because of his identity as a gay man. He's just 'oppressed' enough to be able to speak the truth without being silenced by the totalitarians. We cis-gendered, heterosexual, white, men are still very much expected to remain silent, and to know our proper place in the new world order.