Sunday, December 31, 2017

- New Year, New Venture

I never got around to buying a lottery ticket, which is obviously why no one won (said millions of people who are bad at math.) Both prizes roll into 2018 with a total prize between them of over 700 Million. I'm already going to have a very good 2018, so I'm not so worried about the lottery. I prefer risks I can (at least convince myself that I) control.

I put no Christmas message up this year, and won't be putting up a new year's message. I'm having one of those "Holy Sh!t I've got a ton to do!" moments.

After bootstrapping my startup for a year, things have really started to gain traction. I'm getting serious attention from TOP (!!!) level people, and the media is starting to take an interest. So it's going to be occupying most of my time and energy.

A startup is an interesting thing. It's one part good idea, one part very smart people executing the idea, and 12,000 parts BS. That's not true exactly; that's actually overstating it by quite a bit for comedic impact. It's really projecting a vision, like a movie. You cast what you see in the future for your business onto the screens of the mind for the people taking an interest. You paint a picture for them of something that isn't there yet, and doesn't fully exist anywhere but in your own mind.

You don't say it's real today, that really would be BS, and lots of people are in jail for trying. One thing you must never ever do is lie to anyone about the parts that are real, or anything else for that matter. You don't even pretend that it won't be difficult to make the vision come true in the future. What you do is point out the obvious challenges, leave out the not so obvious ones, and when the person taking an interest assumes the less obvious challenges aren't really there, you let them.

But there is a whole lot of coloring outside the lines in a startup. They call this 'being nimble' in the startup world. If you have to change a marketing plan or a product offering or even your whole business model, you roll with it. That's too much for many salarymen, who are used to explicit job descriptions, finite expectations, and a known set of responsibilities. Everyone in an early stage startup wears 5 hats, except the CEO who wears 500.

The analogy that seems to fit best for me is the way that evolution creates new life. Living things move forward through time, generation after generation, looking for the easiest, safest, cheapest resources available to them, and trying to find a gap in the ecology as they go. Sometimes the environment changes and what used to be a lizard that was focused on its sharp claws and ability to run fast, becomes a bird that can't run at all but still has sharp claws and can now fly. You kind of have to go where the opportunity is.

And when you're new and small, you're so fragile that you need to shift gears rapidly. You need to make the most of any gap - absolutely any gap. Sometimes you change your defences, sometimes you change your attack, and sometimes you change everything. In the grand scheme my startup has changed very little from my original thinking, all things considered, but to some people it probably looks like a complete transformation. It isn't really. That future vision is still more or less the same. It just has a few feathers and a better 'attack strategy' now, where before it had none.

The other thing is that it takes everything you've got. I know how trite that sounds. Put another way, you need to be as good at the things you're good at as you've ever been, and you need to be a lot better at the things you're not good at than you've ever been. You need to realize your full potential in absolutely every way. You need to be all things to all people, all the time, and the ball can never ever be dropped. And if you do it all as close to perfectly as your able and that gets you close enough to perfect that you actually start to succeed, your chances of being fired in the first 18 months after you accept outside investment are still 40%. That's success.

Failure looks like a million different things.

I've had several specific moments in my life that I thought were important and when I absolutely positively would not accept failure under any circumstances - moments when I said to myself that I would succeed or literally die trying. I actually came pretty close to dying, a couple of times. Those 'all in' moments of life can be terrifying, but when it came down to moments like that, so far I'm still alive, so I managed to somehow pull it off.

This is becoming one of those moments for me. For this project, I'm "all in".

Welcome to my 2018.

Thursday, December 28, 2017

- Fun With Lottery Numbers

Both of the big lottery numbers are high right now. So Business insider did a little writeup on the odds comparing both prizes, which is fun.

But here's an idea which isn't listed.

Before you claim your prize you set up a trust to claim it, this is perfectly legal in most (maybe all) jurisdictions. The Trust owns a corporation which is the actual claimant of the prize. The corporation then purchases an interest rate swap - priced with four or five of the big banks to keep them honest. It will pay a fixed rate over time as a passthrough to the annuity payments, and receive a lump sum payment up front which will be the present value of the annuity payments less the cost of capital. At current interest rates that is going to be considerably more than the lump sum payment option. At current prize numbers, probably in the tens of millions of dollars.

Control of the corporation will need to be transferred to the dealing investment bank so they can assure the future passthrough payments, but if the trust is set up carefully, then you can get a single one time payment larger than the lump sum, have it available immediately for investment, and pay only the taxes that are due as the annuity payments are made to the claimant.

For a 300 Million dollar deal every bank on the street will be willing to make this trade so long as you have the right advisor, and they'll also be happy to advise you on those future investments, and can even refer you to a good trust attorney.

This is how my mind works. I guess I spent too much time working on SPV's early in my career.

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

- A Very Long List

Sargon details a very long list of accused sexual predators who also identify as Feminist Activists.

Saturday, December 23, 2017

- Bad Behavior

Wants some Holiday Fun? Try this with the female in your life.

Make the suggestion that though it's clear that there are a lot of men out there behaving very badly, Male-Female behavior operates on a wide spectrum for both men and women. Some men, maybe even most men, never behave inappropriately, and it's the same for women. None of this 'sexual harrassment activity happens in a bubble.

Which means that for every Harvey Weinstein out there, there is also some girl in a nightclub dressed in only stilettos, a thong and pasties, looking to draw attention to herself in a nightclub someplace. And that means that at some level, woman and their dress and behavior are in part responsible for sexual harassment. Sometimes it's the man's fault, and sometimes it isn't. But since it's society as a whole that decides what's appropriate and what isn't, both men and women should be involved in the discussion and should take on some portion of the responsibility - even the women.

I'm convinced that the portion of women who can have this conversation with a man without losing it, is amazingly small. Instead they'll get emotional and hyperventilate about how "of course it's always the man's fault". It doesn't matter how carefully you phrase it, how respectfully you offer the idea, or how much you declare male culpability especially for the worst actors. In a woman's mind this is exactly the same as you calling her 'a whore' because she got her ass grabbed in a club once. You can say you aren't talking about her specifically - only broad overall concepts. But all the 'I don't mean you honey's" in the world aren't getting you out of it. She'll never get there.

The reason they can't have this discussion is because the idea of being even a tiny part responsible for how the world behaves toward them is anathema to women. It flies directly in the face of the biologically determined hypergamous nature. In the end what they want is to be the only ones who decide what behavior is 'appropriate' and what behavior is 'inappropriate' in male female relations. And we men should be doing all we can to deny them this unilateral autonomy.

We are in an age when it is simply assumed that women can and should be able to behave any way they like in their manner and dress, and men are supposed to behave the same toward them as they did in the 1950's. That's the perfect world of a woman. She and she alone decides what appropriate. That's hypergamous third wave feminism. And even if the woman you have this discussion with isn't a third wave feminist, and even if she's never thought through any of this, she still believes it. She believes it because biology and eons of evolution command her to.

Our societal standard for what constitutes bad behavior has changed really rapidly for women since the 50's. Dress in little or nothing? Fine. Sleep with Frat boys 3 at a time? Fine. Cuckold your husband? Fine. Become a porn actress, or a 'sex worker'? fine. All that is just 'female empowerment'. But for men the 1950's standards all still apply. If he so much as glances at a topless woman, even if she's topless in a public place, he's guilty of some moral malfeasance.

The reality is that this isn't the way the world works. The world reacts to us in the way we require them to. And if you behave differently in the world, as virtually all women do when compared to the 1950s 'perfect world' of male behavior, then the world will react differently to you.

Feminism and what Feminists call "female empowerment" is in part responsible for the Sexual Harassment epidemic. And not just because some men will always behave badly. Some will, that's true, as will some women. But if you behave like it's OK to to be what an 1950's woman would call slutty 'some of the time', then many more men are going to think it's OK all of the time.

You brought all this on yourselves girls.

- Truth And Politics

I don't read Ace of Spades because it's insightful, I read it because it's funny. And given the state of the left, the institutions they control, and their abandonment of reason and reality, I find laughing to be the appropriate response.

But this piece is different. This is one of the best 'actual analysis' pieces of Trump's effect on the media and the talking heads that I've seen since he was elected:

You've probably heard people talk about fuck you money. Maybe you've talked about it yourself -- the idea of having enough wealth that you don't have to take any shit from anyone ever again. It's an attractive proposition, to say the least.

But for Americans not named Donald Trump, fuck you money is a myth. There isn't one single high profile wealthy person that can't be made to bow to the right kind of pressure. We've seen this demonstrated countless times as the social justice warriors of the left target, isolate, and humiliate powerful people into giving public apologies for the most trivial offenses.

Why, you might ask yourself, don't these people just stand up for themselves? They've got plenty of money. They should be untouchable.

The reason is that fuck you money isn't just about the money. It's about how one values money.

Wealthy people are usually materialistic, but they're not primarily interested in the utility of material things. What they're interested in is the status attached to the things that they buy.

It's true that money doesn't buy happiness, but having a good deal of it helps. The problem is that diminishing returns apply to the amount of satisfaction it can purchase. Does a $500,000 car bring five times the happiness of a $100,000 car? Its pretty clear that it does not. At a certain point, the primary difference between luxury goods is the status that they confer upon their respective owners.

What wealthy people value primarily is status. And that is why they do not truly have fuck you money--because they care what people think and this is not something that money can buy.

Jordan Peterson's big talking point is that we should all 'speak the truth' as we see it. Nancy Pelosi should speak her truth and Steve Bannon should speak his, and the rest of us should listen to both and make up our own minds.

The way I read the piece linked above, our political systems are broken specifically because our politicians are taught to speak whatever they're told to speak in order to preserve their power. Truth get's a lower priority than power, and when we don't speak 'the truth' what comes out of our mouths is 'lies'. They may be unintentional but they are nonetheless not true.

The left has cynically capitalized on this tendency by basing their entire political philosophy on cobbling together the various lies that people tell each other in order to serve their own interests. Immigrants are law abiding, there are 64 genders, women are 'the same' in every way as men, blacks are 'the same' in every way as other races, etc, etc, etc. But the problem with lying is that it makes it easier to lie about other things.

Trump may be wrong, but he tells the truth as he sees it, like Peterson advocates. This places him in opposition to the left who are in the habit of lying so they then tell outrageous lies about him. He's Hitler, he's plotting the murder of innocents, the wall is the same as a concentration camp, he's Putin's puppet - etc. You all know the drill.

But if more people follow his example, on the left and the right, we'd all be better off. Let the left finally admit what they really want, and the right do the same. We don't have enough truth in our politics and if Trump brings that about he will leave us a better America that the one he found when he occupied the White House.

Friday, December 22, 2017

- Why Gavin, Why?

Why is Gavin urging Joy Villa (a Scientologist) to run for congress?
Scientology is a cult.
While it is arguable that I shouldn't pre-judge anyone based on their religious beliefs, I draw the line at Scientology. Years ago I was given a copy of Dianetics by one of my friend's that lost his soul (first to drugs, then to the Cult). He asked my what I thought. I found it to be absurd and that the bogus terminology was a red-flag. I have lost touch with this person over the years as has his family.
Joy Villa is an opportunist. She seized upon the MAGA movement to reap commercial reward and cheap publicity.
The most recent episode of Get Off My Lawn, Gavin reiterated his belief that Joy should run for Congress.
Scientologists argue that Catholicism is no better. Last I checked, my church didn't threaten to sue any parishioners for disagreeing with the Pope or any of the dogma.
You can argue that Islam is a cult. But like Christianity, there are wacky and dangerous off the path sects that are cult-like in their behavior and doctrine. Those are exceptions, where in Scientology it is the rule.
The normalization of a cult by placing its members into the public eye has been Scientology's goal.
Celebrities are the first echelon but that can only go so far.
A Scientologist in Congress or any level of government further mainstreams a dangerous ideology. I won't vote for Islamists or their apologists. They don't belong in government, nor do snake-handlers from Appalachia. Pentecostals claim to speak in tongues when in the presence of the Holy Spirit, but they are harmless an don't threaten to sue or harass people that disagree with them. They are a likable bunch, in small doses. Ted Cruz is my exception here because he doesn't foist his religion on his supporters. The babbling gibberish is derived from a sophomoric misinterpretation of the Bible and has become the basis of an entire sect serving to obscure the teachings of Christ. 
I will no longer support Gavin McInnes until he sees fit to seriously question Joy Villa on her association with the cult. I would prefer that Gavin stop urging people to run and continue to expose the wackiness of the Left.

- The Alt-Flanking Maneuver

If you're not reading Chris DeGroot, you're missing some of the most insightful writing on the Internet. But I'm not sure he's absolutely correct here.

In the land of the Social Justice Mob, this is a tricky business. There is a choice to be made by periodical editors. At this point in history, to be associated with the Alt-Right is to be cast to the hinterland in a way unseen before in history. You'll have you ability to do banking and fundraising severely restricted, you'll be vilified in the unified leftist media, and branded a heretic from the rooftops.

So there is a choice to be made by Editors. Is saying the thing you're trying to say worth the restrictions you'll see to your ability to say anything else. As Chris says, some of it no doubt, is cowardice. When NR fired the Derb they were at the peak of their influence, and the Social Justice Mobs had not yet arrived. Their allowing him to continue to write and maybe offering him defense would have made the obviously true things he said inherently defensible. They made a choice between expanding the overton window and possible making America a better place, and offending donors.

NR has a long history of firing people who say things outside their direct points of advocacy, that are still supported by their readers. It's a cowardly institution, and has demonstrated that cowardice long before the Derb.

But there are others on the internet who are demonstrating courage, and still staying away from discussions of group IQ difference and genetics, Freedom of association and other Alt-ish ideas. They have in other ways demonstrated that they are deeply courageous in other ways, yet they avoid the hot button issue of our day. Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad have come under some alt-criticism on this score, though both have demonstrated real courage by risking their own imprisonment under Canada's new 'mandatory pronoun' rules of the 'Human rights Tribunals'. I think that's unfair.

At some level it's worth backing away from the big fight so long as you don't say anything that contradicts those views. It's more 'flanking maneuver' than active retreat. It's an effort to stay in the battle until you find a place where the enemy is weaker. Right now, group IQ differences is not that place. To say these things or to be associated with what the left calls 'white supremacy' is still too dangerous, and consignes the speaker to a limited audience.

These are facts and facts are persistent, so this will change over time and I think the people who will change it are the people some alt-speakers are calling cowards today. I think that's wrong.

I don't know what the specifics are with Chris's article and Claire Berlinski Quileute, but I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt. Those are manisteam voices who believe in facts and are therefore allies of ours. And while they may not deserve our support, they do deserve our patience. Let's see how the battle plays out over the next year before we demonize people who never say anything that contradicts our view.

Thursday, December 21, 2017

- Your Sexual Misconduct Accusation

It's very easy for me to imagine how the sexual harassment accusation becomes a sign of having 'made it'. If you achieve success, particularly in field that places you in the public eye, then every women who has ever had some unsatisfactory sexual interaction with you can now step up with an accusation and 'be believed'. And I think it speaks directly to the innate difference between men and women, that there is no male counterpoint to this issue.

There is nothing men can do to defend themselves. No amount of evidence can exonerate them because no evidence is being considered in the first place. A woman is unhappy, and therefore you are guilty. It doesn't really matter to me that a few of the worst actors are clearly guilty of some level of actual malfeasance. the process itself is already so corrupt that we can all be caught in the net and I'm convinced that a great number of those accused aren't guilty of anything other than normal flirtatious behavior.

I've tried to reflect on my own sexual history to see if I can imagine someone coming forward with a complaint. We all know I've done my time in crazy town, so to speak, and those are the women who are doing the most accusing. I hope this isn't 'famous last words' but I can't think of anyone who would have a beef. Everything I've ever done was consensual and enthusiastic. Maybe consent was revoked ex-post, but we're not quite at the stage where "I willingly had sex with him but then he didn't want to date me afterward." Is considered sexual 'misconduct'.

But that's probably coming. And when it does, that's when the whole thing becomes like an accusation of 'racism'. It becomes an irrelevance. In the same way that 'racist' now means that you aren't ashamed of being white, "sexual harrassment" is eventually going to mean that you aren't ashamed of being a man. Shame is their only weapon. And if you refuse to feel it, then they can't control you.

- The Last Snowflake

This video contains spoilers, in the same way that a dogshit sandwich would also eventually contain some mold.

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

- Obama's Economic Boom

Is anyone out there credibly making the case that the economic growth we're seeing under Trump is secretly being caused by the weak womanly policies and corruptions that Team OBama left in place for him?

This isn't really an economic analysis, I don't have time for that right now. It's just a comment about the cultural.

Business leaders are risk takers. And they are more likely to take risks when they feel assured that future changes to government policy are going to be at least neutral to their efforts and potentially beneficial. what gave Obama the tepic economic growth he saw was the belief in the business community that the government was being taken in a "you didn't build that" direction. They believed Obama's heavy regulatory hand would do hard to them and their risk taking, to the degree he could.

That's very much not Trump. Trump is interested in empowering risk takers. He's made that preference very clear. And as much as the "Trueconservatives" (cough) enjoy saying that a president doesn't do much for the economy directly, he very much does do that. He sets the tone. He points out the general direction in which things will be guided. And when it comes to business tone, Trump has been knocking the cover off the ball.He's presenting the view of a man who see's government as the problem not the solution. And business leaders seem to be responding to that.

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

- Charlie Cooke Is a Jerk

I don't like Charlie Cooke personally. I met him only once but my impression of him was as a deeply political grasper - one of those guys who see's himself advancing in the world through connections, access, and close connection to 'the right' people. That may not be all there is to him, but first impressions are not irrelevant and unless future experience changes my mind, I don't care for the guy.

But when he's right, he's right.

- #Nazi

Twitter has banned the swastika, but has OK'd the Hammer and Sickle, which as anyone remotely familiar with history knows was associated with MORE deaths than the swastika. So I offer the suggestion above for all of those right leaning folks who have an interest in complying with the new laughable Twitter guidelines.

(It's a hammer and sickle. Really.)

I tend to go with the Gavin McInnes on this one. By banning the swastika all twitter is doing is making it a part of the counterculture. It's becoming 'cool', and in my opinion, it doesn't really deserve to be. It's a failed ideology that leads to mayhem and attracts the less thoughtful kind of advocate. Hence it's popularity in the prison system.

We've been watching 'The Crown' on Netflix recently. It's a historical drama about queen Elizabeth II, and I think owing to her German roots, it gives the Nazi's a pretty fair shake. Prince Philip's sister was married to a prominent Nazi, and she's featured briefly in the second season. Let's not make bones about it, Nazi-ism was not a great idea to put it mildly. But Nazi's were on occasion, actual humans who believed they were doing right by their country and people. As unpopular an idea as this is, purely based on statistics, they weren't all irredeemable monsters.

Most people don't like to think. It burns more calories than intuition or 'feeling' and it's counter intuitive to do it correctly. People who don't like to think can be convinced to believe in all sorts of stupid ideas, as is evidenced by the current #metoo movement, the #BLM movement, the #safespace movement, the #pronouns movement, and progressivism in general. All of those people would have been perfectly happy to burn books, break windows, and persecute people based on their race - they're doing it now.

If Twitter gets it's way I would imagine a substantial number of them will now end up #nazi's too. That's a shame. There are much better ways to get through life.

- Feeling Safe

The third time in my life that I had a loaded gun pointed at me, it was was pressed to my temple by a hungover British soldier at a 'Bandit Country' border post on the Irish/Northern Irish border, on June 21st, 1996.

The English had beaten Spain in the World cup quarter finals the night before and the soldier in question had been up late partying, so he wasn't feeling his best or sharpest. When I rolled my tiny rental car up to the border and pulled down my window, he shoved his muzzle against my head through the open slot and said something akin to "Driver's license Paddy". I kept both my hands in clear view, produced my US passport from the breast pocket of my leather jacket, and got copious apologies in a Midland English accent for my trouble.

Even in the height of the conflict British soldiers weren't in the habit of blowing away American tourists but I think it's pretty needless to say, there were a few moments there when I didn't feel completely 'safe'.

Of course he didn't feel all that 'safe' either, which was the whole reason he over-reacted. I was younger then, obviously. And in 1996 guys who looked very much like me had been blowing up guys that look pretty much like him for some time. Those border crossings were a dangerous posting for a British soldier; so dangerous that they used to fly the border guards back and forth in a helicopter from their barracks rather than sending them on the roads, because too many soldiers had been killed that way.

All those people who think that the NRA and America's gun owners would never be able stand up to the first armored division should remember what mayhem a handful of drunken idiots with machine guns were able to bring about in a place that more closely resembled "the shire" than anything else in recent imagery. PJ O'Rourke once called in "narcoleptically bucolic" - except for all the IMD craters in the road and bullet holes in the local flora.

The second time in my life that I had a loaded gun pointed at me was just a few days before that in good old New York City. Giuliani hadn't quite tamed all the negative effect of the Dinkins administration yet, whose administration was known for being apologist for criminals and being obsessed with 'root causes' like poverty and racism. "It isn't their fault" was their mantra and though Giulini was slowly making ground, it was still a different world.

Those of you who only know Post Giuliani New York City wouldn't have recognized the place. Petty crime was rampant, Times Square was still a hell hole, and no one was safe, even in the best neighborhoods. It was the age of crack, and it's effects were everywhere. Huge sections of the east Village, now known for hipster coffee shops, nail salons, and dog groomers, were absolute no go zones after dark.

It was early evening on a rainy day, and I was walking from the 1 train to the Path train through the long tunnel that spans 14th street, from 6th to 7th avenue. I got about halfway through the tunnel when a filthy crackhead ran into the tunnel behind me slamming into commuters and tourists, followed by another crackhead armed with a medium caliber revolver. The second crackhead fired off 5 quick shots in the direction of the first one, and by proxy, toward me and everyone else. Screams went up as we heard the bullet ricocheting past us. Mothers crowded their children into the corners or arched over their carriages. Everyone else dove to the grimy floor, including me.

There was some profanity laced screaming from both crackheads, and the shooter turned and fled back the way he came. The second crack head wavered in indecision for a few seconds and then apparently trying to outsmart his would be assassin, doubled back and followed him through the seventh avenue side of the tunnel.

To say that I didn't feel safe dramatically underestimates the scope of my anxiety for that one. But believe it or not, no one was injured - not the crackheads nor the bystanders. Owing to what I would call dumb blind luck, every single shot fired managed to find it's way into the plaster of the tunnel, which was remarkable given all the ricochet's off the tiling and the tight confined space. And because no one was hurt and there was still a legitimate drug war going on in New York's poorer neighborhoods that Giuliani had not yet tamed, the incident didn't even make the papers.

There is much pablum about 'feeling safe' on America's college campuses right now. It's a throwaway talking point like 'diversity' or 'humanity' that doesn't really have any meaning. It just conveys and overall sense of infantilism that's typical of generation snowflake and is most pronounced on college campuses BECAUSE they are so safe, not in spite of it. It's an unrealistic talking point used exclusively to stifle dissent against a social dogma that can't withstand any contact with reality.

But there is a very good reason you shouldn't feel safe. You shouldn't feel safe because you aren't.

Fear is a good and useful thing, but only if it's fear that's grounded in reality. The person who fears being abducted by aliens wastes every bit of energy he (or she) devotes to addressing that fear, because the fear is completely unrealistic. The fear people claim of 'having their humanity denied' on American college campuses is equally unrealistic, though in a way it's moot because no one, not even it's strongest advocates, really believes it. For them it's really just more political bullying of people who are weaker than they are. It's advocates have manipulated and bullied their parents, their school administrators, and now want to bully the rest of us. That's the core of 'victimology' - bullying.

Both of those firearm related incidents can be attributed to me being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but even in the choices I've made, I haven't led a particularly safe life. I once lost 11 million dollars in the financial markets in the first 2 seconds after the opening bell. Owing to careful risk management, over the course of the day I made almost all of it back, but it was a harrowing morning.

I once went 'over the head' of one of the most powerful men on Wall Street and made an enemy of him in the process, but by that same act I also made my entire career. Risk, and the fear that comes with it, is a part of life even if you live in the very safe 'first world'. Not everyone spends their lives ducking bullets and dodging would be assassins. But that doesn't mean you should feel 'safe'.

I can't remember a time in my life when I ever felt really 'safe'. There are risks I understand and risks that I don't, but in my mind in some respects, the wolf is always at the door. But that lack of 'safety' has been a good thing for me. It's made me stronger than most. It's made it possible for me to do things that few people would ever attempt, some of which worked out and raised my position in the world. There is no 'safe' path to the top of the mountain. If you really want to be 'safe' then the first thing you should learn is how to be content with being at the bottom.

Yeah yeah, blah blah blah, "denying my humanity", "feeling threatened" ... Bullshit. No one is denying your humanity, we're denying your quality. And so are you with your eternal insistence that you be made to feel 'safe'. You're announcing to the world that you're too fragile to get by on your own. Sometimes people have opposing interests, and when that happens there will be conflict. If you really can't handle even the most polite and erudite disagreement with your view of the world, then the path you're choosing will only lead to failure. There is no success without risk.

Thankfully, the risks that were typical of my youth are all behind all of us now. There are no armed crackheads stumbling through the New York Subways, the IRA has been bribed into complacency, and violent crime is at an all time low. A great many of the first world's 'third world' style problems have been solved for all of us. But they were all solved by people who very much didn't feel 'safe'. If they had been "made to feel safe" first and foremost, then none of those problems would have ever been addressed.

So what do you imagine all you kids who whine about "your right to safety" will ever be able to accomplish? What great achievement do you think you'll bring to the table? What kind of a world will you build? A safe one? Don't kid yourself. You're all too frail, and broken, and incapable to address your own fears of looking in the mirror. So how can you solve a 'real problem'? You can't. And you'll never be able to. Not unless you come out here to the real world like the rest of us, and deal with some of it's real dangers.

What about the first time I had a loaded gun pointed at me? Well that was my fault. I ran with a pretty rough crowd in my teenage years and late one night a disagreement between two biker friends of mine resulted in one of them shoving his pistol up under my chin. It's a long story of how that came to be, but I did what anyone worried about real risks would. I cut ties, and changed the direction of my life. I wasn't directly my fault, but I had no business being in that place at that time, and was there by choice. Since that event, I've chosen differently.

That's exactly what all you 'safe space' kids should start doing. Or you're never going to be in a position to do much of anything. Because if nothing ever happens to you, then "nothing ever happens to you".

Monday, December 18, 2017

- The SAT As An IQ Test

I have been forbidden from mentioning specifics, but my daughter has done exceptionally well on the SAT. She might even get mad at me for being this specific, but taken on it's own, she has scored high enough to qualify for admission to any University on the planet, including Oxford and Cambridge - the highest minimum scores we could find. (she isn't applying to either school... it's just a 'fun fact'.)

As you can imagine I am so bursting with pride that I can't keep totally quiet about it. I told about 20 people in my personal life (okay really about 40, including a woman I met on the Subway), and it fostered a lot of discussion between my daughter and I this weekend, about what that all means.

As a standardized test, the SAT can be a proxy for an IQ test. And IQ, as we all know, is both the single strongest social science predictor for lifetime success, and the single best predictor of anything in all of social science. It's so good that it defines the measurement standard for much of social science. But there are better combined predictors for lifetime success.

The combination of IQ and the personality type 'industriousness' taken together, are a breathtakingly good predictor of lifetime success - better than either are on their own. In the modern world you can do quite well with either one or the other. But if you measure on the high end in both, you are among those rare intellectual powerhouses that build and change the world.

My daughter, being the humble and generally self critical type, sees this as pressure. So I tried to explain to her that it shouldn't be. All it means is that her 'normal' is going to be more productive, insightful and valuable to others than other people's 'normal', and it will only be that way on average. Life rolls forward for all of us asynchronously, and grand insights are rare even for the exceptional.

As an example, in my 30 year career where coming up with new ideas was a substantial part of my job, I've had exactly one totally original idea in my whole life that wasn't simply me adding to or modifying something that I learned from someone else. That singular idea led to a trading model which made my career in the Hedge Fund world, and is now at the root core of a startup company that will offer high paying employment to many, and hopefully change the world for the better. Let's see how it goes.

At the moment, my daughter's primary interest seems to be in public policy. She's young so this is obviously subject to change, and if it changes, it will do so without criticism from me. I don't care much what she wants to do with her life, because I know that whatever it is, she's going to be good at it. That will bring success for her eventually, and success in achieving goals leads to a more fulfilled life. That's all I'm really hoping for on her behalf. So this recent news is a prize I much cherish. I don't know what road she'll travel, but I have a strong indicator of where it will eventually lead.

With that thought in mind though, I went scouring about the internet for some written work regarding the public policy issues around IQ, and lo and behold, look what I found:

Q: Why study this stuff? What possible use could it be? Will it not, in fact — whatever results it delivers — will it not, just by being a subject of study, sow discord?

A: Why study it? Because free people want to understand the world, that's why. Why should I not make free inquiry into this or that, if it interests me to do so? Why should my patron Billy Billionaire, who made a fortune from running a hedge fund, not finance my researches, if it's something that interests him? And if you won't let me do it here, how will you stop me doing it there — in Beijing, Bombay, or Buenos Aires? How exactly will you implement your world-wide ban?

To adapt a Second Amendment bumper slogan: Ideas don't sow discord, people sow discord. A truth about the world, is a truth about the world. Why get worked up about it? Here's a truth about the world: Several million Americans are smarter than I am. Am I worked up about this? No. Should I be?

Or take this: If the figure of 15 points usually given for the black-white gap in mean IQ scores is correct, then around six million — that's 6,000,000 — black Americans have higher IQs than the average white American. Should they be worked up? Or should the average white American be worked up? Who should be worked up about this?

The world is what it is. Make a life for yourself in it. Play the cards you've been dealt, as best you can play them. Get married, get a job. Don't whine — it ticks people off. Don't eat too much fried food. Take moderate exercise. Calm down.

That, you may recognize, is noted writer John Derbyshire, much revered in these pages for everything but his extremely mediocre wing shooting skills, a talent which in his family seems to have skipped a generation.

I've said many times that I think recognition of these scientific facts around group IQ differences represent the greatest cultural and public policy threat of the 21st century. As technology replaces low skilled work with automation and the IQ required for value added productive behavior continues to rise as it has for the last 30 years, we face a world where the bottom 15% of the population may no longer be intellectually adept enough to do anything.

This is a problem whose potential for social upheaval dwarves anything we've ever seen in all of human history. And based on my own morality (which I hope my daughter shares) our mutual solution to it cannot include the words 'concentration camps', 'rioting', or widespread use of force. Currently unpopular terms like 'eugenics' are as likely to offer solutions as they are problems. But whatever we collectively decide to do, I'm convinced it shouldn't be done with a gun to anyone's head.

If she stays on her current chosen path, it will be people like my daughter who will have to solve this issue. And fearful as I am about it in general, I have to confess, I do feel a little less afraid today thinking about it in those terms.

Sunday, December 17, 2017

- Unintended Consequences

I was just thinking about all the hiring I have to do.

Hiring is an act of discrimination. Not everyone is qualified for every job, and to find an appropriately skilled candidate is to discriminate between them and all other candidates. Think of this use of the word as being similar to a person having a 'discriminating palate'.

A great many minority candidates have gotten jobs based on the fact that it's important to hire at least a few minorities as a hedge against other litigation. You can't very well be accused of bias by someone you reject if you have a few minority candidates on staff already. the net result of this is of course, the standard for minority candidates are somewhat lower because they also represent a legal hedge that a non minority candidate wouldn't. This isn't racism, or reverse racism, this is just smart business.

I've never been so smart. I have always universally chosen only the best candidate available for any job. Fortunately I've been working in environments that are too small to represent much of a 'score' to the race mongering litigation industry. My current startup venture will certainly be this way as well, at least at first. So I won't let an issue like this one effect my decision making. There is strength in having little or nothing nothing to lose.

But I was just thinking about other people hiring women. With all these Sexual Harassment claims being made now, I was just wondering about how others will be forced to deal with this question. I don't doubt for a second that there is now a higher bar that women have to jump over in order to be considered for a position, in the same way that minority candidates don't have to jump quite as high. A woman now represents some small but potentially meaningful increased risk of sexual harassment litigation. And that issue cannot be ignored.

If a woman shows any sign of emotional instability or radical Feminism in her look or manner, I'll bet it will make a hiring manager think twice. Not me of course. I'll continue to hire the best candidates I can of any stripe. I can't really afford to do much else. But some people somewhere, are no doubt casting a more critical eye at a female candidate, and trying to imagine the kind of activity a future female candidate might take offense at.

It's something to consider.

Right now the women of the left feel empowered by all the scalps they've taken, both fair and unfair. Some women have even gone so far as to say that those men unfairly accused 'deserved' their punishment too by virtue of being men, or that it was at least a small price to pay for the 'justice' of seeing the Harvey Weinstein's of the world taken down.

But there are always unintended consequences. And I'm confident in predicting that this will raise the overall female unemployment rate, even if I take no direct part in making it so.

- About Choosing A Woman

I was browsing around 4chan looking for something Vox mentioned in passing in a blog post, and I found a separate thread that wondered what the things you should look for in a woman are. Should you look for IQ, sex appeal, conservative politics etc. 4chan is about young men, and since I know there are a few young men read this, I thought I'd offer my own opinion.

First, I don't have to tell you how important it is that the woman you're with be attractive. But ever since I was a young man, when I've looked at women, I tried to imagine how attractive she'd be in 10 years time. Let's face it some women don't weather well. They're indescribably beautiful at the point you meet them, but may have future weight gain or something else creeping around the edges. That always bothered me.

The best way to find out what a woman will look like when she gets older is to meet her mother. Depending on her age her mom might not be hot anymore. But If her mom is thin, generally attractive or in some cases maybe what you would call 'handsome' that's fine. That girl is likely a better bet over the long term than a 9.9 hottie with a mom who tips the scales at 300 lbs. Jessica Simpson at her peak was spectacular looking. Now, she's average, and in a few years she'll be a cow. Don't buy the cow, just milk it for free.

Except in the most extreme, blue haired, 'fishing tackle in her face' cases, her politics are irrelevant. For most women, especially college age women, politics is just a pose. All young women are to the political left of where they'll be in a few years regardless of what happens, and when they have children, they will suddenly shift far to the right. If you're politically engaged and enough of an alpha, just polite exposure to you and your ideas will shift her to the right anyway. There might be an argument or two in process, but women don't have 'political principles' per se, just a political position. Put a baby in her life and her position changes, and so will her politics.

One thing I value now more than I did in the past is emotional stability. A woman needs to be able to cope with the normal stresses of life without resorting to meds, wine, weed, or some other crutch. We live in an age where mass media promises eternal happiness in the form of a pill, and there is no social stigma against requiring anti-depressants or other psychotropics. But taking on a woman who needs them is a big mistake.

The drugs treat the symptom not the cause, and the cause may very well come back to bite you in ways you can't possibly appreciate or predict today. At a minimum it will mean potentially thousands of lost days where you're forced to handle more than your share of the load, while your 'partner' is incapacitated and dealing with nothing but her 'issues'.

Beyond those 'must haves' there are other things I find appealing personally which may not be a good fit for all men, but I'd recommend them anyway.

I like a girl with a very high IQ. Not only will it mean children with very high IQ's but smart girls are considerably better in bed than stupid ones. It's not a perfect correlation, but believe me, the trend is strong. And good sex is like water. You only care about it when you don't have it, but when you don't, it feels absolutely essential. You are not a perfect person. And if she is uninterested in sex, or is particularly lifeless, you will get bored and torpedo your own ship. Don't go down that road.

Stupid people also make stupid decisions, and if you're trying to get ahead in the world, the last thing you need is someone close to you who keeps making stupid decision.

I've also had better luck with girls who weren't ultra-extroverts. They don't have to be shy, bookish, library dwellers (though there is certainly nothing wrong with that) but the girl who is a complete extrovert thrives on attention. You will have other concerns in your life and other priorities. And as soon as your extrovert girl stops getting the attention she needs from you, she will look elsewhere for it.

Finally, there is your crazy/hot matrix. Women are creatures of emotion not logic, so to us, they all seem a little crazy in the fullness of time. They pick fights with you for no reason, imagine slights which never occurred to you, and tie themselves in knots of anxiety when no rational cause exists. The closer you are to a woman emotionally the more obvious this will seem to you.

When a woman lets you into the inner world of her mind, to almost all men it will look like a dark and ugly place filled with all sorts of concerns that never occur to us on a day to day basis. Women live in a society filled to the brim with implied insults, inferred guilt, and a host of other manipulative pokes and jabs that they deliver to each other with every glance and word. She'll see a 'real meaning' in all sorts of things that you'll never understand or even notice. There is no escaping this. I believe it's true for all (100%) of women. None of them are immune to it.

But some rare women are hardened to it. The 'girls' say this or do that in order to make them feel bad about themselves in some way that is incomprehensible to you, and instead of it turning her into an emotional mess, she fluffs it off as 'a bunch of bitches' and forgets about it. And more importantly, she does so without making it your problem.

That gentlemen, is your unicorn. If you find that girl and she has an attractive mom, an IQ above 140 and a body built for sin, drug her, drive her to Vegas and marry her before she realizes what you're up to. Just kidding. But definitely put a ring on it and a baby in it as soon as you possibly can.

I adore women. For all the grief they bring, I believe it's possible to have one who is nearly as much help to you as she is a burden, and they are the only way to assure future generations, which should matter more to most men than it does. As someone who has success on that last front I can assure you, that's worth far more than it seems.

But here's one last secret. It's possible, after an initial housebreaking, to get along well enough with most women. They want to be led. They want a strong man who can be 'in charge'. And if you're a strong enough man, a lot of women will simply behave the way you require them to. We are none of us perfect. But if you be all the man you can then you'll have more options, and finding a woman like this one will be easier just by virtue of supply and demand. So a great deal of it, more than you probably think as a young man, is about you not her.

Worry more about changing yourself into what you need to be, and she will naturally conform to the shape you need her to; at least to the degree she's capable. Eon's of evolutionary psychology has done this for you. All you need to do is make the most of it. Win as a man, and you'll automatically win with women. That's the real secret.

- Immigration: The Golden Snitch

Audacious Epigone has come up with a rhetorical flourish that I think it's absolutely brilliant:

Everyone who screwed the pooch on this one better realize fast: All that matters is immigration. It’s all that matters to the country, and it’s all that matters for winning elections.

“Anti-establishment” is not a winning issue. Without immigration as the GOP’s lodestar, every election will be a rerun of the Tea Party from 2010 to 2012, when Republicans lost Senate seat after Senate seat, entirely in unforced errors.

We’ll have to watch helplessly as “establishment Republicans” fight “anti-establishment Republicans” over the right to milk a he-goat. Both sides will lose, and Democrats will sweep Congress and destroy our country.

Immigration was never a top issue for Moore, though, when pressed, he gave the right answers. That’s not a good way to prioritize.

Republicans who treat immigration as a backburner issue should be required to run on the issues they consider more important—in California. See how your arguments fare in a state that’s already been transformed by immigration. That’s your new country.

How stupid do you have to be to carry on about taxes, defense spending, ISIS, abortion or the Ten Commandments while intentionally losing on the one issue that will determine the outcome of all these other issues? Too stupid to be of any real help.

Taxes? Quaffle. Defense spending? Quaffle. ISIS? Quaffle. Abortion? Quaffle. Ten commandments? Quaffle.

Immigration is the golden snitch. It doesn't matter what happens with the other issues. If we don't capture the National Question, any quaffle points we accumulate will turn out to be nothing more than distractions for fans on our side to cheer about momentarily before we lose the game.

Steve Sailer is equally impressed with the phraseology. His commenters however seem to be getting it exactly wrong. They all think their ideas would be the right way to go. Call it colonization. Call attention to some other little technical detail. BS.

In terms of marketing, this is a brilliant reduction of the message, all but custom designed to appeal to exactly the people who don't like to think, and don't much care for analysis of cause, effect, and consequences.

And if that doesn't describe the majority of establishment Republicans (especially those in office), I don't know what does.

Friday, December 15, 2017

- Liberals Discover Federalism

Don't get too wound up about this. Slate has published a piece of political agitprop as pretend opinion journalism. The lawyer for the Giffords center, an anti-gun group, has written a piece listing all the CCR demonization talking points. It's got a few entertainingly hypocritical turns of phrase for those who have followed this debate as long as we have. Take this bit:

The Constitution—and common sense—recognizes that different states have different cultures, traditions, and needs when it comes to guns. That’s why states make their own rules when it comes to public safety, policing, and concealed weapons. The NRA plan would turn that tradition on its head.

Like that revered NJ tradition of locking up anyone from another state who dares get held overnight in Newark for weather delays, who then tries to re-check their perfectly legal, locked and unloaded firearm containing luggage without a NJ Firearms ID card. Then there is this beauty:

Under current law, every state allows some form of concealed carry, but the rules vary significantly from state to state. Most states require a permit before you can legally carry a hidden gun, many conduct background checks, and some require extensive training.

For instance, in New York City you're required to be a Law Enforcement officer or really really rich and be able to afford the bribes political contributions it requires to expedite things. To get a concealed Carry permit in New Jersey, in practical terms, you're required to live in Pennsylvania, and to never travel into NJ.

Ah nevermind. There is nothing new here. It's all about the same old tired, empty, thoughtless talking points about how the evil NRA is trying to murder infants in their cribs and that this rule will bring on the apocalypse. IT ignores the fact that concealed carry holders commit fewer crimes per capita than policemen, and that many of them are much better shots.

This is all cynical BS. The author and all the people who agree with him know that this is only about one thing, eliminating guns from American culture and using their consolidated power in the big cities to deny US citizens their constitutionally protected rights. Apparently Federalism is only a good thing when it's the smart polished sophisticates of the coasts forcing their view on the troglodyte inbred morons between them. As soon as the same ideas flow the other direction, it means the end of the world.

How can anyone take these people seriously?

You know what I think is interesting? I'll bet that CCR will make cowboy hats more fashionable, since it will be read as the same as 'carrying' to any potential criminal. This comes as a relief to me since I own two of them and wear one every time it snows.

- The Decline Of The Ivy League

News is coming in from my daughter's friends who have applied to Ivy League institutions, and it's discouraging. There have been surprisingly few of them that haven't been rejected from their 'first choice' schools. With respect to the kid's character development this is probably a good thing. You should apply to a range of schools and be rejected from at least one, so you know you've gotten into the very best school you can. But from the perspective of how seriously the Ivy's now take academic achievement, it's a much more worrying result.

My daughter is very near the top of her class, and this is the crowd she runs with. Those overachieving kids who dot every I, cross every T, and work so hard at their academic credentials that you wonder where they get the time and energy. They are all in advanced placement classes with stellar grades. They are in varsity sports, leadership roles in extra-curriculars, have man years in volunteerism, and SAT scores in the tiny top percentiles. A few of these kids are very near the mathematically optimal achievement levels. It would have literally been impossible for them to do better. And yet, the overwhelming majority of them are being denied.

My daughter and her friends also attend a first rate High school - an amazingly good one given it's a public school in NJ. Owing to the conservative nature of the town it's not one of those Post-Deconstructionist training academies where all they learn is that gravity is just a hetero-normative patriarchal social construct. It's a real school with a real curriculum, and students are taught real things. There is little comparison of the schools in the way the Ivy's select students. If there were, I find it very difficult to imagine these kids are less well prepared for college than someone from Mudsole Louisiana whose teachers were all semi-literate community college escapees.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the Ivy's are all taking into consideration 'diversity', rather than academic merit. VV mentioned this using the example of his friend's son who was also one of these kids in a prior year's graduating class from an equally good school in NJ. That kid's collegiate future was 'saved' by his interest in STEM and the existence of CalTech, a University that explicitly refuses to take anything into account other than academic achievement. But it seems clear to me that there aren't nearly enough of these schools to go around.

The selection process for Universities has always been dangerously opaque, and in a time like this when the culture of academia has veered away from mainstream American culture so aggressively, that imposes real costs. Regrettably it will be the schools themselves who pay that inevitable cost. In four years they'll have a high dropout rate and rainbow of faces, but no real talent. The kids they graduate, will be second rate, and the reputation of the Ivy's will fall even further.

I stopped hiring Harvard graduates over a decade ago, unless they had already been out in the workforce for a few years. It was my experience that straight from school, their self assessment was unrealistically high and their promotion expectations were totally unachievable. They wanted to be VP's in 6 months, managing Director in 2 years, and running their own Hedge Fund in 5 years. When the 'real world' didn't see them through the same unrealistic lens through which they saw themselves, they would rapidly grow disenchanted and leave for what they thought were greener pastures, only to get the same treatment from others that they got from me. the last Cornell grad I hired had 5 jobs in 3 years before he dropped off the map.

And the remaining pieces of this story are now coming together for me. There is a reason that the best employees I ever hired were from the high achieving portions of the second tier schools. It's because that's where the best and brightest end up now. There is a reason the highest achieving people I know (and the wealthiest) all came from that layer of academia. It's because academia and it's candidate selection process is badly broken. And the Ivy's can't find their hat with both hands.

When VV and I were kicking this around a few weeks ago, I thought perhaps his was an isolated incident, owing to the fact that the boy he spoke about was Asian. Asians, as we all know, are a 'non-minority' minority in liberal academia, and they think it's OK to actively discriminate against them because they are such high achievers. You can think of this as the way that ashkenazi jews were treated in the first half of the 20th century, and is why Harvard is now fending off discrimination lawsuits and inquiries from the Department of Justice.

But now I have a much larger sample size. And my daughter's ultra-high achieving friends come from a variety of racial, ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds. Their parents are doctors, lawyers, bankers, and business men with family histories from the mayflower to first generation immigrants. Some are even legacy applicants with both parents who are alums to their first choice schools. The only thing they all have in common is extremely high intelligence, a breathtaking work ethic, and superhuman levels of dedication. But they are virtually ALL being rejected. All of them. And in a working system, that couldn't possibly be the case.

The best employee I ever hired straight from school, was from a Math and Science focused adjunct portion of NYU. The second best was from Seton Hall in NJ. The third? Michigan State. These were slightly older, slightly more educated versions of my daughter's friends, because that's where all the real talent ends up now. These guys (they were all guys) are all climbing the ladder very respectably now, and are certain to be big successes in the real world. They were the kinds of guys who wouldn't let anything stop them, even rejection from an Ivy.

I'm also hiring right now. I need to fill three python development roles, a senior tech manager/systems architect, a full sales, marketing, and communications staff, and various other administrative and management roles. I'm running a revolutionary Artificial Intelligence startup with several years of funding, which is trying to achieve a goal with a high profile and potentially world changing potential.

We're still working with a prototype, but it's already on the radar of Media celebrities, WSJ Editors, and top level (and I do mean TOP level) politicians. If this company is successful (and I intend it to be), any of these jobs I'm looking to fill represent the kind of resume item that can fast track an entire career and the compensation packages can make them all rich. The work I'm offering has the potential to change the world for the better in a big and obviously observable way, and may solve one of the greatest problems of our age.

But I won't be interviewing anyone from an Ivy League school. The Ivy's have made it perfectly clear that the kind of people I want are not the kind of people they supply any longer. I don't want to hire over-entitled second rate poseurs with delusions of grandeur. I want employees that will rise to the challenge, find solutions not problems, and to be prepared to wear 5 hats at once if it's what it takes to get the job done. you don't find people like that in the Ivy League anymore.

What I want to hire are kids like my daughter's friends. I know these kids. I know what they can do. I've seen the evidence of them doing it. And if I can persuade them to do the same for me, then the success of my company is a certainty.

What the Ivy League doesn't seem to realize is that when they produce a graduating class, they produce a product. VV and I along with the other people like us, are the potential consumers of that product. We see what they're producing and how they're producing it. And though their product still demands top dollar, it's no longer of top quality so I'm not interested in buying it anymore. If you're looking for 'top talent', I strongly suggest that you avoid them like I will.

Thursday, December 14, 2017

- Who Hacked The Election Again?

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

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

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

This piece is effecting my vote.

- The Disneyfication of America


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

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

- Woke Conservatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look. Learn. Accept the harsh truth.

They hate you.

They hate you.

They hate you.

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

They hate you. Govern yourself accordingly.

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

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

Kurt gets that. You should too.

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

- Inflating the Bubble

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


- Weaponized Delusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, December 11, 2017

- Make California A Safe Space Nation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, December 9, 2017

- De-Cucking David French

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, December 8, 2017

- Being 'Uncomfortable'

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

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

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

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

Thursday, December 7, 2017

- About Pizzagate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- The Cost Of Appeasement

My daughter is applying to colleges now, so the state of discrimination in the University system is on my mind. Those arbitrary decisions about who wins and who loses suddenly have a personal impact. I'll tell you a secret though, I don't think it really matters.

The most successful people I know didn't graduate from the Ivy's. Yes, having an Ivy degree makes the rest of your life marginally easier. But success doesn't come from a degree in Ethnic-Studies from Brown, it comes from having the kind of character and determination it takes to persevere through failure. To never take no for an answer. To keep going in the face of any obstacle. For people who have that, in the fullness of time nothing will stop them.

Thankfully my daughter has that. So in the end I'm not worried.

Our man Derb has had something to say about this in his latest radio derb. I don't imagine his position is very popular in my sewing circle. But he raises a valid question. I don't think I speak out of school if I say that the origins of his idea (I think) come from mine and Derb's mutual friend Bob Weisberg, the esteemed former Politics professor from the University of Illinois.

Frequent commenter (and my very dear friend VV) and I, have had discussions about this both online and off. In those discussions he raised the highly relevant issue, that places that operate strictly on merit like CalTech can and presently do, take some of the pressure off of the most egregious examples of unfairness in this regard. Maybe all we need to balance things out is a few more institutions like that one. Totally colorblind Universities which state as a part of their charter that they take only achievement into account and nothing else.

Not only would they instantly rise to be the most respected in the country, but they would also apply market pressure to the Ivy's that go the way of 'social justice' institutions as Brown has. All upsides have a downside and vice versa after all.

Just a thought.