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.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

- Jerusalem

I'm probably more romantic about it than I should be, but one day I'm going to Jerusalem. I had planned a trip 2 years ago but then other issues intervened. But I'm going to go.

I've always wanted to see the cradle of Christianity. The thing is though, I think I'll probably have to go alone. Or maybe take the GF and my daughter both, so they can keep each other company while I wander around the old city thinking about the sinful life I've led, and trying to find ways to repent. It's not a pilgrimage exactly. I won't be crawling and praying and carrying around rosary beads. I won't be standing in lines to see the Church of the Holy sepulchre or anything with the other tourists. But it will be a journey of the soul to the degree I still possess one. And I swear that before I die I'm going.

One of the things I like best about Trump is that he doesn't pretend things matter when they don't. He knows the kind of people who will freak out over the announcement of the US moving its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem are never going to support anything he does. He's very alt-right in that respect. "You think I'm a racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic devourer of puppies and children? OK. Who cares what you think?" Anyway, this disregard for the opinion of those who have declared themselves his enemy sets him free. He doesn't have to pretend or play nice.

The 'mideast peace' is the longest running fiction in modern political history. There isn't going to be any mideast peace until every Jewish Israeli is dead (and probably not for a long time after that). If that's an unacceptable solution to you as it is for Trump, then there just isn't going to be any mideast peace. Why pretend otherwise?

So now when I finally get around to my trip to Jerusalem at least there will be a nice new American embassy for me to see while I'm there. And it will be a great reminder to me that the world is the world with all it's flaws, however we may want to pretend it's otherwise. Just like me.

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

- Rethinking Identity Politics

When Obama was elected I thought he was an adamant neo-marxist who was using the traditional marxist dishonesty to mask a deeply Anti-American agenda. I thought he was a 'teachers lounge liberal'. One of those 'thought leaders' who was mildly deluded about his own competence and who had a typical academic antipathy for America and the motives of Americans. People like that lean on over simplifications where univariate causes and effects are seen as having great import. So when they try to solve what they see as the big issues - racism, sexism, oppression of minority groups - they invariably miss the mark.

Obama might have been all of that, but what I didn't see at the time was how weak, incompetent, and unmotivated he actually was. I don't think he was particularly interested in 'being president', he was just interested in acting like the president. He ceded virtually all real authority to his administrative underlings who worked behind the scenes to get 'their people' in place as opposed to other people, while the 'cool kid' Obama did 'cool kid' things. This has all been said by many others, countless times now.

But there is something else I'm seeing more clearly now than I did at the time. Given the way our culture was changing, Obama wasn't just the right guy at the right time, but he was the Democrats only real hope of preserving their power for a few more years in the face of their own rapidly declining competence. After decades of Democratic resentment sowing division between smaller and smaller groups, they were running out of rope. Unifying the black vote was the only real shot they had. So they went 'all in' on identity politics, and that bought them another few years of control.

Had Hillary found a way to beat him in the primary, given her performance against Trump I don't think she'd have won the general, even against a mess like John McCain. I could be reading that wrong. The media would have been all in for her, and would have vilified McCain much worse than they did as an opponent of Obama. But it was at least a real risk and the Democrat leadership clearly saw that. Thinking strategically, Obama could give them an easy victory for an 'historic' president. All they'd have to do is burn their boats in the identity politics fire.

This is where we are now. Identity politics is now everything to the Democrats. And because it's built on resentment that doesn't fade once an election is won, even they can't retreat from it. This is why we're seeing Feminism's fires consuming the liberal leadership in Hollywood. The first rule of an inquisition os to find a heretic, even if they're in your own ranks. And at this point virtually any candidate they offer in 2020 will go up in those very same flames. The Democrats have so subdivided their own bases that it's impossible for anyone of any identity to draw Obama like numbers from the coalition of the fringes.

Nominate a man (even a heterosexual black man) and he's anti-woman. (Are we really sure that sexual harassment hasn't been broadened so much that there isn't some kind of story in Corey Booker's history?) A gay man might not be seen as anti-woman, but he'll likely have a live boy or two in the trunk of his car. And contrary to the assertions of the media, homosexuality is much more rare than it seems. America isn't ready for a 'gay' president and 'normal America' won't have it.

Nominate a white woman and she's going to be seen as anti-black. Nominate a black woman, and she won't get black men voting for her in Obama like numbers, and will simultaneously mobilize the opposition like a gay man would. There is no winning formula. They would need a candidate of unprecedented shape shifting ability to be both black and not black, gay and not gay, latino and not latino, female and not female.

So what does the left do? Well if they want to win national elections again (and they certainly want to), they have to abandon identity politics - if not in 2020, then eventually. But to do that they'll need to politically orphan at least one of the two groups who use it as their primary motivation - either blacks or women. Women represent 51% of all voting age Americans, while blacks represent just 13%. But as Obama demonstrated, in the right circumstances blacks tend to vote more homogeneously than women do. So who's the better bet?

Like all things political, I think it's going to be settled as a question of expediency. The question is which group will go 'too far' first. Which mode of resentment will be the one more suitable to political abandonment? Will it be women's solipsistic victimology or blacks overt hatred and aggression which becomes the more easily forgotten about? It's a really interesting question, and I don't pretend to have an answer. I can't imagine liberals abandoning either of these cores of their philosophy.

But one of them is going to have to go. There is no potential Democrat candidate that meets all the identity politics criteria without simultaneously violating others. The politics of 'identity' demand it. And until things change it's going to stay that way.

Monday, December 4, 2017

- When The Government Attacks It's Citizens

As I have said many times, I am no fan of the idiots and self promoting fools that put together the 'Unite The right' rally in Charlottesville. I think they did EVERYTHING wrong. I do not support their tactics, or their leadership, in spite of my many friends who do. This isn't me being "a cuck", this is me asserting that I don't believe what they're doing is the right way to win what is essentially a propaganda war.

With all that said, this independent report on the actions of Police in Charlottesville (featured in VDARE) which will never get the attention it deserves from the mainstream media, seems to be utterly and totally damning of the police and the government. And it paints a picture of the unite the right rally participants as otherwise law abiding lambs being led to the slaughter:

Much like the plan for entry to Emancipation [Lee] Park, the dispersal of crowds following the unlawful-assembly declaration did not ensure separation between conflicting groups. Rather, the mobile field force units pushed the Unite The Right protesters right back onto Market Street, where a larger group of counter-protesters were waiting for them… [one officer] noted the Alt Right demonstrators were screaming at the VSP and CPD officers as the mobile field force pushed from the rear of Emancipation Park, commenting that ”you are pushing us right into the crowd.” [The officer] agreed with this assessment, nothing that the effort was “causing confrontations and pushing [the Alt-Right] right into their enemies.”

This editorial from a Waynesboro Va. paper seems to sum up the Heaphey report nicely:

When violence broke out, officers hung back rather than intervene. Many have suspected they received stand-down order. The review, by former federal prosecutor Tim Heaphy, found that such an order was, in effect, given. Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas even said, “let them fight, it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.”

Read the whole thing from Vdare at the link.

The Unite the right leadership may be acting stupidly, but no one deserves to be treated like that by their government whose first duty is to protect them from violence. If the situation were reversed and it was Antifa being pushed into a much larger unite the right crowd, there would have been martial law declared.

- Adventures In Diversity

Having a pretty thick streak of redneck in my ancestry and being prone to insomnia, I have always been a great lover of stimulants. Coffee is the elixir of life for me, and I indulge in it on the heavy side. I have a 1.5 liter french press I use at home, and mix my own blends. I even used to roast my own when I had the space outside for shaking off the chaff but that's tough in manhattan.

The best cup of coffee you can buy in New York in my mind, is no contest. There is a little coffee shop called 'society' on 38th near the corner of 6th that makes the best cup in the city. It's not exactly convenient for me anymore, but I stop by when I'm in the neighborhood. Try it if you don't believe me. You'll never go to Starbucks again.

But this story isn't about my unrepentant coffee sin, it's about my other stimulant vice, Nicotine.

I quit smoking the day my ex-wife told me she was pregnant. Second hand smoke didn't really worry me I knew that was all just fashion, but I wanted to be a good example. So out the door my last half pack of Marlboro's went, and I never looked back. Until, in the middle of my divorce, my brother introduced me to vaping.

My brother embraced the vape to cut the expense of his own smoking when his business had a bad patch. He had taken me out for a drink in an Asbury Park bar on my birthday, and thanks to slow regulation you could still vape in bars in New Jersey even though smoking was forbidden. So we sat happily in the back of the room, listening to the live band rip-off J-Geils and Southside Johnnie, and enjoying that complementary mix of nicotine and beer that we had both grown to love in our teens.

Nicotine itself is one of the most studied chemicals in human history and is no more dangerous to humans than caffeine, though it's many times more addictive. But without all the tar and other crap that comes from cigarette smoke, the vape is much safer and easier on the lungs. It sets off no smoke detectors so you can get away with it on airplanes and other smoking forbidden places if you're discreet. And even though I'm still vaping, my GF and I still run 16 miles a week at a pace under 10 minutes a mile. Really not bad for a 50 something and his dimunutive 40 something GF.

Vaping is about as close as I think I can get to my sinful indulgence without long term downsides to my health. Yes, I know, there may be studies which might one day indicate that there might maybe be some non-trivial downside to vaping, eventually. If you vape 23 hours a day for 45 years then your chances of colorectal cancer increase by .06% or somesuch. Color me skeptical. Those studies sound to me to be politically motivated, and until someone can show me real data, call me fallen. I'm keeping my sin.

It's not without some downsides though.

You can't get decent vape products just anywhere. Hipsters go to expensive midtown shops that feature long discussions about the various plusses and minuses of various vaping tools and that sell huge contraptions that let you control temperature, air mix and all sorts of nonsense. That's too pretentious for me and I have no taste for it. Instead, I buy my cigarette shaped and sized supplies at a little shop on the corner of St. Marks Place and 3rd avenue.

St. Mark's is the eastern continuation of 8th street as it proceeds toward Tompkins Square Park, and when it hits third avenue it turns into a kind of student bizarre of cheap restaurants, bars and head shops. It used to be part of the no man's land of the east village during the crack epidemic, but these days it's more of an Epcot version of it's former self. It's cleaned up, gentrified, and perfectly safe in every way, if still a little colorful. It's even home to one of the best dumpling shops in the city.

The shop I go to on the corner is run by 2 pleasant and friendly Pakistanis, and a perfectly affable Chinese man, all of whom I've gotten friendly with. When I enter they typically reach behind the counter and withdraw my 'usual' with a cheerful "Hello my friend, how are you? How do you like the weather?" that sort of thing. We make a minute or two of pleasant, uncontroversial small talk while they swipe my Amex, and then I'm off.

Yesterday though things were a little different. When I walked in the shop the older chinese man was standing in center of the shop facing off with a highly belligerent black man. The man seemed to be about 40, maybe 5 foot 8 and 160 lbs. Not an intimidating size but he was all attitude, and dressed in housing project fashion that indicated he was of limited means and more limited intelligence. The Chinese man was urging him to leave and was holding two nondescript boxes whose contents I couldn't identify.

Being the lone white man in the shop I saw no need to insert myself into the controversy. I stepped past the two of them with a glower from the black man, and engaged in my usual business at the counter. Meanwhile the hostilities raged on. "Sell em!" demanded the black man. "No! said the Chinese man, you go!" "You sell em or I gonna sell you!" said the black man. "No!" said the Chinese man. "You think I'm playin!" said the black man. "No, you go!" said the shopkeeper.

It went back and forth like this for a few tense minutes, the black man getting more and more physically belligerent and intimidating. At one point he swatted a shelf full of products knocking them to the floor. At that point the Pakistani men behind the counter began shouting "we call police now, you go!" and the black man finally gave up and left.

Afterward I got the story. The black man had been caught trying to steal two higher end pieces of something or other, and after being caught with them, wanted to buy them from the shop instead. Naturally the shopkeepers refused and the tail end of the uproar is what I saw. But the fun part was the conversation that came afterward.

The Pakistani men seem to me to be uncle and nephew, and I know from past conversations that the older man has been here much longer while the younger man is a more recent chain migrant. The second the black belligerent was out the door the older one started in on him with me. "These black guys, they think they can do anything! They can just rob you and there is no penalty." "These days they largely can." I said. "Everyone is afraid to be called racist." Well maybe if they didn't all act like animals people wouldn't be racist against them," he said. "Maybe." I replied.

As I signed my receipt and took my bag from the countertop, the younger man leaned over to me and quietly chimed in with restrained anger. "In America, blacks are like bad dogs. They should just be put down." "Careful my friend" I said "talk like that will get you real trouble." He nodded, knowing the risk he was taking.

Owing to my field, my experience with Indians and Pakistanis has been almost universally positive. There was an odd duck here or there, but it's been rare. And I know that's a sampling issue. You deal with the smartest and hardest working people of any group and they're going to be a lot like the smartest and hardest working portion of any other group.

I like the Pakistani guys who run this little shop, and as a polite well mannered customer who treats them with courtesy and respect, they like me pretty well too. We aren't going to each other's houses for dinner, but our relationship is more than adequate for some simple commerce. I've always believed that good manners will get you out of 90% of your typical unintentional trouble, anywhere in the world. Even on St, Marks place. My experience with these hard working men is that this is still true.

But American blacks seem to have missed this universal truth. And the current state of the 'diversity' cult isn't winning blacks any allies. It's very easy for me to imagine these guys up on their roof with assault rifles just like the Koreans were in LA, when the race riots start. I'll be happy to fetch them ammo when it comes to it.

I'm no fan of chain migration and will be happy to see the back of it. But if this little adventure in diversity is representative, it isn't the worst of our problems.

Sunday, December 3, 2017

- UConn "It's OK to be White" Speaker Arrested

This is actually a pretty good piece that slipped totally under my radar:

The Gateway Pundit’s White House Correspondent, Lucian Wintrich, was jailed Nov. 28, 2017, for breach of peace and released on $1,000 bail after unsuccessfully giving a speech titled “It’s OK to Be White” at the University of Connecticut. The controversial conservative was arrested after grabbing a woman who stole his notes off the lectern. Another person was arrested for allegedly breaking a window outside the lecture hall.

So she grabs his notes, and he gets arrested for trying to stop her. How interesting.

There is a little bit of anti-white pablum in the piece from "Education Good Is" (grammatical ironies abound) but for the most part I think it's a not terrible piece on the events. Progressives are mostly shown as hyperbolically emotional idealogues completely lacking in thoughts any deeper than "Fuck You" (a direct quote) and he's shown as having some clever things to say including that deeply divisive and controversial concept that "It's OK to be White."

- Theory And Practice

It seems the 2 competing bills to allow "Concealed Carry Reciprocity" are working their way through the house and Senate respectively. Which will raise an interesting issue for a tiny minority of gun owners.

The house bill contains (or excludes the prevention of, I'm not sure about the explicit language) a provision that will allow those people who live outside the state but are holders of an 'out of state' carry permit to carry a weapon in their home state. The Senate bill has no such provision. If it makes it into the final bill, the theory of carry law for me personally will go like this:

I live in Manhattan and have a legally purchased and owned firearm. I have a Virginia "out of state" carry license, and under a reciprocity law with the house provision I can therefore use my VA 'carry permit' to carry in my home state. For those who don't match my level of legal documentation it might even go further. Many states do not require ANY permit to carry a firearm (what is called 'Constitutional Carry'), and under the reciprocity act I might be able to carry under the provision of one of those states without ANY affirmative permit in New York. If I were in those states I wouldn't need a permit, therefore I don't need one here. That's a weak case I think, but I can see some defense attorney making it in a pinch.

The former argument is on firmer ground though. I completed the training necessary to obtain my VA permit, and it is a document making it perfectly clear that I have met the positive conditions of the law in Virginia so it's applicable here. This means the effect of CCR under the house bill will enable 'venue shopping'. For those gun owners who could could never ever get a carry license in New York City for (arguably unconstitutional but definitely) political reasons, they can simply shop the venues available till they find one they like.

That's the theory. Then we come to practice.

A law without enforcement is no law, but enforcement without a law is still enforcement. In the age of 'sanctuary cities' what do you think the odds are that a CCR bill will be respected and supported by the New York City police? When the police see me, a 50 something white heterosexual male (viewed here in NYC as the source of all evil in the world) walking through the streets of Manhattan with a bulge very similar to the one potentially made by a Glock G30S under my coat, do you imagine they'll simply 'let it slide'?

If New Yorkers are going to 'venue shop' for CCR, someone somewhere is going to have to be the test case in the courts for it. That will mean a lengthy, expensive and burdensome legal process where the conflict between Federal and local law is finally resolved, and has a better than zero chance it will end with the defendant going to jail. There will be no Federal prosecutor following you around defending your rights to the policeman who has been instructed to go arrest someone for carrying a firearm.

If this were still a free country, then the response of New York City would be to immediately establish their own process whereby law abiding citizens in legal possession of firearms can obtain their own carry permits from the local authority. They set permit fees, training standards, and their own set of laws to control the process that would no doubt be burdensome, but maybe less of a hassle than venue shopping. Most people would happily go along with it because it would guarantee not being the 'test case' and would eliminate all 'risk' to them.

But this is not a free country. And there is simply no way our Sandinista Mayor 'what's his name' will ever go along with a federal law which openly contradicts his view on guns. He's of a like mind to Mike Bloomberg on the topic of guns. And he retains the power of enforcement even if he has no law to support him. New York City's gun laws are built entirely on this principle. You can't because 'We say you can't."

When I obtained my New York City 'premises permit' I was surprised to discover that New York City policemen (the rank and file) felt the same way about a citizen like me with a gun as everyone else in the country. There were no looks of fear from them or any implication that I represented a greater threat to them than anyone else. No one behaved like I was carrying around plutonium. In truth, I got more hostility from the one individual anti-gun policeman in New Jersey that I dealt with for my last handgun purchase there than I did from anyone at One Police Plaza over this one. They even thought the portable gun safe I had was pretty cool.

But politics is politics, and after a 50 year ban on firearm carry in New York City, I can't see the locals going down without a fight.

A CCR bill like the the one going through the house will mean that on the day it goes into effect, I can legally carry my firearm anywhere I like and be in complete compliance with the law. But I'm not sure I want to be the guy who 'proves it'. But if needs arise, it will be much better than nothing.

- Not Just For Women Anymore

The boys get in the act too:

A male model is suing renowned fashion photographer Bruce Weber for allegedly forcing him to rub his own genitals — and sucking on the man’s fingers — at a creepy casting session.

Jason Boyce says the disturbing incident with Weber — who is best known for his work in Vogue and Rolling Stone magazines — occurred in December 2014 at the photographer’s Manhattan studio.

To my knowledge this is way, WAY down the list of creepy things that are a standard practice among men in the gay world. The same pretty kid who complained of getting his fingers sucked very likely did far worse things that very same evening with several other men. The Manhattan gay community isn't exactly known for its puritanical sexual standards.

Some of you know my story of the 'crazy doctor' I dated. During her training she did her emergency room duty in the west village, and at one point had to remove a 2 liter coke bottle from a man. And believe it or not, I'm leaving the worst details out.

But it's all about how 'wanted' the activity is right? That's what 'unwanted sexual activity' means, isn't it?

- Number Of Days

Since a prominent Liberal has been charged with Sexual Harassment:

1

The 'Purge' at Vice.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

- Speaking Of Parenting

I think there's something to the argument that our current societal issues are a product of bad parenting. Baby boomers, as self involved as they are, were never going to be particularly good parents. And they have raised the snowflakes - the infantilized men and overly fragile women that are currently making the biggest mess of our universities.

It's particularly clear in this Peterson Interview with a Swedish journalist. Sweden is far ahead of the curve in the deadly spiral down the Social Justice Rabbit hole. They've embrace Social Justice almost utterly, and now that Peterson has been out there for a year now talking to young (overwhelmingly) men, he's well suited to comment on it.

My parents preceded the baby boom by 1 year and 3 years respectively. I was born in a year that is sometimes considered the last year of the baby boom, but usually is considered the first year afterward. So in technical terms there were no baby boomers in the house while I grew up. No hippies. No pseudo-marxist politics. And we were certainly not over-mothered.

And based on this video I think that's what our current generational debacle sounds like.

Friday, December 1, 2017

- Regarding Comments

I have stats on the blog and I know what the traffic rate is and how it varies. Steve ( a long time reader and sometime commenter) mentioned this in the comments of last post. I think I have an extremely low comment to readership rate, but I'm not 100% sure why. But it coincides with something that people always used to say about my dad.

My dad is a TERRIBLE person to argue with. He will Ad Hominem you to death. Or he'll use logic and reason, or whatever tool he has in his tool box, whatever it takes. And his tool box for arguing is pretty full. He's the kind of guy who will win at any cost, even if it means you'll never speak to him again. He's a natural at it. If you hate him afterward it's nothing to him. And since I was raised by him, I ended up like him in ways that I'm not always comfortable with.

He was raised in a house with 5 brothers (and a gaggle of sisters) and they all competed with one another like wolves in a cage. As an example, my daughter met my uncle Bob for the first time a few weeks ago, and was HORRIFIED at the way he baited and taunted me for an argument. I tried to tell her that it's just the way the men in my family are, and in relative terms Bob was trying to be polite. I like Bob and he likes me. He wasn't being cruel on our family scale. I wasn't upset by his behavior at all, I just saw it as the natural [Insert my last name here] way. It's how alpha males are. But she couldn't imagine it, and was blown away by the harshness of it.

I wonder sometimes how similar I am to my dad. I know in many ways I can't help but to be like him, though I like to imagine that I'm more open to ideas outside my own worldview than he is. As another example, I can't tell you the number of times the Derb has said something that made me step back and think "Hmmm, I never thought of it that way." but Derb is unusually good at doing that to people. And maybe I'm just so utterly confident that I know what I'm talking about, that everything I express leaves little room for real argument.

Or maybe I'm just a dick.

There are reasons to believe the latter. I totally get that. I'm opinionated and unrepentant. I don't much care if the cool kids think I'm saying something that sounds good and I care not at all about the opinions of 'the common people'. If you can't hook your ideas to logic, reason, and an observably objective fact, then I don't care what you think. I know WAY too much about data analysis to be fooled by BS statistics and the common people these days mostly worry about the degree to which people are 'offended'. Nothing worries me less.

Facts are facts. Tomorrow the sun will rise in the east, set in the west and if you feel like that supports racism, or misogyny, or white patriarchal oppression from a subjective worldview or a 'close reading' of some feminist academic author, then all that ever tells me is that "you're an idiot". The world is the world, however we feel about it. And few people get all hyped up about objective facts. If you do, then it's you not me... or the facts.

So what's the point?

Well it could be that I've purged my comment section of ll the dissenting voices by being an asshole. I don't discount that possibility. What I'm hoping for though is that there is something inherent about my arguments (inherited from my dad) that makes it seem difficult or useless to argue with me. Will I always have a comeback? Yeah, probably. I've been arguing all my life from an early age, and in my family we don't F*** around when it comes to arguments. But that doesn't mean I'm not open to opinions other than my own.

The other guys who write on the blog, write on the blog because I thought they had something useful to say. They ALL came from the comment section... even Ikaika who has been around basically forever now. This blog is how we know each other, and although we've become good friends, it's all as a result of some disagreement we've had somewhere in the distant past.

So if you think I'm wrong, even (and maybe especially) partly wrong, I hope you'll say so. If you disagree with me clearly enough and you argue a point I haven't thought about then you may end up writing on the blog too. Low honor I'm afraid. But it's all I've got. It's about the thinking after all.

And I get it. No one has time for this nonsense. Especially to a readership south of 30K a month. But we should all say our piece right? And sometimes it helps to write it down. It clarifies he thinking to try to say it to others.

And don't be discouraged, just because I'm a dick sometimes.

- Of Bitcoin And Bubbles

There is talk that due to Bitcoin's stratospheric rise from essentially zero to over 10,000, it's in a bubble. Top Money managers have said so. Nobel Price Winners have said so. There isn't any doubt that BTC will have a correction at some point, but does that mean it's a bubble? A Bubble is a very specific market phenomenon which in technical terms is called an 'information cascade'. Is that what we're seeing?

I've been writing about 'information cascades' for so long now in both a professional and amateur capacity, that I feel like I must have said all this on this blog before. But when I searched the archive I found a few circumstances where I described a part of the phenomenon, but never the whole deal. Simplifying a comparatively arcane market phenomenon, even one where so many people are interested, is a difficult thing and you're bound to a lose something in the process. So for the sake of posterity, let me deviate from a bitcoin specific discussion here for a minute, and describe the whole nature of what a market bubble actually is, and how aggregate trading decision making leads to it's inevitable 'bursting'.

First a few ground rules. Professional investors are the ones that drive markets and by definition, professional investors must be 'rational' on average or they won't be professional investors for long. Amateurs can lose money in the markets forever, but not so professionals. They have strict limits on their 'losses' and the minute they exceed them they are terminated and replaced with someone else who then has a chance to be rational. Can they make a singular irrational mistake? Probably yeah if it isn't too serious. But over time, they must be objective, and must be driven by facts and reason not emotion. The failure rate on our emotional decision making processes are far too high to reliably produce profit in the marketplace.

Second, there is a dynamic I refer to as a 'decision making window'. Information is not costless. If a professional investor wants to decide to invest in an asset he needs to assess the relevant information pursuant to the likely future value of that asset. People who can do this very quickly get into a market first and if they're right in their thinking, they get out first at a profit. Faster decision making leads to more efficient decision making, which is to say that the time spent in analysis is a real 'cost' in trading. put very simply, if it takes you 2 days to make a 'rational' decision about future value of an asset, then you can't trade one day swings in price. This may seem axiomatic, but we all make decisions for a lot of reasons and not all of them are rational.

There is a useful analogy here. Assume the stock (or whatever) is being bought and sold at a window and the potential buyers or sellers are all in the room. New information comes into the room and everyone goes off to the corner to analyze its impact. They then have to get in line to buy or sell. If 'going up' is the likely relevant fact from the new information then there will be more buyers in line than sellers. First one in get's the lowest price, then the next, and so on. All the buyers and sellers are 'rational' and all have their own independently derived 'time window'. This is how the markets actually work, it just works that way on a 10 millisecond basis.

Third, luck may be a part of 9 ball, but luck runs out. No one is lucky forever, and since professional trading involves making potentially hundreds of decisions per day, and being successful over time, you cannot rely on 'luck'. There are exactly Zero Hedge Fund Billionaires who are billionaires due to 'luck'.

And finally, in most but not all cases, professional investors usually have a target time to 'buy' an asset and when they make that decision, they have also made a decision about when to 'sell' the asset. There is very little 'let's see what happens' sort of thinking in the professional investment world. Sometimes the 'sell' target is changed after the initial 'buy' decision is made due to new information, but it's never left to 'luck'.

A change to the 'sell' decision may occur because of new information, or because a target is struck, or because the trader's son got in a car accident so he wants to liquidate and focus on other things for a while. But the trader always has a good idea of his 'minimum' investment time because it's a reflection of his decision making efficiency. This is a hyperbolic example, but the decision making is relevant. No one thinks they can run a 2 day long analysis process to trade one day price moves. At the very least they need to 'hold' the asset two days, or they are no longer being 'rational', and they better worry about item number one. So, with all that said, let's talk about 'market bubbles'. The technical name for a market bubble is an 'information cascade'. An information cascade occurs when people reject private analysis of future price movement, and embrace public information instead. This continues until the average trade duration falls below the average level required for 'rational' private analysis. At that point any spark can set off a liquidation and the 'bubble' pops.

So we're talking about time here. The time required for the average market participant to perform individual analysis on a trade, and to act on it in a rational way. Got that? I didn't think so, but it's not really that complicated so you will. To unpack it just a little let me use the example of the dot-com boom.

When the Dot-Com boom occurred there were Analysts throughout the financial community looking at companies with no revenue, and will little promise of generating revenue, that were skyrocketing in price. Their private analysis would tell them that these companies were seriously overvalued. But with everyone else buying, and the knowledge of their buying being very much public due to the price moves, they would reject the decision they arrived at privately to sell, and would instead buy as well. Their assumption would be that all they would need to do to capture a profit is to sell before everyone else does.

This sometimes referred to as the 'greater fool' theory. "I may be a fool to buy it but so long as there is a greater fool, I'm fine." But that changes the average decision making dynamic of the marketplace. Now instead of making a decision about an entry and exit point, based on information that he has privately acquired and that provides him an 'information advantage' over others, the 'average' market participant is deciding to shorten his expected holding period based on information where he has no advantage over anyone else in learning it.

He's doing the same thing he always does, but he's no longer doing it for a 'rational' reason. You can say that of course it's rational to buy when everyone else is buying, but that isn't deterministically clear. His private analysis methods produced a systemic advantage for him. His analysis would look at the information in a specific way with a specific set of buy and sell signals, and that gave him an 'advantage' over others over a specific time period. If his process was rational (as evidenced by its success) it would be a better predictor of price movement over his typical decision making window than throwing darts at a board. It doesn't take much. a 60-40 outcome in probability can result in a HUGE profitability over time.

But now that he's buying based solely on the 'public' information determined by what others are doing, what advantage does he have over others? When EVERYONE can see the price move just as quickly as he can, he no longer has an 'advantage' and is trading on 'luck'. Traders don't like luck. More important, they can't justify luck to their bosses. So instead of simply 'hoping for the best' most traders will 'limit their risk' by shortening their decision making window. "I usually buy or sell for a week, but instead I'll just buy and hold for a day and whatever the price does tomorrow, I'll sell."

We're also talking about 'averages' here. Non professionals would be surprised at how little change there is in market participants in a given market over time. Most of the same few thousand people trade oil futures, or Fixed Income Derivatives, or tech stocks. There is a high degree of specialization, so the 'average holding period' though highly variable, is surprisingly stable over time in any market. So though you can't buy the data for it, based on volume, price movements and profitability, an estimated 'average' holding period for a market can be derived over time 'ex-post'. The accuracy of the statistic isn't great since it's very disparate, but just because it can't be reported accurately doesn't mean it isn't there.

So for the sake of illustration, let's hypothetically say that dot-com's at the start of their boom, had an average holding period of market participants in the territory of 30 days, and the average 'efficient decision making window' for those same market participants was 2 days. Private analysts would examine the relevant information taking 2 days to make a new decision where they had reason to believe it would give them an advantage, and then hold their investments for an average of 30 days.

Then comes the change. As a group, and over time, more and more of them begin to reject their private analysis indicating a sell and instead embrace the 'greater fool' theory and become buyers. And as a greater and greater portion of the group change their decision making from private information to public information, they surrender their 'information advantage' and shorten their anticipated holding period in an effort to limit their risk. And as a result, the 'average holding period' in the markets begin to fall.

The price behavior changes too since would be sellers have become buyers. When buyers=sellers the price is stable and constant. As buyers outnumber sellers the price rises. In those market where the buyers and sellers are fairly stable, "Price velocity' tends to be stable as well. But when a finite group of participants change from sellers to buyers, the percentages change and so too does procie velocity. What was a 1% move per day becomes 2% per day, and so on. And these big price moves attract new market participants.

These new players are traders who don't have any reason to believe they ever had ANY information advantage in the market because they don't really understand it. All they know is that there are a lot of buyers, so they want to be 'short term' buyers too. this accelerates the ascent of the market price even further, and so on, and so on. And a 'bubble' is born.

How much will the bubble rise? Given the information available in the markets no one can say. But we do know when the bubble is likely to burst. Bubbles burst when the average holding period of market participants falls below the average 'rational decision making' window for investors in that market taken as a whole.

If it takes an average of two days for an average rational decision in the dot-com market, when day traders looking for a 'quick one day price rise' outnumber (really it's "represent a great amount of assets than) potential rational sellers, the stage is set for a collapse. One rapid price swing can send those short term irrational buyers running out of the market all at once, with no rational 'short sellers' in a position to stop them by become rational 'buyers'.

So from a decision making standpoint, that is a 'bubble'. Otherwise rational sellers become irrational buyers and when the irrational outnumber (kinda) the rational, the stage is set for dramatic price behavior.

So what about Bitcoin?

The relevant question here is "Are the buyers of Bitcoin looking for a short term gain or a longer term one?"

I have a friend who trades Crypto Assets for a living. He says that based on the number of people asking him "How do I trade Bitcoin?" he's getting worried that it's in a bubble. I myself had my 17 year old daughter ask me about Bitcoin the other day. She's not trading it, but these are worrying signs. They indicate that people who don't understand the market and have no real advantage over anyone, are getting involved. "The greater fool theory" is starting to run out of fools. But they aren't the only signs.

Crypto is a very new space and the industry is leapfrogging in a big way. As a parallel, think of cellular service in Africa. The last person to set up a cell company in Africa is VERY RICH today. That's real value as an economy expands, and the Bitcoin world is doing the same. A lot of the money flowing into the space is doing so for that reason. Capital creation, term lending, all the infrastructure of a modern financial system is being engineered and reengineered at a shattering pace in the Crypto world. That's long term money as the market grows, not short term trading profits in a relatively mature market.

The dot-com boom wasn't really like that. The dot-coms were all publicly listed US equity companies providing a new kind of competitive service that offered more in the was of scale. If you guessed right and bought only Amazon, E-Trade and the other winners, you'd have been fabulously successful even at the height of the boom. BTC's rise is more like the US GDP in that respect as it's a reflection of the expansion of the overall crypto-economy. And GDP rose steadily all through the intervening years. Or 'cellular revenue in Africa', is a better analogy. Carlos slim became the wealthiest man in the world by selling cell phones to Mexicans. That's what BTC really is.

The much bigger medium term sign in my view is all the quant funds who are in the process of building technical infrastructure to trade crypto assets right now. A very large fund is submitting RFP's to consultants for infrastructure and data capture. And I think they're indicative. And there are dollars measured in the quadrillions looking to get into the space. A decentralized currency market is a powerful thing that inevitably means empowering individuals over governments and their related financial institutions. The big banks all think of control, and they will want to control the future of BTC. They can't do that unless they get involved in it, and they are all (ALL) looking to do that in the next 12 months if they haven't already.

So BTC = Bubble? At one level maybe yes and another no. In the near term it may be due for a correction, but in the long term I think it has enough momentum now to be unstoppable. It may go to three thousand first, and many will say the 'bubble popped', but in the long term, barring a structural change that will have no impact on its economics (think stock split) I think 10K will be below the average stable price. Short term "maybe (but not definitely) down" long term, almost certainly up.

There are major serious risks in the crypto world as well as a ton of fraud. But it's too big now to ignore and the world's financial institutions have no intention of ignoring it. For them to dip just a toe will mean a HUGE upswing it the overall value. 25K is not unreasonable. Twice that might not be unreasonable either. I don't think anyone can predict it. And as the various risks are overcome through innovation I don't think anyone can deny that it's going to be a much bigger part of the future of finance than it is at present.

Thursday, November 30, 2017

- Number of Days

Since a prominent Liberal has been charged with Sexual Harassment (is Still):

0

This time, Russel Simmons.

(maybe I should make it an hourly clock instead.)

- Number Of Days

Since a prominent Liberal has been charged with Sexual Harassment:

0

This time it's a CNN producer.

- The Cowardly Ira Wells

Remember that debate I mentioned between the Social Justice Activist posing as a professor and Jordan Peterson? Remember I mentioned that I thought he'd weasel out of the debate?

Well sure enough, he weaseled.

So much for the courage to defend his ideas.

I hope others are heartened by this. SJW's can't argue, only accuse, vilify, and attack with ad hominem. They are a set of empty suits. And as Jordan Peterson himself said, they're all cowards.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

- Number of Days

Since a prominent Liberal has been charged with Sexual Harassment:

1

- Feminism Killing Romance

Over the last few years the song "Baby It's Cold Outside" has been much criticized by Feminists as a date rape advocacy song. I'm a big Ray Charles fan and love his version of it, and have always thought the characterization horribly unfair. It's a great old duet, that points to a fundamental truth of human relations. Men and women have been having that meta-conversation in every language on the globe for thousands of years - until now.

The original version of the song is from a 1949 Musical, Neptune's Daughter. You can clearly see from the body language displayed, that the sexual power dynamic in 1949 (the dark age of women's oppression by men) was never as one sided a today's Feminist would like us all to believe. Even the woman who is pursuing Red Skelton has an obvious innocence to it. And this was the full on 1949 ultimate oppressive patriarchy version, not the disgusting rufie in the wine glass version done in the last couple years.

Sure, it's a choreographed musical and not real life. But that's intentional. Women walked out of that 1940 movie humming the song and hoping the exact same sort of thing would happen to them afterward. I honestly believe most women today would do precisely the same thing. It's intentionally, obviously romantic, and women love romance. Or at least used to. But the current hysteria is putting the last nails in romance's coffin.

This romantic "men pursue and women pretend to flee" meta-conversation only works so long as we recognize the differences between the sexes. As soon as the women want to empowered to behave like men, the whole thing falls apart.

Even today I've heard dozens of women complain that men never act this way any more. Younger women, having grown up in a post Feminist world, can't imagine them EVER acting that way. And that was all before the current set of sexual harassment scandals. It may have been 'cold outside' today, but it's about to get a whole lot colder.

These days, the Feminist dream of written consent in advance of any sexual activity all the way down to winks or hand holding, seems a lot more possible than it used to be. And for men, it seems like the only safe way to start any relationship with a woman. If you can be hounded out of a job for pinching a girl's bottom in a bar 30 years ago(and we're only a few accusations away from that) then what hope is there for any traditional idea of romance?

Feminists say it's men killing romance by not playing their part. They don't recognize that to get that sort of attention from men you have to be worthy of it by the standards of men. To put it more simply, in order to play 'hard to get' you have to actually be 'hard to get'. And according to Feminists, for a woman to behave that way in the age of slut walks, would be a reflection of her 'internalized misogyny' and her oppression by the patriarchy.

Get ready girls, because it's coming. Pretty soon all you'll ever have is 15 years of Tinder swipes and meaningless hookups, followed by 40 years of solitude with your wine and your cats. Welcome to 'real sexual equality' with men. And it's all happening because you won't police your own in the war of the sexes. At the end of the day, it's all your own fault because you're choosing slut walks and "Nasty Girl" T-shirts over romance.

- More Sex Harrasment Bodies

Garrison Keillor and NPR's News Chief David Sweeney, both fired over allegations. The bodies are stacking up faster than I can type their names. I'd check around to see if there is any real basis for an compliant, but who has time?

To rip off (and paraphrase) a commenter from the Ace Blog, if the SJW's are taking requests I'd like to know what Alan Alda and Rob Reiner have been up to in their free time.

- Matt Lauer Ousted

Matt Lauer fired for inappropriate sexual behavior which is actually one step down from "sexual harassment". So far there is no allegation of this behavior being 'illegal' only "inappropriate".

I can't imagine this is going to end the way that women want, and I think I can see the ending from here.

"Sexual Harassment" by the current definition, is Sexual Advances which are "unwanted". If the man is high enough in his appeal to women, then there is no such thing as sexual advances that are truly "unwanted". But most men are not that high in the hierarchy. And that means any activity, any wink, and smile, any overt behavior which recognizes human sexual dimorphism on the part of a man, can now result in him being fired.

This is the triumph of Feminism where women are empowered to make 100% of all the choices about who ends up with who, but it disregards men's reaction to it. There are really only 2 places where a woman can meet a man who is well suited to anything but an energetic roll in the hay: in school, and in work. Work, the latter of the two, has just been taken completely out of the equation.

Any American man would have to be a monumental imbecile to date ANY woman that he meets through the workplace. Even if the woman makes overt advances toward the man, it still represents a huge risk to his career to be involved with her in any way, because as the Fake Rape epidemic has taught us, she can recant tomorrow and you'll be considered just as guilty.

Feminists probably think this is empowering, but it isn't. Men will not unilaterally submit in the war of the sexes. The only thing that will come from this is that they will move further back from women, which if course is the right thing to do for them given the circumstance. The standard mating rituals have been smashed and will be replaced, not by what women exclusively want, but by nothing at all. It will take a while before women realize this. But give them a year or two of Friday and Saturday nights of Pinot Grigio in front of the TV and it may begin to dawn on them. I'm sure we can expect further moaning from the girls at Huffpo and Slate wondering where all the 'good men' have gone. The answer is they were driven away by them.

Our already falling reproductive rate is about to take a big hit, and millions of women are now destined to join the ranks of the Leftovers. and it's American women who are bringing this on themselves.

I'm no big fan of Matt Lauer or his infantile politics. But when 'inappropriate' becomes the standard and that standard is set by the Feminist star chambers, it's not hard to see that it's the end of American mating.

- The Voice of Hate In America

It always cracks me up when people talk about the far right being driven by "HATE!!!" when two of the most prominent faces in my mind associated with the far right are these two guys.

On the left (wink) you have VDare's Peter Brimelow, and on the right is the inestimable John Derbyshire. Two men who to my personal knowledge don't actually hate anyone, not even people who may individually deserve it. VDare, for it's sins, has been demonetized electronically on every front, all for talk not too different from what you'll find here. And clearly it's undeserved. Agree or disagree, these are thoughtful men who are reasonable and rational. They are clearly not driven by hate.

It's nice to see Lydia Brimelow dragging these two septuagenarian men from the north of England into the 'New Media' business. I'm only halfway through it myself so I don't know if anything confrontational or controversial comes of this. I doubt it. These guys aren't bomb throwers (even as much as Ikaika and I occasionally are). There will certainly be no Klan Hoods or Zieg Heils. Instead what you should expect is a reasoned deviation from the progressive orthodoxy, which may be enough to have you accused of being a Nazi, but it isn't nearly enough to make you into one.

I'm pleased to see these guys getting in front of the camera, and I'd love to see it become a trend. But since they both have 'faces for radio' I doubt they'll be much money in it. For the record, that's a critique of the American public not Brimelow and the Derb. It's the age of the 'news-blonde', and as a nation we seem to have lost the taste for reasoned debate in mass media.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

- The ZMan Hits It Out Of The Park

This essay is so complete and so broadly reaching, that I find it difficult to offer any commentary on it except to say that I agree with it.

I also particularly like the way he rebrands the Alt-Space using the Derb-esque term 'Dissident Right' of which the 'Alt-Right' is a small part. I've clung to the Alt-Right as labeling purely as a late adopter of such things. But it may be time for me to rebrand my messaging on this score too. Coming from the Derb, at least it's unlikely to be rebranded by the mainstream with Zieg Heils and Klan Hoods, since he'd have nothing to do with either of those things.

I won't do the Zman the disservice of excerpting it. Go to his sight at the link and read the whole thing.

- Jordan Peterson & The Alt-Right

Guys, I've been stupid again. I had a meeting over at News Corp late this morning so I had a little time to kill in the AM and made the mistake of reading some of Jordan Peterson's Twitter stream. Twitter is always a mistake. But it's not Peterson's contribution I had issue with but the responses to him that got under my skin. And that's why I wanted to say what's going on with the big question,

"Is Jordan Peterson a part of the Alt-Right?"

The easy answer is that depends on what you mean by the alt-right, and it depends on what you mean by "a part of", which is to say that the question isn't really valid.

If anyone would ask Jordan Peterson if he was a part of the alt-right his answer would be to look at the Richard Spencer's of the Alt-movement and say "No!". Dr. Peterson has said that very thing, often. To the degree that the alt-right has something to do with actual Nazi's, he's actually strongly opposed to it. But Peterson's critics want desperately to associate him with the Richard Spencer's of the world, so they respond with "That's just what an Alt-Righter would be expected to say!"

This is stupid of course.

Then there is the question of what the alt-right actually is. There is distribution of the Alt-right which span the gap from Derbyshire and Jarred Taylor, all the way down to Spencer, who technically is a leftist. The Spencers of the Alt-world are ideologues not thinkers, while Derbyshire, Vox Day and Jared Taylor are thinkers and not ideologues. The latter agree quite strongly with the bulk of Peterson's view, while Spencer and the boys from the prison white power gangs obviously would not.

And that's the overlap. The thinking part of the alt-right are rooted in Evolutionary psychology, genetics and science. So to the degree that portions of the Alt-right thinking is enshrined in empiricism and science, there is much agreement between Peterson and the alt-right. For the left that's a problem though because they require those ideas to be invalid. Any rational discussion of inherent differences between people or groups of people, invalidate their claims. Especially if they come from genetics.

So although Peterson would not consider himself a part of the alt-right, the thinking parts of the alt-right (the ones on the right hand distribution of the IQ curve among Alt-thinkers) would all probably say they agree with most of what Peterson has to say. They would all likely agree that the scientific method is the right way to determine the objective facts, and the objective facts are not subject to change, regardless of how Social Justice advocates feel about what the facts have to say.

But to the social justice left, a belief in objective evidence is the same as being a Nazi. So to that degree, if you allow the left to define it, Jordan Peterson and virtually everyone who has ever accomplished anything in the sciences without overt genuflection to Social Justice Ideals would be a Nazi, and a part of the alt-right. That makes things tough for them, because it means that the alt-right is literally everywhere, and since they're all Nazis, NAzis literally are all over academia.

I know this sounds crazy. But that's what happens when you talk to Social Justice Warriors.

- This Perfect Day: Thanks Alexa!

If you are not comfortable with the truth, who says you shouldn't be allowed to embellish it and promote your new version of "truth"?
The aforementioned video is a tangent from Tom's article below. While SJWs and the Alt-Left are clearly in control of academia, news media, and entertainment, they have exploited an entirely new avenue of attack: Artificial Intelligence for the home.
I don't have an "Alexa" and never will allow one in my home. I have disabled all Google voice command apps on my smart phone. I have completely removed FaceBook and any of it's controlled apps like WhatsApp from my phone.
My Neighbor bought Alexa a few months ago. The novelty was to ask Alexa to select music or general trivia questions. My neighbor is easily impressed with technology. I decided to take the Ray Bradbury/Isaac Asimov approach. I asked Alexa if it knew the difference between good and evil or could explain right from wrong. This conjured up non-answers. The aforementioned video demonstrates that millions of households will now be swallowing gob-loads of "New Truth" out of sheer embrace of the novelty. My neighbor's children ask Alexa to solve homework questions. The indoctrination begins. If Alexa can solve mathematical equations or provide general definitions to improve vocabulary, then Alexa must be reliable...? Ira Levin foresaw this epoch in his novel "This Perfect Day". Don't thank me... Thank Uni! or in this case Thank Alexa!

- The Academy Shoots Back On IQ

I have been detailing the work of Jordan Peterson in some detail, and doing so with enthusiasm. He's become a one man wrecking crew for the thoughtless post-modern neo-marxism that has become de rigeur in western Universities.

He isn't alone in his efforts. Jonathan Haidt, Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Brett Weinstein, Lee Jussim, Steven Pinker and a host of others have argued positions in support of Peterson's. But Jordan is special because he's arguing a complete replacement - root and stem - of the core philosophy of the hard left, and doing so in a rational, careful and highly detailed manner for a youtube audience which now measures in the millions.

He's the thing the left is most afraid of. A man who disagrees with them who cannot be cowed by ad-hominem attacks, easily mischaracterized, or argued with effectively over tiny detail. He's too brave for ad-hominem, too detailed for Mott and Bailey, and too rooted in science and the scientific method to be persuaded by subjective emotion.

I'm a fan of Dr. Peterson because of the way his arguments have validated my personal life choices, many of which I made years and decades before ever hearing of him. That 'validation' makes it very easy for me to see his view as 'true' since I arrived at similar (although less fluently expressed) ideas through a completely different method than he has. And that makes it difficult for me to give his critics a fair ear.

One of his critics has written a piece which got some attention on Twitter when Peterson called him a coward and intellectual fraud, and challenged him to debate his ideas. He essentially said what we have all been waiting to hear someone say to the post-modernists 'Bring it on asshole!" His critic Ira Wells has agreed to debate him(though I expect he'll wiggle out of it) and Dave Rubin has agreed to moderate.

But as I said, I don't expect I'll be able to give the debate a fair hearing. I believe Post-Modernism, taken to it's inevitable conclusion, will lead to negative outcomes for the west - a 'cultural suicide'. But among it's devotees it offers a deep philosophical justification for the resentment and hatred it fosters. In that regard I don't think it will be very persuasive, but it's devotees aren't open to 'debate' and thinks the concept of 'objective facts' are themselves oppressive. How do you debate someone like that?

If the debate does go forward I expect lots of mentions of Hitler and the Alt-Right, lots of guilt by association and Ad-Hominem, and a complete misinterpretation and fisking of Peterson's every word. He's so detailed that he isn't an easy guy to fisk, which is why post-modernists have avoided debating him with anything except chants, 'fascists' accusations, and violence.

It's also interesting (and a little frightening) that the specifics of the debate center around IQ, the one topic which Peterson has studiously avoided addressing directly. The truth about IQ is the kind of thing that no-one likes, including Peterson. And as I've said MANY times now, recognition of the 'facts' it demonstrates represent a real threat to the future of humanity and the west. It shatters an important illusion we've all held about the possibility for 'equality' and it's no accident that the people who are least willing to accept the biological 'facts' as they stand are the people at the bottom of the distribution.

Peterson has been relying on what I think of as the "Derbyshire justification" to support the moral neutrality of his belief in the science of IQ. To quote from his piece "The Talk: NonBlack Version:"

As with any population of such a size, there is great variation among blacks in every human trait (except, obviously, the trait of identifying oneself as black). They come fat, thin, tall, short, dumb, smart, introverted, extroverted, honest, crooked, athletic, sedentary, fastidious, sloppy, amiable, and obnoxious. There are black geniuses and black morons. There are black saints and black psychopaths. In a population of forty million, you will find almost any human type. Only at the far, far extremes of certain traits are there absences.

Peterson often says there is more variation within groups than between them in all human characteristics, which is essentially the same thing. But it wasn't enough to spare the Derb consequences to saying so, and I honestly don't know if it will be enough to spare Peterson. It almost certainly won't be for the black population who "REQUIRE" the facts on IQ to be false, and will jump through any philosophical hoop they have to in order to ensure it stays viewed that way.

There was never any doubt that we were going to have this 'conversation'. And if there has to be someone arguing for the side of objectivity and moral neutrality I'm glad it's Peterson. But I worry over the fallout from it. I think we have a few more sacrificial lambs to gore over this issue, and I don't want one of them to be him.

Peterson is a careful speaker. And if Ira Wells doesn't slither out of the debate (as I expect he inevitably will) then I will watch it with real anxiety. Not because of who the winner of the discussion will be, that I think is a foregone conclusion. To use a Peterson-esque analogy, the post-modern left is living in a walled city of things they know, and outside that wall are all the facts of science. John Derbyshire was one of the first people through the breach in that wall and the outcome was tragic but not totally unexpected. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to Peterson.