Tuesday, October 17, 2017

- The Uber Way Back Machine

I've got just a few minutes, so I was skimming around over at Ace and saw this video for a 1983 English new wave band.

I was more into American music myself, but I remember a distant memory of that song playing in the background on the radio while I ravished some cheerleader, so for kicks I let the video play. And it reminded me of an aspect of the 80's which I'd previously forgotten.

We were all so unbelievably cynical back then. We all assumed the world would simply lose its spinning momentum to friction and eventually stop, burning the world on one side and freezing it on the other. I mean that in a sort of spiritual sense. The top down buttinsky politics of the Carter years had really done a job on us, and though Reagan was hopeful, we had yet to see any real upside from him. If you were the right age in 1985, the entire history of human existence looked to be a rubbery soled Thom McCann loafer gently nudging an unshaven face. As if they wanted us all to cower and fear them, but they didn't have the balls to actually oppress us.

It was more like they wanted us to figure a way to oppress ourselves.

I never imagined that we'd actually do just that.

The fact is, I didn't get any real optimism in my life until I made to to wall street 5 years later, and discovered just how much money there was to be made in being a global capitalist. For the first time in my life I thought it might be possible to make enough money to have a wife, some kids, maybe a dog. A real life. A life that would be worth it. A life that would be more than 10 minutes of joy with some half naked teenager, who didn't really care if I lived or died, so long as I waited until she got her panties back on to do it.

That national sentiment seems to be repeating itself now. My daughter is just as worried and cynical as I was back then only thanks to better parenting, she's thankfully without all the self destructive tendencies. Her friends are the same pretty much. As if they know for certain that they're never going to be free and happy. Kind of like that cheesy song.

Its funny how memory washes off all the filth, grime and misery leaving all the parts you loved or the parts you feared. That general sense of pointless malaise certainly washed away.

I remember the cheerleader pretty well... well... parts of her anyway. I remember her running into my bathroom wearing nothing but a pair of ankle sox and a naughty smile, when my buddy showed up at the door and let himself in. I remember having no responsibilities, and no real cares. That sounds like a pleasant thought but it truth, it wasn't. And I can recall that now that I've heard that crappy song. I can recall all my suppressed desperation and panic, that I'd never find a way to have a life that meant anything to anyone. Not even to myself.

Back then, nothing meant anything. These days, everything means something. All this considered, I really prefer it this way.

- Under A Feminist Sky

Remember when I said that according to Feminism Harvey Weinstein's only real sin was looking like a ball of used chewing gum rolled in cat hair? Well see if you can find anything in this piece that would be considered even close to 'sexual harassment' if Bob Weinstein looked like Ryan Gosling:

“ ‘No’ should be enough,” Segel told Variety. “After ‘no,’ anybody who has asked you out should just move on. Bob kept referring to me that he wanted to have a friendship. He didn’t want a friendship. He wanted more than that. My hope is that ‘no’ is enough from now on.”

“Bob Weinstein had dinner with Ms. Segel in LA in June 2016. He denies any claims that he behaved inappropriately at or after the dinner. It is most unfortunate that any such claim has been made,” the statement said.

He asked her out to dinner? That PIG! That Monster! What kind of perverted deviant would do that to a girl?

Obviously this is just one of the Hollywood 'mean girls' doing pile-on now that the business is in trouble. But the moral of this story is, if you're desireable enough there is no such thing as rape, and if you're unattractive enough, everything is rape.

Welcome to life under a Feminist Sky.

- Dr Doom Gets the Diversity Boot


To me, Marc Faber was a "one trick pony" but fun to listen to. He was one of several bears that predicted the 87 crash and other "black swan" events. Marc was always a pleasure during the Obama years as he was an outspoken contrarian. This time Marc went too far (speaking somewhat candidly and truthfully regarding racial issues).


What were those comments?
 In the latest edition of his 15-page investor letter, "The Gloom, Boom & Doom Report," Faber argued against the removal of confederate statues, saying the only crime of the men those monuments honored was to defend slavery and that the controversy distracts from more important debates, according to Bloomberg. There, inbetween quotes from George Orwell and historian Edward Gibbon and his opinions on universal basic income, Faber wrote the following:
"And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority." He then added that "I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out.

CNBC and FOX said he won't be invited back... I'm sure that goes for Bloomberg TV as well...


- Forgotten Title

I don't think much of Richard Spencer's political tactics. I'm told by men I respect that he's an amiable and intelligent guy, but I see no evidence of it from my distance.

With that said, this seems like total ridiculous overkill:

Florida Governor Rick Scott declares state of emergency ahead of white nationalist Richard Spencer's speech at the University of Florida

The trick there is in the reporting. The governor isn't declaring a state of emergency because of Richard Spencer, who is only going there to give a speech. He's not showing up to advocate violence or to burn the place to the ground. Whatever you may think of him, and I said 2 seconds ago, I personally don't think much, one guy saying unpopular things does not justify a 'state of emergency'. I strongly think my reaction to his speech (assuming it hits youtube eventually) is going to be "...yeah yeah Richard, blah blah blah".

Of course the issue isn't Richard, it's that the people who oppose him can't be relied upon to act like civilized rational humans. In that light, Governor Scott's reaction probably isn't quite so outlandish. I'd recommend he roll the paddy wagons right up to the barricades and the minute anyone from ANTIFA so much as twitches an eye, give them pepper spray in the face, a billy club across the skull, then it's bind, tie, lift, toss, and haul them away. Stuff the Gainesville jails to the rafters, and take your time in the processing. Charge them with Felonies, however contrived. Do to them what a state interested in protecting the citizenry really should do by running up the legal bill for George Soros.

Florida is an easy state for concealed carry. But that should do more to suppress Antifa violence than encourage it. Antifa losers are all afraid of guns, and with good cause. People that generally irresponsible should be anywhere near firearms. But the people they're 'protesting' will be armed. And they probably know it. So for all this fuss, it probably won't amount to much.

But my view remains the same. The moment a 'peaceful rally' turns into a riot, I strongly recommend that the Florida State Police suppress it with live ammo. Assembly? Sure. Protest? OK. Violence and rioting? Bang. That's always been my take on both left and right wing riots. And I see no reason to change based on politics. I'm so Busy today that I posted this title-less. Go figure. But it's been a fruitful day so, I have that to hang my hat on.

- The Managed Decline Of The Left

I was introduced to Rich Lowry at an event just a few weeks after "l'affaire de Derb". When he learned how I came to be there (through a relationship fostered by the afore mentioned hater) he gulped, looked at his shoes, and sheepishly tried not to get too ruffled. We spoke politely for a few minutes, then he excused himself to find less controversial conversation. The Derb issue never came up.

I mention this because more than most people at NR, I always got the impression that Lowry was worried about the bottom line, and the bottom line would obviously be affected by his actions. At some level he was worried about popularity, and on the right, that means the base. His writing since then seem to me to have shifted a bit more than the rest of the surrender caucus. I don't mean to say that if Derb wrote his infamous piece today things would have been different, I don't really know Lowy at all. But I think he'd have paused a bit longer to consider market forces at the very least.

This is why I even bothered to read this piece. But I see something there that maybe he doesn't. What I see is 'managed decline'.

I know what managed decline looks like because I've done it. In a shrinking market, good managers will focus on the highest ROI activities, and dispense with all others. This is clearly what is happening to late night comedy. They are trying their level best to maintain a larger share of a falling market, just like the best buggy whip manufacturers of today do. And their numbers relative to Carson reflect that.

I think it may be what Lowry is doing over at NR as well. Preemptive unconditional surrender to the left at all cost just doesn't command the high readership ground it once did. And though he hasn't gotten to the point of commanding Kevin Williamson and Jonah Goldberg to write more like Victor Davis Hanson, that may be around the corner for him. It could be that it's the strength of their writing and personalities that is keeping the whole endeavor afloat, leaving Lowry between a rock and a hard place. But his opinions seem to have shifted so much that I can only blame the influence of market forces.

In the end that will change minds so long as the mind's have an interest in it. Academia has only run off the rails because they didn't have to worry about market forces. The political writing arena has always seen itself as a blend between the world of Academia and the marketplace. One foot in each camp. When a man is going broke believing in something, facts have a way of wiggling into his world view. NR can only ignore the realities of Racial Politics and Feminism to the degree that they put all their weight on the former. given the state of Academia today, I think there are a few people who might be persuaded that it isn't such a terribly thing to be called a racist so long as you know it isn't true.

In truth, Feminism was always the harder sell because many men will believe anything if it will get them laid. But it's looking to me like Hurricane Harvey may have finally killed it, or is about to. I think it will decline as Hollywood does. And Hollywood is falling fast.

Anyway, much work to do. Something to keep in mind though.

- Banning Semi-Autos

This has been up for a few days but I've been busy.

Remember when I said that the regulators are dumber than the engineers, and that they have a choice between overly broad legislation that is easily shot down for being overbroad, or specific regulation that is easily circumvented by being too specific?

A new congressional proposal to ban bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles and parts.

OK. So while that bill wander around DC to it's inevitably death, the next step is for the supersmart 'expert' congressional staffers to get together and craft a new 'more specific' bill that speaks directly to bump stocks. But that bill won't include binary triggers, and it won't include 'draw stocks' or 'slide stocks' (or whatever they call them next when they move the spring from the back to the front or whatever else the engineers do).

Think carefully about the dreaded AWB that went through 'temporarily' at the Federal level and is still in place in California and New Jersey. I bought a perfectly legal AR15 and a perfectly legal AK47 while a resident of NJ. They function in all respects like any other AR15 and AK47, and even looked EXACTLY like an actual 'assault rifle' that could be purchased in other states.

Here is a photo of a well known hate filled, hating, hater using my AK while hunting black people for sport. Just look at the hate filled supremacy in his eyes! You can tell just by looking at him that's he's about to murder innocent undocumented children and puppies.

For those of you in the know, you'll also see that (apart from all the hate) the rifle he's holding features a single stack 10 round magazine, making it impossible to fit an armor piercing super deadly ultra assault, silencing, high capacity clip mag into it. And though you can't see it, it also features a nut welded onto the barrel threads which with it's non-adjustable stock, qualifies it for ownership under the NJ AWB.

My point is the same as always. The people in Government are mostly stupid. They will continue to do stupid things on this topic because what they're doing isn't designed to be smart, it's designed to make other stupid people feel better. But reality cannot be negotiated. And Whatever the creatures in Washington decide to do, the engineers who all live in the real world will easily circumvent the new rules. It's a pain, but survivable. And if we can get meaningful concessions from the left in other areas, (which I concede remains to be seen, or to my knowledge even attempted) they might even be worth it.

The unconditional surrender lobby may want to run ahead and 'just do something', but I trust the NRA to keep them from unfurling the new 'all white' American flag just yet. That's the flag that's all white, not America. Though maybe we should be accusing them of racism for trying? White Stripes and white stars on a white background is racism. All flags matter. Blah, blah, blah.

- More On Harvey Weinstein & Hollywood

You all call him a cuck, but to my pro-jew Alt-perspective he looks like (mostly) an ally. He's a traditionalist, like all orthodox jews. He believes in a more traditional role for women, and as such he's as harsh a critic of Feminism as any hood wearing klansman, even if he doesn't want to call it out by name. He's just a kid. I think he'll come around.

In this case (I don't follow him closely so I don't know his whole agenda) I think he's absolutely right. And since it's a religious issue for him I believe he's completely sincere in this critique. He mentions the transactional nature of sex under a Feminist sun. Well one thing he doesn't mention is that in Hollywood the reason successful women haven't spoken up is that the in the same way men use their power in a sexual transaction, women use their beauty. That beauty is their big bargaining chip and they don't want to give it up by denying themselves the chance to use it for advancement.

Emily Ratajkowski may think she has talent, but she 'knows' she has beauty. And she doesn't want to give up that advantage and be losing major roles to Mayim Bialik on talent alone. For women, good looks is a currency, and the trading floor is Hollywood. In exactly the same way that New York runs on sharp minds, Hollywood runs on good looks. And if sex stops being a transaction then being the 'fairest in the land' has lost some of it's value.

Maybe it's unfair for me to call out young Emily by name, I don't know if she sleeps around for roles. Maybe she's so striking that at her level it isn't required, and it's only the B list strivers who are forced to make sexual accommodations for Producers. I'm using her as an example only to make a broader point about women who are long on looks but maybe not quite so totally long on talent. But even if it doesn't apply to her personally, we can all be sure it does apply to many others just like her.

With that said, I think in this case we should be listening to Ben Shapiro on the Harvey Weinstein imbroglio.

Monday, October 16, 2017

- Threats Forcing Dana Loesch To Move

Funny, I don't think that word 'man' means what she thinks it means:

Loesch joined in on the trend, revealing how gun control advocate 'threatened to rape me to death'. Another man tracked her cellphone down and called her - telling her he planned to shoot her in her front yard, Loesch said. After the continued threats to her and her family's safety, Loesch says they decided to move.

I know that when it gets to a certain level, you have to start taking threats seriously. But I'm 100% certain that the person who was threatening to 'rape her to death' was some angry bitchy queen who couldn't get hard enough to rape Dana unless he was closing his eyes picturing David Hasselhoff. More than likely it was someone who wants to be referred to as Xe. The world has certainly become a dangerous place when people with such an obvious mental illness AREN'T marginalized.

Tweeting pictures of her house is pretty disturbing. And if you have kids, then you really do need to be more careful. So I guess she's doing the right thing. But If you're stupid enough to openly call her cell phone while the police are present in her home, then you probably aren't smart enough to mask your identity either. so hopefully the cops will take it as seriously as she is, and will track down this charming member of the party of tolerance, and throw them in the klink.

- Because He's So Ugly

The central tenet of third wave Feminism is that women are not only allowed but encouraged to engage in sexual acts whenever, however, and with whomever they wish, at absolutely any time, place, or venue. Though it usually goes unsaid, under Feminism men are discouraged from exercising any option or choice in the sexual marketplace, and all those choices should be the exclusive domain of women. Women are supposed to be the actors, while men are the objects acted upon.

Clearly no one asked men about this. And the poor fit of this philosophy to our natural instincts is best seen when examining the behavior of men. Some men 'act' whether women want them to or not. They reject advances from unattractive women, embrace them with attractive women, but offer no commitment to either since it is no longer required for sexual access. But men's actions go further than that.

The SNL joke that finally made the airwaves was that Harvey Weinstein "looks like a ball of used chewing gum rolled in cat hair". But women don't care about physical appearance as much as men. Harvey was, as the Z man accurately described it, "one of the gatekeepers" to a life of Fame and wealth that can come from success in the entertainment industry. He had a great deal of power, and power is an intense attractor for women.

It would always be better for the man to be good looking as well. If Harvey Weinstein was as physically attractive as someone like Elvis or Frank Sinatra was at their peak, he wouldn't have any issue right now. John F. Kennedy could have masturbated into every potted plant in NYC and he would have never been accused of any sexual impropriety because no woman ever would have complained. On the contrary, many third wave Feminists of a certain age would have probably rummaged through the topsoil to collect the potential for a Kennedy-esque offspring. Had third wave Feminism been the standard of the day in 1960, he could have slept his way from one coast to the other with impunity (some say he did anyway) and not a single objection would ever be offered.

By my personal standard as an antiquated 'sexist' where women and men are considered very different, it's no hypocrisy to see Harvey Weinstein's behavior as abhorrent, and I do. I think he's a monster and have no reason to defend him in any way. But my view is considered stupidly out of date by Feminists, and a product of 'hate' in 21st century America. I'm constantly accused by Feminists of 'trying oppress women' by denying them the choice to have sex with powerful men for their career's sake. But that is the traditionalist view, and by the standards of a heterosexual man, Harvey's behavior sets him out as the kind of creature that should be locked away in a small room, or publicly burned at the stake as a disincentive to others. If it were my daughter he treated that way it's exactly what would happen to him, and the law be damned.

But his behavior can only be seen as truly negative if you embrace some of the traditional differences between the sexes. If you're a third wave Feminist, you have no choice but to defend him because all women are entitled to the 'choice' to watch him shower. Even his worst acts must be defended because some women in some circumstances enjoy the feeling of being 'forced' to perform sex acts because it takes away the responsibility of choice. How do we know that the women accusing Harvey weren't women who felt titillation at that idea? 30 Rock featured a joke about Harvey's behavior where a character admitted to turning Harvey down only 3 of the 5 times he approached her. Of those last 2, who's to say it isn't what she really wanted all things considered?

In other words, under third wave Feminism what Harvey did is only wrong because he's so horribly ugly. By the standards of a society where women make all the choices about who has sex with who, that's his only real sin. To a man judging by the standards of men, that's no excuse for his behavior. But if he looked and sounded like JFK, no Feminist would be batting an eye at the things he's done.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

- A Bitter Battle

I'm helping my daughter edit her college application essays and I have come under the brutal assault of a young girl in a time of stress. She maintains that I should not ever use two spaces after a sentence and revert to using only one. I explained that since I'm a dusty old curmudgeon and learned to type on a standard typewriter, I am only doing as I was long ago instructed. She explained that the single space is an inviolate rule of civilization, and my wanton use of excess spaces is an affront before god and man.

A few smashed plates and thrown lamps later, we are currently camped out among the wreckage, defenses on high on opposite sides of the room, wondering who will be the first one to make the break around the table in order to reach the sharper kitchen implements for the next round of this bitter battle.

I'm kidding of course. We both laughed at the difference. But I wondering what the consensus is, or if this is just an indicator of being 'of a certain age'. Any thoughts gents?

(If you look at the base HTML I think you'll see that this was all written with 2 spaces after every period, so I'm not just a sinner, I'm an unrepentant one.)

- Chlamydia Is Racism

This week's Radio Derb is up. It's mostly somber Immigration talk as you would expect from our hero who isn't particularly interested in pop culture, but I did learn something in the 'closing miscellany', and my new fact is featured in the title.

As always, It's worth the time.

Friday, October 13, 2017

- Industry Culture: Part 2

A couple of posts ago I mentioned the industry culture that my co-author Ikaika and I both come from. It's the land of the 'upstairs trading floor'; the location in the big banks where blisteringly smart, highly aggressive people were housed together, usually in one behemoth room, to make the decisions that affect the day to day changes in the American financial markets. In light of the rapidly unraveling Harvey Weinstein coverup, I'd like to expand on that a little.

I started my career on the 4th floor of JPMorgan's then headquarters at 60 Wall Street. And it was an interesting mix of cultures. First was the white shoe management that was so conservative that we were all expected to utterly ignore any outliers that weren't a question of profit. The openly Transsexual member of one of the trading groups was one such phenomenon, and we all ignored it utterly. She was good at her job, pleasant to deal with, responsible, productive and smart. Nothing to see here.

We also utterly ignored any racial or national origin differences. White, Black, English, American, Chinese, Indian, Canadian, Irish, Italian, Spanish, African, Russian, German. Because we were exclusively worried about merit and shopped the top 1% of the entire world for talent, I can't think of a single group that was excluded. I don't recall meeting an australian aboriginal or a pygmy, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that they were represented as well.

The largest group was white men, but we also shopped through the various American sub-sectors and classes. Formerly southern white trash worked and chatted with Brooklynites, California surfer boys labored with the sons of farmers and the daughters of Senators. Boys from Queens worked alongside the sons of African princes, and members of the British Peerage. It was all about the money, the money, and only the money.

As I mentioned in my last post, Sex differences were impossible to completely ignore. Some parts of human instinct simply can't be denied. But for the most part they were handled with courtesy, discretion, and good manners.

I'm told it was different at other firms, but one common description of the JPMorgan inter-office politics was as "brutal homicide, done politely". There is a parallel to be made in the way the British Army would line up and blast away at each other as a part of 'warfare' of past centuries. Of course we were all there to kill each other, but we were expected to do it 'properly'.

But there was another fault line which occurred across the slightly deeper dimension of religion and Jews. And it was complicated by the fact that we ignored it, but they typically didn't.

This is a subtle thing so I'm not sure I'll get a proper description here. But think for a minute about the Hindu Indian I worked with who relocated to New York from some Indian city whose name has been lost to my receding memory. He knew he was in a foreign place, with foreign rules, and foreign customs. We treated him the same as any other member of our team, and he did his best to fill that cultural role. There were gaps sometimes, but they were small and irrelevant.

We did the same with everyone else too according to religious dimension. Our religion and our only religion was profit and advancement. That was it. It's all we cared about. But for some (not all) jews in that environment, it definitely wasn't so. The team run by an orthodox jew would over time find itself overweight in talent from orthodox jewry. Not exclusively, that would be far too obvious. But in recruiting talent it was used to break all ties between candidates. Given an equal choice, jews tended to give a weight to 'being jewish' that the rest of us did not.

Let me be perfectly clear here. To my knowledge, no one EVER discriminated against a jew for being jewish in the New York banking world. To even suggest so is appropriately laughable. There were Jews at every single level of the organization during my tenure at JP, and in every single department from the C-level to the kitchens. To my knowledge they all deserved to be where they were in the organization based on objective standards.

They were all as good at their jobs as anyone else. No incompetent of any kind ever slipped through the cracks and was totally unrelated to religious tradition. And all were treated equally based on talent, credibility, and knowledge. The only thing they ever got was a tiny advantage from their co-tribesmen, and it was a very tiny thing. It was like that rivalry between Harvard and Cornell that no one at Harvard has ever heard of but is a chip on the shoulder of everyone from Cornell.

So what's my point?

It's one thing to treat everyone the same, but it's quite another for people to see themselves as the same. American Jews are very much like American gentiles in tradition, culture, and thought. To many (I would argue most) Americans, there is no noticeable differences between the two groups. Blacks think Jews are 'White', Chinese think Jews are 'Western', and Latins think Jews are 'Anglo'. Most gentile Americans think they're 'smart', and that's the only exceptional thing about them. In the New Jersey suburbs Chinese, Latin and Gentile moms all quietly hope their daughter will find a 'nice jewish boy' when she goes off to college.

But even though they are treated virtually the same in America as anyone else, many Jews, particularly jewish liberals, don't think they are the same. for them the US and THEM fault line is a deeper thing. And the paranoic hunt for Nazi's under every American bed is a reflection of that. That's Jewish Liberals projecting their own view of the religious division onto their gentile counterparts. Jews have never been persecuted here in America, they have no history of exclusion, and no history of broad based discrimination. But they don't see it that way. In their minds it's always just around the next corner.

And since Harvey Weinstein is such a reprehensible example of American Jewry, I find it difficult to believe that the urge to protect him didn't include an element of that self-perceived difference. "If what Harvey is doing gets out there will be a backlash against all Jews", is an easy thing for me to imagine in those backroom conversations. And depending on how much that attitude seems to have scaled in the coverup, I think it may turn out to be a self fulfilling prophecy.

If we think you're part of US but you think you're part of THEM, and are prepared to behave as if we think so too, there might be a bridge too far in the whole dichotomy. By all accounts in the media, Weinstein was a horrible man, a real monster. A man totally without honor. And as the coverup falls apart around him, to the degree it looks from the outside like this was 'Jews protecting a fellow Jew', it might turn out that American Jewry may have finally convinced the rest of us, that they are part of 'them' and not 'us.

- The State Of American Man

If you find yourself wondering why America has apparently lost it's collective mind, THIS PIECE is the very best explanation I've ever read.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

- Defining The Fractures

This piece is so good that I'm 'over-posting' my own piece. The American spectator breaking down where our cultural divisions lie. They are listed here (and translated by me):

Identity politics: The merit-less.

Progressive class-based redistributionism:The Lazy Communists

Libertarian anti-statism:The Anarchists

Reform conservatism:The Unconditional Surrender-ists

Trumpist populism:The 'where's mine' - ists

Each of these groups should really be known first and foremost by what they are not.

The Identity politics folks are those people (Jared Taylor excluded) who know that they can't 'win' in any naturally competitive field, so they want to do away with the idea of competition on every front. Not just in business but all aspects of society. These are the ulgy women the stupid men, the lazy asians and the immoral gays and trans people.

The Redistribution-ists are the people which most closely intersect that group but are also ignorant of history, think Communism is 'super' (yes, that's redundant) and restrict their issues to that of economics.

The Libertarians run the spectrum of intellect from the thoughtful to Antifa. On some levels I could be a part of this group as I'd like to see the state weakened, but not so much that we have no state. I want this mostly so the smart and strong like me can roll over the weak and stupid with a minimum of friction. I think there is a case to be made that if done with a strong moral grounding, this is what's best for everyone, but no one wants to hear that these days.

The 'Reform Conservatives' are the men too weak to fight or too cowardly to avoid being bullied by their wives. Their role in this is to die on the high road that runs over every hill that someone decides to oppose them on.

The Trumpists are those who believe the state is too strong to be opposed, but want to at least turn the spigot of benefits toward them.

It's a great and clear eyed piece that speaks to all of these much more fairly than I do.

- Industry Culture

IkaIka and I both have come up in an insular and utterly male dominated (though not exclusively male populated) industry culture of the 'upstairs' trading floor. We weren't on the exchanges, we were 'upstairs' making decisions, and phoning instructions down to the guys at the exchanges.

And it wasn't at all like you see it depicted in Hollywood. It wasn't coke and hookers and dwarf tossing. That was always a fantasy that only the worst third rate actors ever came close to, and even then only at their most utterly outlandish moments. But it wasn't a bunch of boy scouts and altar boys either.

At one point many moons ago I was invited out for drinks and dinner by an interbroker-dealer, one of the middle men organizations from back in the day who helped to mask customer identities while trading large blocks of stock. These guys didn't provide a ton of value, but they got paid really well and the result was that they made their money on their expense accounts.

So the salesmen for these groups would lavishly entertain. There were about 7 of us along that night, all friends from 2 different firms, and since it hadn't yet been totally forbidden (which it eventually was at all top tier firms) our host dropped about 2K on lap dances that night for his guest.

That was about the wildest night I saw in my 20 plus year career 'on the street'. Most of the time it was considerably tamer than that, and in the office itself it was extremely tame, though not an environment that a social justice warrior would call 'inclusive'. These were all risk takers after all, and coping with the sometimes extreme pressures of the job bred a little coarseness in language and behavior relative to the broader world.

There were people of all races but few of them. And we all ignored it as an issue. There was an extremely high IQ and strong academic credentials required for most jobs and that thinned the sample available for selection. There were women as well, though a woman in a senior role was rare, and the ones who achieved it were terrifying, and totally off limits.

With the women in the less senior roles, there was a fair amount of more or less polite flirtation. At one point I had a little thing with the Admin for one of the Managing Directors - a lovely little Italian Girl from Jersey City who compensated for her diminutive size by continually wearing the most amazing high heels. At another point I had a very brief fling with a pretty Japanese Sales Trader from the 'swaps' desk who had just relocated to New York from California.

Since we were all working more than 80 hours a week, meeting people from the outside was a problem so what did you expect? You take a bunch of extremely smart, extremely hard working young people and lock them in a room together for most of their waking hours, there is bound to be a little inter-office 'relating'. It's how it goes. And so long as it didn't interfere with anyone's work it was considered nobody's business, and no official business of the firm.

But there were other aspects to it as well. There were occasionally employees from other departments - credit, IT, operations, compliance, who all worked in other parts of the building and came down to the trading floors for meetings or other work. Some of those girls made their intentions obvious. They weren't there for a career. They were there to get themselves a rich husband. The phrase was 'dressed for success', and some of those girls really sold it. They would deck themselves in slinky dresses showing lots of cleavage, or high split skirts. Some of them looked more like runway models than operations staff (at my firm the credit department was notorious).

These girls were occasionally the target of some rude humor, but most just rolled with it. It was a part of the deal after all, and if they wanted to show off their 'assets' (and they did) they had to expect a few unwelcome bids. It was all just a part of the broader culture of risk. It was almost never personal. And it was totally unlike 'wolf of Wall Street' which was the kind of thing that notoriously uninformed Hollywood types imagined it would be if THEY ran powerful Wall Street firms.

There were other odd cultural things to that made it seem more like a row of frat house than the top tier of Wall Street. There were bets to see if a junior guy could eat a pound of butter in 15 minutes or 10 Big Macs in an hour. Ika and I were at different firms in two totally different parts of town, yet we both know at least a half dozen people who could recite every single line in the Godfather, or Caddyshack. And everyone knew the big quotes. "Oh Paulie... won't see him no more." or "be the ball" and "cinderella story" were all commonly said. Bravado went with the territory.

The girls would usually just roll their eyes.

And today if course, it's all gone. Not only is the culture gone but the people who made it up have all been replaced by computers and algorithms. Today the 'upstairs floors' are all but a memory, and even the exchange floors themselves are mostly Museums and entertainment venues. It's a different world totally. The muscular risk takers of the trading world who flew by the seat of their pants and made use of their intuition, are a thing of the past because there are better ways to do it now. And if the goal is profitability (and on Wall Street it very much was) the new way is much more efficient and 'better' economically for everyone.

Hollywood is probably ready for a similar transformation. No, it isn't different because it's 'art', that's nonsense. Australians wearing capes or armor is art? Don't kid yourself. It's a business. And purging the Harvey Weinstein types who exploit and abuse their power is probably a good place to start reforming it. Loath as I am to look kindly on government getting involved in any industry, I think it might be time for them to at least have a look at what's going on out in the land of fruits and nuts. Clearly it's a wilder more baldy misbehaving bunch than Wall Street ever was.

I don't know the industry culture in Hollywood, but I think it might be the right time to shed a little light on it and see for ourselves. It's not going to be all Harvey Weinstein's, and like the 'dressed for success' girls, some of the exploitation will be willful and willing. But if they're going to be the self appointed moral arbiters of our nation, then I think it's fair to ask them exactly how moral they really are.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

- Solzhenitsyn On BLM/Antifa

The author of the Gulag Archipelago knows a thing or two about where marxism (cultural or otherwise) eventually leads:

Let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose falsehood as his principle.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Seems right on the money to me. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his willingness to use violence against his opposition.

- We're Not Quite Dead Yet

I'm a little reluctant to pick on the Z man again, but his piece today intersects particularly well with the stuff Jordan Peterson talks about, so it's too close a topic for me to ignore. Z makes the incomplete case that since we are the first people to no longer believe in an afterlife, we are (and maybe ought to be) a people without a future. This is a logically and philosophically consistent take, and obviously very defensible. I just don't take as dark a view of it.

On this score, Peterson's talks about the bible as Archetypal Mythology is very useful. And his reliance on Friedrich Nietzsche is essential. When Nietzsche said that we have killed god it wasn't a celebration. It was a recognition of the fact that we have removed the philosophical underpinning of the west, and the result for us would be mayhem and blood. Our contemporary leftist morality and the vast appeal of the concept of Atheism is a product of that mayhem. We don't believe nothing, we believe anything. Much of it being nonsense that is identifiable as such from orbit.

I've written about how unpersuasive I find the idea of Atheism before so I won't rehash it, and the Z man does an excellent job of undermining leftist 'morality' so I'd suggest you read the piece linked above rather than offering a restatement here. But Peterson has another spin on the concept of 'belief' which the Z man leaves off.

My core assessment of belief (and one that I held and wrote about long before I heard of Peterson, but that he offers a credible scientific and neurological defense for) is that if you want to understand what people truly believe, then you can't look at what they say, you have to look at what they do. And by this standard leftist political moralizing isn't an honest take on their view, but cover for excusing their own amoralism.

The proselytizing Vegan who carries her burlap sack to the supermarket will do so wearing leather boots. The devout and preening anti-racist will live in the nearly all white suburb instead of the black ghetto, and the devoted Feminist will stand at the door waiting for it to be opened on her behalf, or expect 50% of her husband's lifelong income when she kicks him to the curb without any clear cause. It's not a 'real' morality, it's a morality of the poseur. It's a 'one way' argument centered in immediate self interest and ego. And as Zman says (correctly in my opinion), it's all about the "Me" and the "Now".

Peterson's argument on the other hand speaks more directly to the evolutionary nature of what an 'afterlife' means for us rather than the imagery itself. In his view the 'afterlife' is an allegory which was used to explain to pre-scientific thinkers the nature of the multiple layers of human existence. "The most moral" path, to paraphrase him, "is one where it considers what will produce the best outcome for the self, but also for the family, the clan, the tribe, and for the society s a whole, all measured not just in the now but also in the future." This, he says, is a reflection of (and extension of) the instinct most visible in the parent's willingness to sacrifice themselves for their children.

In that view, Peterson's take isn't an endorsement of an afterlife per se. That's become too literal for our scientifically informed minds. But the concept of an afterlife wasn't created by scientists, and it would be a bit of revisionist history to try and treat it if it was. It isn't a scientific explanation, but an artistic one. One which had real impact because it served the broader genetic truth so well.

In its originally intended form, it's an artistic description of the concept for the instinct to sacrifice the self at times, because genetics would be best served buy it. It's the natural and deeply darwinian explanation for the admiration of the heroic, and the self sacrificing hero who engages in it. We 'admire' those people, cross culturally. And that admiration is the product of an darwinian instinct which has been honed over the millennia of our evolution. Those societies that cumulatively gave it its proper weight survived, and those that didn't, died off.

From that view, niether Liberalism or Atheism are truly moral beliefs at all. Which isn't to say that they are immoral, but that they don't actually speak to morality in any way. All they do is provide cover for the idealization of the intellect, and the ego's tendency to rationalize away all objections to an otherwise infantile abrogation of responsibility. They are a picture of nihilism, drawn not in stark black and white, but in brightly colored crayon. Visually appealing on the surface to the childish, but otherwise totally meaningless.

Peterson says it better than I could, but he takes 25 hours to do it. Obviously I'm going to lose a little here trying to condense it down to a few paragraphs. But his is an outlook which I think speaks directly to a new way to describe a return to 'faith' and hope for the future, that jives with our scientific thinking. Faith is a component of society, and since society is made of people, individual people are the place to look for it's return. His popularity certainly seems to indicate that he's on to something.

And there are other ways. Other allegories that can be adopted which the leftists aren't quite so dedicated to destroying. Chinese culture for instance places a great emphasis on the family, as does Indian society. For the elder of a family to ignore his responsibilities to the younger members of his extended family is considered deeply immoral in these cultures. It's a 'responsibility'. And one which must be taken very seriously. But it's a description which doesn't crash face first into the intellectual nihilism of liberalism, so it might be another way forward.

From that perspective maybe the rise of Liberalism and Atheism aren't really an abandonment of our future that the Zman fears it is. Maybe it's just a few lost generations of irresponsible people. Maybe they die off, as themes like the Feminist 'Leftover Women of New York' seem to be indicating they will. While the rest of us find a new allegory to represent the importance of multi-layered morality embedded in a Darwinian truth. There are options out there, and they've arrived on the scene just as Liberalism's philosophical contradictions have become self evident.

We arrive at the cul de sac at the end of Liberalism's one way street and just as we do, another path through the woods emerges to our vision. We just need this path to disseminate a bit more, and show us all where we're going to have to go.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

- The Sexual Politics Is Personal

Thanks to our Feminist moral betters, there is a fine line between normal behavior between the sexes and out right sexual assault or rape. Well OK, maybe the rape line isn't really all that fine. But the thing about milder forms of sexual assault is that the line has been made as blurry as possible on purpose. "Unwanted Sexual advances" is the 'appropriate' catch all phrase now.

The key to the whole thing there is 'wanted'. I've never been accused of an unwanted sexual advance for 2 main reasons.

1. I'm picky, and avoid crazy like the plague these days.
2. I'm generally 'wanted'.

If you're good looking and charming enough, and how high that bar is can change from woman to woman, then you're never going to be charged with unwanted sexual advancement. If you're good looking, rich, powerful, and famous, you can sexually approach anyone you want without fear.

Ryan Gosling could lift his kilt and drop his package down in the middle of a dinner table at the Russian Tea Room, and the editorial staff at Huffington post would all somehow find it endearing. But George Costanza could be charged with a crime just for meekly saying 'good morning'. If that seems unfair, what can I say. That's what we get when we are living in a world that's run by women.

So the Harvey Weinstein thing has really got me on the fence. Yes his politics are abominable, and he seems like an despicable little troll. And if it were my daughter he was behaving this way toward, they'd be finding pieces of him in every open sewer grate in the city, I don't care who he is. But I stop somewhere short of demanding a horse's head in his bed today, because I don't have any confidence in the women who are reporting his mis-deeds.

That lack of confidence too is the consequence of making a man live in a world that's run by women.

One thing is for sure, I'm not going off on the guy. He was rich and uber powerful, and there is no doubt that for every woman complaining about him now, there are probably dozens who were more than happy to have him sodomize them up to his elbow for the sake of their careers. They probably fought over the right. His was a clear pattern of behavior which was tacitly approved of by his broader community through their silence. As far as I'm concerned They don't get to start bitching about it now.

And if a few women were emotionally unable to cope with the rules of the world they made the clear choice to live in, then so be it. Ashley Judd? Rose McGowan? Not exactly deep thinkers we're talking about here. And I simply don't believe they were so traumatized by the experience that it shaped their entire outlook.

The press has handled this all horribly of course. They will be happy to suck off a guy like Weinstein, and they too probably lined up for the privilege. Their problem is the same problem that they've always had. They've set themselves up as our moral betters, but are in fact really just loathsome creatures who deserve nothing but shame and misery. so if Ashley and Rose want to go off on someone, by rights it ought to be them.

But it won't happen because everything today is politics. "The personal is political", or so the recipients of the might Weinstein dollars all say. And I don't have any sympathy available for politics. Maybe the gals should have thought about that while Harvey was washing up, and they were wondering if they'd really get that leading role he promised them.

- An Alt-Defense Of Sargon Of Akkad

The other day the Z man penned an excellent piece about the conversation between Sargon of Akkad and Jared Taylor. I took small exception to the tone of the piece in the comment section, and Z responded courteously, conceding my perspective if not my finer points. Intramural baseball. No sweat. I don’t think there is any real division here.

But I wanted to expand a little on the position I took.

I’ve been arguing strenuously (if not successfully) for incrementalism as a tactic for the Alt movement, and trying to make the case that if we want to change things and make the Alt movement more influential, then we need to recruit ‘smart’ people. As it stands, I think they can be found more easily on the establishment right than off in the passionate fringes where Richard Spencer does his thing.

Jared, being one of the most civil and respectful men alive in the face of an unending stream of mischaracterization and open abuse, is the ‘perfect’ candidate for this role. And having him debate people who the left already sees as ‘outside the pale’ like a Charles Murray, Ben Shapiro, or Dennis Prager, is precisely what we should all be striving to see happen. And from that perspective, a civil discussion between Sargon and Jared Taylor is precisely the thing we should all try to encourage.

It very much was a civil discussion. At no time that I could see did Sargon attempt to misrepresent Jared’s position, or use Ad Hominem to attack him. It was a discussion about ideas, where Jared was for the most part given every opportunity to offer a reasoned defense of his. There were a few circumstances where the two men talked past each other just a little, but I think it can be attributed to Sargon’s view as a UK citizen, and Jared’s view as an American.

I think Jared made the more persuasive case, and handled Sargon’s points well. Watch the video yourself and be the judge.

But there were really a few things that might have been better.

One I’d like to have seen is Jared extracting a concession from Sargon that if identity politics is the game we’re all going to be forced to play by making our debate a cultural one instead of a political one (about policy) then whites are as entitled to be an interest group as anyone else. Secondly I’d have liked to see Sargon have to defend the principle behind denying non-coercive ‘freedom of association’ to all non-monopoly actors.

These I think, some quibbles about Feminism aside, are the real weaknesses of the establishment right position. Freedom of association was written into the constitution after all, and establishment Republicans should have to defend why they feel that specific right is OK to ignore while freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear need to be defended so vigorously. Winning even partial concessions on that specific point, turns a writer for the Federalist or National Review into an Alt-Right supporter in principle if not name.

The other issue about the culture war is a little more tricky when Jared speaks to someone like Sargon, but not for obvious reasons. It’s the media after all that has turned that playground on it’s head, and Sargon is a part of the group that is trying to directly wrench control of the culture from that media. He therefore has a legitimate and intellectually defensible argument against identity politics as a whole.

With that said however, I think it’s actually the easier point to make. If ‘this’ then ‘that’, doesn’t seem like such a great stretch, and the fact that Sargon has a defense for ‘no this’, doesn’t really apply. (It’s also a base that someone speaking from a position like Charles Murray very expressly doesn’t get to steal.)

From a broader alt-perspective, I think the case for identity interest groups is better made for men vs. women since the laws against men are so obviously biased in their framing. They are expressly designed to 'punish' men as opposed to the laws that harm whites as a group, and are all framed as helping non-whites. The family court system is an obvious abomination of justice, and only hard left liberal Feminists even try to defend it.

But it’s a question of picking your radioactive poison. Either you’re a breathlessly stated, rrrrracist (gasp), or you hate ‘wwwwwomen’ (double gasp). And few establishment right folks have the courage to stand up to vilification on either front.

That’s why these debates are so important, and I think they can be so productive. Charles Murray is already a misogynist white supremacist hater to the social justice crowd, so he faces no broad based public condemnation over appearing on stage with Jared Taylor.

And with all that said, Sargon is not an enemy of the alt-right whatever he says. He describes himself as an individualist, and his only big beef is failing to recognize the role of clan, and tribe. He says nothing about how individualism doesn’t seem to have caught on in any culture other than those run by white people, and that’s a question I think that comes from maturity. He’s a young man. He’s also a smart man, and a thoughtful one. I think if it really is a telling issue, he’ll come around on it eventually.

But this is how ideas are tested. You ask smart men to think about them, and either counter their objections or have your own countered. It’s how we all think as a culture. It’s useful on every level. And as the science supporting the evolutionary and genetic links between behavior and more broadly ‘culture’ are identified, Sargon is precisely the kind of thinker who will find them persuasive.

He’s not an ideologue in that sense. He’s not unilaterally defending the principle of the blank slate. He’s under informed not misinformed. And as the knowledge goes from commonly held to ‘common knowledge’, he’s the first kind of thinker who will be persuaded. The same is true in my opinion, of many in the establishment right, especially those who are already considered irredeemable monsters by the Social Justice Left.

Anyway, that’s my bit. I think Sargon’s exceptions were made in good faith, and the factual information becomes more commonly held his mind will change. In that respect I think we should be a bit more accommodating, as I think Sargon was with Jared. And I think discussions like the one he had with Jared should be accepted gratefully without approbation regarding points won and lost. Since it's those conversation that will swell the ranks of the alt-movement.

- OMG A Finance Post!

Don't be afraid, I'll keep it short.

I get a variation of the subject of this post as questions on Quora a lot. It's more or less a question about why Machine Learning and Finance don't seem to jive very well or why, if Machine Learning is so great, it hasn't already dominated quant finance.

The short answer is that Risk managers don't like 'unknowns' around risk, and all ML involves such 'unknowns'. They strongly tend to prefer specificity in determined causality, and ML can't provide that. But getting past that, there are other issues, some structural and some mathematical.

Marcos Lopez De Prado isn't just a friend and former coworker of mine, he's also one of the very smartest men alive. I say this without fear of contradiction. He stands on the absolute cutting edge of the synthesis between technology and Finance, and is as well informed on the space and it's issues as anyone alive. The industry, and in some sense the modern world, is better off for his being interested in Quantitative Finance instead of some other less practical discipline. But had he made different choices those other disciplines might not have been as impractical for very long.

I may quibble around the edges of some of the conclusions he draws in the presentation linked below. I don't think he places enough emphasis on market maturity and it's effect with regard to increased market efficiency, and the way it lowers cumulative average returns with respect to decision making timelines. (In other words I think he may be pointing to reason 2 through 8 rather than 1 to 7.) But I dispute absolutely NONE of the evidence he offers. I know better. Here then is Marcos' ideas on the 7 most common reasons that Machine Learning Hedge Funds Fail.

Monday, October 9, 2017

- Ebola Justice

And another thing about Social Justice...

The basic premise of Social Justice is that a narrative can be interpreted in any number of ways, and therefore any interpretation is as valid as the next one. Their take on the various hierarchies of competence in the western world is that all of life is 'really' a power struggle between opposing groups.

That, quite literally, is what the Social Justice Warriors believe... that all of Western Civilization is nothing more than a power dynamic with the powerful exploiting and oppressing, the weak. To them ALL (not 99%... 100%) of all human interaction is will to power based on group dynamics, and there is nothing worse than being an oppressor.

Even a cursory glance at anything anchored reality will demonstrate that people do things for all sorts of reasons, not just a will to power, and not just as a function of group motivations. It's a worldview of breathtaking over-simplicity, that only an utter imbecile or someone in thrall to a cult, would ever believe. This is why Antifa is made up of drug addled losers, transvestites, and women so ugly that they think they have nothing to lose. Because a degree of mental illness is sort of a requirement for the worldview.

The only other real requirement is the desire to destroy. Destroy what? Everything. After all, under the present system everything according to them is either a product of the oppressor, a tool of the oppressor or both. So tear it all down, right down to the spoken word. Right down to written language. It's all gotta go.

What will it be replaced with? Why equality of course. Gloriously equal, equality. Where no one is more equal than anyone else, except for the social justice warriors who will then be in charge of everything. They'll be in charge of making the sure the water treatment plants aren't too oppressive. (after all.. clean water is patriarchy) That the person who flunked out of Dental School isn't oppressed out of their dream of pulling teeth. That when someone commits a crime it's the cop who's thrown in prison and the criminal gets an award for exposing his racism. That your airline pilot isn't kept from trying to fly the plane just because they don't know how, and racism.

Social Justice in your workplace may seem like a goofy and innocuous bit of political correctness that's just focused on affirmative actioning some losers up to the middle and keeping people from being mean to each other, but that's not what it is. It can't be. It's based at it's core on utter nonsense, so it will eventually devolve into something malignant. It has no other options. When you go all the way to the bottom, it never touches the real world.

Milo once got in trouble for saying that Feminism is cancer. Well social justice isn't cancer, Social Justice is Ebola. Ebola Justice. It's fast spreading, completely toxic, leaves nothing but oozing wreckage in it's wake, and is far, far too often fatal. And what's worst about it is that there are many different strains.

John Derbyshire got fired from NR because in the end, Rich Lowry was afraid of the Social Justice Warriors. Countless academics have been removed from their positions or forced to resign because of Social Justice. Take a look at whoever it was to apologize last on Twitter, and who has had their career ruined, and more often than not it wasn't Ebola Justice Strain A that killed them, it was the Fear of it - Ebola Justice Strain B that did it. Rich Lowry isn't an SJW, but he lives in fear of them. And that fear makes him their tool. He's as much a part of the disease as the Antifa Trans... person... they caught passing out icepicks to like minded protesters at the University of Utah.

I used to say that Social Justice is an oxymoron. Not anymore. Because every day it looks more and more like the disease the west is going to die from. All because we don't have the cultural immune system to resist it. What's a 'cultural immune system'? The courage to tell them to fuck off. The courage to stand there and let them call you a racist misogynist transphobic hater. The courage to take it and remember that we are not who they say we are but who we say we are. And to remember that it's our actions that define each and every one of us, not some angry psycho's deluded fantasies about our motivations.

I remember a story a way back about the farms in Rhodesia being taken from the White Farmers and given to Mugabe's henchmen. The foreign press went to the new farms owners and said "OK, you have a farm now. What will you grow? They said "Well we can't grow anything because we need modern farm equipment."

So Mugabe went and stole a bunch of Tractors and Threshers and gave them to them. And the press went to the Farmers and said "OK, you have farms, and modern equipment, what will you grow?" And they said "Well the equipment doesn't work, we need someone to come and fix them, and then show us how to use them properly. And we need someone to give us seeds, and someone to show us when to plant them, and how to harvest, and we need someone to drive the tractors and raise the crops."

I imagine Mugabe then went and tried to kidnap a bunch of Tractor mechanics from somewhere and press them into service, but by then all the white Rhodesians had fled to South Africa, so the people all went hungry. But they were equally hungry.

That's social justice.

- Social Justice Is White Supremacy

Beyond Parody:

It was the last remark she was able to make before protesters drowned her out with cries of, "ACLU, you protect Hitler, too." They also chanted, "the oppressed are not impressed," "shame, shame, shame, shame," (an ode to the Faith Militant's treatment of Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones, though why anyone would want to be associated with the religious fanatics in that particular conflict is beyond me), "blood on your hands," "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, uh, "liberalism is white supremacy."

I'd say that the American left has finally lost all control of their pets, but of course, that would be racist.

- Reflections on Columbus Day

I can insist on Columbus Day to be embraced by all Americans, however if you remain conflicted as to the significance it would be useless to carry on.
If you want to celebrate the ambiguous anti-holiday of "Indigenous People's Day" by all means do so, but don't ignore the fact that  Étienne Brûlé and travelers before him were chopped up and cold-smoked into bush meat by peaceful Native Americans. Ah the noble savage... That nobility vanished with the onslaught of exceptionally cold winters especially with the mid-atlantic to north eastern tribes.
The Columbus controversy  I recall from my youth was that he was not the first European to step foot on the soil of the New World. The big deal in denigrating Columbus in the days of yore was a tavern style pissing match as to claiming which guy got there first. Leif Erikson and maybe several other bands of Vikings had been to Greenland and areas closer to present day Maine. The other controversy was Saint Brendan may have taken a small leathery craft to America almost 1000 years prior to Columbus. Then we have the story of Prince Madog claiming America for the Welsh in the 11th Century. On the West coast, the Chinese lay claim to discovering America.
I always wondered why Columbus Day was promoted as an Italian American sub-holiday.
When you examine the voyage, it should really be embraced by people of Spanish/Iberian heritage. Had it not been for Spain, Columbus would have been stuck in Genoa. The Spanish throne gave him the green-light, financed the voyage and provided logistical support. Not to be left out were the crews of the three ships: Italian (most likely Genovese, Neopolitan, and Sicilian), Portuguese, and Spaniards constructed and stocked the ships, as well as filled the ranks for the voyage. Their are some Latino nit-wits that insist Columbus was a native Spaniard even though it is irrefutable that he was Genoese. There is also the centuries old story that Columbus was Jewish but converted to Christianity to avoid persecution. Not far-fetched for the era.
In reflection the historian or casual observer should view the art and the literature and hear the music (linked above). Should put you in a right frame of mind... or try this https://youtu.be/nbEme6VmiG4

The self-loathing historians of modern academia claim that Columbus brought with him nothing more than despair, disease, conquest, subjugation, and greed.
Meh... these "facts of life" already existed prior to Columbus' arrival.
The indigenous people created faiths that excused their violence and lack of progress. It was acceptable in many "indigenous" or aboriginal communities to raid the neighboring villages, steal their women, enslave them and perform ritual sacrifice to appease a collection of angry gods that seasonally threatened their existence. The most advanced cultures of the Americas engaged in ritual murder, slavery and supplemented their diets with what European Sailors often referred to as "Long Pig".

These pre-columbian civilizations peaked into monumental greatness but declined and vanished rather quickly. The knuckleheads that claim the indigenous peoples were "better-off" have completely ignored the obvious archaeological record. 

Columbus opened the pathway to colonization and exploration. The initiative of future voyages spurred other explorers to chart the globe and ultimately lead to settlements. The most important cargo required to settle a savage land was spiritual as well as intellectual. If you didn't have faith in your abilities firmly anchored in the belief in the creator, it would be a relatively quick unraveling process once food or water became scarce. The faith component helped maintain the intellectual stamina for the settler to overcome the physical stress and carry on.
Today we have reality TV shows placing experienced survival experts and woodsmen in hostile environments... effectively a program like "Alone" encourages the expert to settle his location and live as a hermit. Usually, after a few days or weeks alone, even with fire-starters, modern tools, high-tech clothing and other camping gear, most of these people go crackers as the ability to survive shifts from physical and intellectual to introspective... ultimately "the loser" realizes that they are an empty vessel devoid of faith and humility. Sorry to cheapen the discussion with reality TV but I feel it is important for people to understand that the success of a 16th century explorer/settler required enormous coglioni , superior intellect, exceptional skill with an edged weapon to extinguish crew confrontations mid-voyage, and unwavering faith in the almighty. These men were not afraid of mortality not like modern Americans and Europeans. They accepted mortality but buttressed their faith in God to overcome adversity.
Surviving a transatlantic voyage without the setback of scurvy or other diseases ... or even mutiny was a remarkable feat. How many European explorers were confronted with mutiny? Surviving the voyage and then reaching a shore of a land populated by a warrior culture of natives must have harrowing. Magellan, perhaps hailed as the greatest of European explorers was murdered by natives in the Philippines (although there is a rumor that his crew fragged him while using the Philippine massacre as cover). 

Lastly, the iconic images of Columbus as with other 16th Century explorers usually show a landing party genuflecting or kneeling as a banner of Christianity is held aloft. This is a moment of "thanks to God" after surviving a perilous journey.

It was hope that Columbus brought to the New World.

- Crazy?

The Audacious Epigone has tapped into a good one here, with a tip of the hat to Heartise. He makes the persuasive claim that lots and lots of sex partners is bad for women's mental health. There is a correlation-causality debate which he treats fairly in a subsequent post. If you aren't reading him you should be.

I won't get into the causality debate. It's well presented by AE. My issue with it is the other base assumption in the proto-study, 'crazy'. What exactly constitutes 'crazy'? Self reported emotional problems? That's become downright fashionable in many circles in the US. What woman doesn't report some emotional problems? To a man, even the women who don't report 'emotional problems' act nuts sometimes. It's a question of measurement it seems to me.

21st century women live in a world where being a long suffering victim is to obtain political power. There are magic pills that make all your bad feelings flow away like a soft and gentle tide. Based on some reports as many as half of all Americans have a prescription for antidepressants. The role of priest has been filled in urban centers by the therapist, who thanks to the utter corruption of the discipline of psychology, do little but reinforce your ego dependence, and bolster your insecurities with talk of 'self-esteem' and nonsense about safe spaces. To self report emotional issues has nothing attached to it that isn't a cultural upside.

There are people out there with real and measurable brain chemistry issues and other serious psychological disorders. But to my eye that's only applies to a tiny subset of the women who are self reporting ' emotional issues'. Most of them are simply torn by what's considered their proper role in the sisterhood of Feminism and the things that are likely to bring them long term joy. The sisterhood says "be a man", "sleep around", "work on your career" (also expressed as sacrificing your reproductive years to your employer), and "a woman needs a man like a spinster needs a pocket dog and a bottle of chardonnay".

But forget about the sisterhood spinsterhood. Women are driven by emotion much more than men, and since emotion (specifically negative emotions) don't lead to successful outcomes as often as rationality and reason, negative outcomes are more common for them. It's as if their whole lives are lived in the passive voice. 'Bad things keep happening to them', and opposed to them making them happen for themselves. They have the same degree of personal agency as any man, but are prevented from seeing it that way by the emotional lens that colors their entire experience. Their glasses have a rose color, or a black color, but never are they clear.

Women are all capable of rationality of course. But it is a high caloric brain event for them as opposed to men. It's not the default position. They have been designed by genetics and evolution to be 'tuned in' to a whole set of emotional wavelengths that are expressly counter productive for men, and as such, have been largely weeded out over time. Their emotional volatility is an order of magnitude higher than ours, and the volume knob is turned higher, so it takes far more effort by them to tune it out.

So are they 'crazy'? If they were men they certainly would be. That's the real problem.

The 'women's world' of days gone by had accommodations for this. Women had husbands, fathers and brothers and eventually sons who would value them in spite of their higher emotional levels, and in some cases because of them. Human life was a partnership between men and women, with women more often taking the senior role in the household while men braved the dangers of the wider world. Female emotions added context and color to life in a domain where they were safely expressed, while men's inability to feel such intensity let them easily drown out the voices of terror and cope with the existential risks.

But these days women want to be men (or at least to have all the rights of men and only a tiny portion of the responsibilities). And 'self reported emotional issues' are the price they pay for it. I don't think women are crazy per se. Compared to men they would be, but that only means that we shouldn't be compelling them to walk the walls and guard the village. They shouldn't have to slay mastodons or hunt buffalo. they should worry primarily about the next generation of strong backs, instead of trying to be those backs themselves.

And I think a bit more reversion to that historical mean would be better for western women, than trying to design a pill to make up the difference.

Sunday, October 8, 2017

- A Fun Gun Piece

I got the link below from a Sunday morning gun rant over at Ace. That CBD seems like my kind of guy, and I don't just say that because he quoted one of my 'freedom of association' rants in an overnight thread a while back. He seems to be literate in many of the same things that I am, and that's an eclectic mix. You meet a guy you have that much in common with, you're going to see things pretty similarly.

Anyway, this gun piece on suppressors is a real classic. As usual it's someone who is as bored with the gun debate as I am, but it does have a few classic lines like this one:

I could write a post in favor of a border wall because it would keep out the Loch Ness Monster and it would be about as realistic as Moon’s post. Because fuck you, Nessie. I’ve got my eye on you.

That's the kind of thing I'll be repeating until it becomes a meme on 4chan. Anyway, read the piece. Good solid, fact filled, pro-gun, anti illiterate-liberal fun.

HT: CBD over at Ace of Spades HQ

- A Profanity Laced Sunday Morning Rant

Richard Spencer managed to elbow his way back into the news again. He had another Tiki torch rally in Charlottesville. This was far less violent than the last one (since there was no Antifa there) but it was still stupid. Bad for the alt-right, bad for white people, and bad for America. That's my view. I won't apologize. I also won't link it. I don't feel like promoting stupidity.

Gavin McInnes also has a new show on youtube, which I spent the morning checking out. It seems a lot like the last show, which if you find Gavin entertaining like I do, is probably worth your time while you struggle your way through cooking up the Sunday morning bacon.

But in my retrospective this morning, I came upon an older video of his:"5 questions to end an argument with Liberals" video, and it brought me back to one of my biggest issues with the fringe Alt-right.

His question 5 is, "Do you think white families should adopt black babies." I have a pretty strong opinion on this, so here comes the profanity.

The alt-fringe argument is that "You're being a cuck! You're aiding the white genocide!" or something like that. To that, my view simply stated is... Fuck you. It takes 20 years (at least) to raise a child and only the most shallow, vain, Hollywood starlet would do something like that for virtue signalling. The devout christians like David French (whose other opinions I don't particularly care for) do something like that because they walk the walk. They do it because they believe in the concept of family.

To invest 20 years in anything is a herculean effort. To do it for a perfectly innocent child, and bear all the financial and emotional costs in doing so is a noble and selfless thing - as noble and selfless as anything anyone has ever come up with. I admire men who bear huge burdens of responsibility for their families, and this certainly qualifies.

So to all you intellectually impotent tiki torch carrying assholes who want to give him and others like him grief for this, I say (and I mean this from the bottom of my heart) go fuck yourselves. Quit listening to those idiots with the megaphone and go read a book. The life of an innocent child is more important than all the resentment you feel. And a man who does this is worth more to Western Society than all you jerkoffs put together.

Saturday, October 7, 2017

- The Solzhenitsyn Of Long Island

In this week's Radio Derb, our hero mentions a quote by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. I find this a little ironic. I've always seen a great deal of similarity between our man Derb and 'Gulag Archipelago' author. Most markedly, in my all time favorite quote from the great man:

"You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world. Let it even triumph. But not through me.”

That's got John Derbyshire all over it.

It's true, he's an unlikely hero. His opponents imagine him in jackboots, goose stepping around his Long Island Kehlsteinhaus, commiserating with Richard Spencer about proposed locations of future extermination camps, or pondering the most toxic fuel to use in their ovens. In reality he’s more likely to be found shuffling around his neighborhood in his robe and slippers, listening to a lecture on his headphones while being tugged this way and that by his Boston Terrier. By way of his nature, he’s far more Hobbit than Nazi.

But he will not say that he believes a lie.

Solzhenitsyn not only believed that the line between good and evil ran through the hearts of men, but that 'the lie' was the source of all evil, and the thing that transformed Soviet Communism from an economic error based on excessive empathy, into the most murderous and brutally totalitarian regime in human history. To stand up to the lie and to refuse to participate in it, is therefore a kind of small scale heroism. The Derb doesn't make grand speeches, rally the masses, or lead the great charge. But he will never succumb to the lie.

There is no one more respected in the Alt-Movement than the Derb, because he was so dedicated to what he saw as the inescapable truth, that he was prepared to lose his comparatively well paid job over it. His firing from National Review made it clear for the whole world, that conservatism inc wasn't as interested in the truth as they claimed to be.

They would support the lie, so long as the liars kept the checks coming. In some respects I think of it as the moment that launched the 'alt-right'. At the very least, it was the moment when we entered the surreal universe of the Social Justice Warriors, and to paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, it was when 'the lie' transformed from being a moral category, to a pillar of the state. Or a pillar of Conservatism Inc, at the very least.

What a world it would be in the rest of the folks at National Review, or for that matter our elected representative, had the same courage the Derb has.

The image above is of the aforementioned Arthur Dent. It's a reference to the comment section of this Z-Man post. Those of us lucky enough to know the Derb know it's an apt comparison, and not meant as a slight in any way. A small courageous life is courage enough.

Friday, October 6, 2017

- For Those Who Are Wondering...

As I type, IkaIka is facepalming at his desk over my 'excessive' optimism regarding 'negotiation' with liberals on guns. He may very well have a point. In effect I'm looking at what would work if I (or some other vertebrate creature) were doing the negotiating. It may be that the Republicans in Congress are too individually weak to win, even when everything is on their side including the NRA, even on guns. It's the only thing the right has managed to win on for decades, and so far it looks very much like pre-emptive Republican surrender is the order of the day.

The only long term solution then is to get rid of them all - every last one. What a pack of losers these guys are.

They are looking like they couldn't trade pardons for P**** in a women's prison.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

- A Winnable Fight: Part 2

The engineers will always stay ahead of the rule writers. Behold the "Binary Trigger":

The fight is really about momentum. When they were winning the gun battle, any change favored them. For the last decade and a half, every change has favored us. They write a rule that's too general it's shot down for being non-specific. They write it specific, the engineers invent a way around it. So long as we get concessions (and I think we can count on the NRA for that even if we can't count on the pants wetting little girls in the congressional trenches) it's a win, win for us and a lose, lose for the Democrats and associated 'republican' gun banners.

And if worse comes to worse, the NRA has the juice to put the brakes on for any deal. And even if they can't (they can) there is the deal-maker in chief's Veto.

This is the time to 'negotiate' this stuff.

I really think we should have this debate. I wanna see Chuck Schumer cry.

%%%%%%%%%%%%UPDATE%%%%%%%%%%%%

It seems that National Review is trying to be the very first in line to unconditionally surrender.

What a shame. Thank god the NRA doesn't listen to them either.

- I Think It's A Winnable Fight

According to the guys at Ace, the NRA is willing to have a discussion about the regulation of "Bump Stocks" identical to the one that Ikaika and I were just having in the comment section of the last post.

I'm convinced we should. It's a totally winnable fight, and if the NRA agrees then I'm even more convinced. We don't have to give them anything. And if we decide to give them anything, we can extract meaningful things from them in return. Their singular tacitic - hyperventilating about their feelings - isn't going to win them a goddamned thing, and we have mountains of data on our side. If I were the left, I'd run from this potential debate with all the energy I have. So obviously, they won't.

And for all our complaints about the pre-emptive surrender guys in the GOP, they know that they cannot surrender on guns if they expect to stay in office. It is political SUICIDE for a Republican. It's not great for almost any Democrat either, but we need to remember that they are at their weakest point in decades. They have no ideas, no vision, and no data. All they have are feelz and accusations of Nazi-ism. Our guys are as weak as 13 year old girls, but their team is barely able to loosen their straight jackets enough to tie their shoes.

This may in fact be a pro-Trump, anti-establishment move. What single issue could compel the cowards in the establishment to fall in line behind Trump other than guns?

From that standpoint I say F*** Yeah! Let's have a debate about background checking bump stocks. That is perfectly fine by me. But in exchange I want suppressors, CCR, lifting the restrictions on magazine size, and the ability to add newly manufactured weapons to the Class 3 list. And if possible, I'd like a 'shall issue' rule thrown in for good measure (The supreme court has to do something with it's time.)

The NRA aren't establishment republicans. I don't believe they're 'conceding' to the left. They would never be so stupid. Paul Ryan would, and so would much of the Republican caucus, but not the NRA. From that standpoint I'm perfectly happy to open up that discussion. The Chuck Schumer get out there and explain how a background check for a bump stock is going to save the lives of all those kids getting shot to pieces in Chicago.

- Quick Question

Is there anyone out there who wouldn't trade background checks, licensing (and maybe even registration) of bump stocks in exchange for silencers and CCR? Seems like a good legislative "conversation" to me.

Thoughts?

- Gun Control... Again

Perfectly Safe For Work.

- Multiple Shooters

Don't freak out. Unless other evidence emerges (and it's unlikely to at this point), I think it's clear that there was only 1 shooter in Las Vegas. The 'sound' of multiple shooters is just the firearm inexperienced reporting impact noise and bullet 'mini sonic booms' as "another shooter", because they can't tell the difference. Even bullets striking 'sand' makes a noise.

Ballistic evidence of a second shooter would be pretty clear at the scene. Most policemen would recognize it easily at a glance, especially with so many shots fired, and it would have been perfectly clear. You wouldn't need Dexter's crime scene expertise to see it. It's theoretically possible there was a second gunman in the room, but that would be known by now.

The rest is just clickbait and Firearm illiteracy.

The theory of 'not acting alone' was a reference to the shooter's planning and preparation, I'm quite certain. If it wasn't and there were still another unnamed shooter at large someplace, they wouldn't let the President anywhere near the city.

- America's Most Terrifying 'Fact'

The Z man produces a bunch of first rate essays, and I found this one so interesting that I chimed in on the comment section.

For years I've been making the point in various ineffective ways, that 'the truth' about race and IQ points to a tragic cultural phenomenon, and that I can entirely understand why the black community is so resistant to the idea of genetics and IQ being so closely linked. To my recollection the Z man's comment section was the first time the audience for my ineffective talking point actually got it. This was very satisfying personally, but it changes nothing about the terrifying prospects because we don't have any reasonable response to it.

To restate my point, when the truth about genetics and IQ can be talked about without the blank slate fantasy muddying the waters, we will in effect be telling black Americans that their skin color is very much akin to walking around with a scarlet "S" (for stupid) tattooed on their forehead. It's a clearly visible signal that their IQ is likely 1 standard deviation lower than average. This will be no problem for the black geniuses, of which there are literally millions. It will be a small but manageable problem for the blacks with above average IQ's. But it will be catastrophic for the people for whom that characterization actually applies.

To quote another Z man commenter Dennis:

If all blacks in the US were magically made to look white, but kept their lower IQs and all other characteristics intact, the problem would go away. They would accept their lot in life, become productive blue collar or retail workers, or at least would would not blame others for their failures. ...
But in effect having to wear a low IQ stamp on your forehead would leave anyone shameful, angry, and left searching for excuses.

I view the emergence of facts as inevitable. Since the enlightenment, the western world has been wedded enough to reason and science that to attempt to rip them from our collective thinking root and stem will destroy us. And that makes this issue look to me like a cultural asteroid speeding toward earth. To accept the link between genetics and IQ will give us a minority group, visible and identifiable at a distance, for whom the likelihood that they possess a lower than average IQ will nonmaskable.

In our society, the tight link between complex cognitive problem solving and higher income will mean that anyone with brown skin will truly be a citizen of a 'lower caste', due to the likelihood of their lower earnings potential. And the consequences of this get even more terrifying when the idea of 'sex selection' comes into play.

Intelligence is one of the key aspects that women select for in mating. Women may give in to the sexually gratifying appeal of a big well muscled black man for sex, but what woman will want to bring a dark skinned child into the world when they know (not suspect... 'know') that the facts of genetics and a society structured around them, will mean a lower caste life for that child? And when low IQ black men know (not suspect... 'know') that women are aware of this, how do you imagine they'll cope with that?

When I look at that circumstance from the perspective of just such a black man with an 85 IQ, all I see are reasons to do EVERYTHING I can to prevent the acceptance as an idea, of a link between IQ and genetics. I see absolutely no reason to embrace it. To call this a 'big' societal problem is a profound understatement. And I don't have even the first idea of what to do about it.

I have always believed that culture not skin color is the big issue with black America. I think if black people 'acted' white (like President Obama always has) then the vast majority of the racial issues in America would simply disappear. Behavior is individual and can be changed by an act of will, so it leaves the options open for each individual black man. There are more white men in America with an IQ below 85 than black men, and if black men changed their behavior, I believe there would be no more antipathy toward them than their white counterparts.

But the general acceptance of a link between genetics and IQ shakes all that up. And I think it may very well require a level of maturity in our society which we are incapable of sustaining, in order to address it without widespread violence.

Alt-ish thinkers seem to me to believe that if we just face the truth, then the problem can be dealt with. But it looks to me like the cure to our collective delusion about the fictional blank slate may turn out to be more dangerous than the disease. And though I obviously think the blank slate is nonsense, I can understand why at least some of its advocates cling to it so desperately, in spite of all emerging evidence.

The idea that all men are created 'truly equal' is an obvious delusion. Some are tall, short, fat, thin, smart, and stupid. They should be treated equal under the law and are of equal value as humans. But they are very much not 'equal'. This is, as far as my worldview is concerned, a fact.

But to hang that scarlet "S" around the neck of 6% of the population seems a recipe for disaster to me. I'm terrified at the thought of the kinds of policies that might spring from a nearly all powerful state, as a 'solution' to this issue. This is the most tragic, terrifying, and dangerous 'fact' in western society. And I don't know how we're going to handle it when we have to face it down.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

- Liberals Learn Statistics

A former 538 writer tried to validate her feelz on gun control, but when she analyzed the data she realized that everything that liberals wanted to do with regard to guns would totally ineffectual. She also found the efforts that liberals cheer in other countries were ineffective there too:

Last, she also found that Australian and United Kingdom gun laws, which the anti-gun Left salivates over, were ineffectual. Mass shootings over there were still rare, and gun violence did not decrease as a result of the gun ban and buyback legislation that was passed.

Statistical competence is step one. Now if they can just get a grip on cause and effect, we should be golden.

- A Baseless Theory Of A Rejected Omega

I'm just looking around at the photos of this shooter and his girlfriend, and reading the news. And I have an idea shaping up in my head which is based on absolutely nothing, just a feeling I'm getting. Put no stock in it. I know nothing that you don't. Just pass this off as the talk of the grumpy old guy at the end of the bar, or something a curmudgeon said around the water cooler.

So what was this guy's life like? He had a couple of houses, a plane, and some measure of material wealth but no children. That tells me something. He had no affiliation to a church or community, and no electronic footprint of any kind. He's not the best looking man, and his girlfriend is a tiny Phillipine woman, but in my opinion, over to the left side of the distribution in terms of the broader options for Filipina appeal. I don't mean to malign her. She may be utterly guiltless in this whole thing. But let's be frank, a wealthy 65 year old American with some small measure of confidence with women could almost certainly do much better, even by mail order. And the Philippines is home to some of the most beautiful women in the world, and his girlfriend was not one of them.

I can certainly understand why he may want to avoid American women, who wouldn't? I know that many reading this are married to Asians, and I myself am seriously involved with an Asian woman. There is a disconnect though. My net worth has taken a real hit since my divorce, and I'm still doing an order of magnitude better than the shooter did. Yes, I look much younger than my actual age, and I still have other advantages that he clearly doesn't have. But my GF looks like Michelle Malkin more than any other public figure, and has the body of a smoking hot 20 year old. She's also very bright, charming, and poised. That's an order of magnitude better than his 60 something girlfriend.

Prior to my present relationship, I could have my pick of almost any woman in New York. That's not arrogance, it's history. Most of the women I dated since my divorce were in their early to middle 30's and the youngest was in her early 20's. Compared to the shooter's girlfriend they look like the Swedish Bikini team, and several of them were what most people would call 'top talent'. They were also vain, shallow, and self centered, so I was happy to 'trade up' to my present GF in spite of (and in fact in some ways because of) her greater maturity. It's nicer than you think to be able to mention the Fonz and not get a wierd look for it.

I also read a story about the Starbucks Barista who described him as being 'incredibly rude' to his girlfriend in public. There are situations where rudeness to a woman is warranted I grant you, but they are pretty rare in my view. A real man doesn't have to be any ruder to a woman in public than it would be to leave her sitting alone, and even then it's usually as a reaction to her emotional over-reaction of some kind, which was never mentioned by the barista. There should be no need for public emotional outbursts on the part of a man. It shows you as weak and unable to control your own passions.

But the image that's starting to form in my mind is of an Gamma/Omega man. The kind of man that in spite of his wealth, is generally unable to be successful with women. The kind of mildly delusion narcissistic man who thinks only of himself, and has little control of his temperament. This lack of control makes him nasty and volatile to those that are closest to him and he's generally seen as bitter and resentful. He has a delusionally high self opinion, and a grand sense of entitlement. And his anger and resentment at the world has a tendency to build over time, since the world's assessment of him doesn't jive with his own ideas of how 'amazing' he is.

We haven't heard of him being dragged through family court, losing custody of his kids or even having an ex-wife. By any accounts he was a solitary guy. And I think it's a real possibility that his anger at the world could come from the way someone like him has been continually devalued and disrespected in the sexual marketplace. Most low SMV men embrace Male Feminism at some point, but would be even more frustrated when even that didn't work as well for him as he wanted. And the Gamma/Omega man has a tendency to approach it all from a general insecurity and embitterment.

So far, this is the only image that emerges for me anyway.

I've seen video of his brother, and if he had similar ticks and quirks, it's very easy for me to imagine that he did very poorly overall with women. The brother seems like a real oddball. Not evil or malignant, but not what anyone would call charming. Maybe the shooter was an angrier more resentful version of his brother.

If I had his age, level of wealth, and were living outside Vegas, I think the woman in my life would be someone who walked around on a stage for a living, or who at least looks like it. Maybe I'd need a little more than that intellectually. I do know for sure that a 65 year old Filipina would have to be the most charming creature alive, and be able to perform magic tricks in the sack to boot, in order to hold my interest.

He's no prize either, and that's kind of my point. It could be that the thing he is most resentful about is the general decline of Masculinity in our deeply Feminized culture. In 1950 a man like him would be respected and sought after. Now he's just an old guy who isn't quite rich enough to attract top talent, given all his (potential) personality quirks. He's the kind of man that women would assign a very low value to, and so long as women are the ones assigning the value exclusively (as they do in our Feminist world), I can't imagine that wouldn't make him angry.

So who do you take that out on? Who do you get angry at specifically? Black people? Black men have to deal with black women, and from the perspective of an undesirable white man, that garners sympathy more than anything else. Liberals? Liberals are promiscuous, and a few decades embracing Male Feminism would build a view that they are his allies, even if it's their control of the culture which is causing the problem in the first place. Christians? conservatives? They are often weak willed and engender only the softest aspects of masculinity, but on the whole they do nothing but complain about our Feminist cultural decline. So who do you blame if you're the shooter?

The answer is everyone. You blame everyone. And you tend to blame young women most of all because they are the source of his most immediate rejection. Beyond that you'd be angry at 'Normal America' for lacking the cultural self confidence to resist the general decline that left him standing on the scale as a low value dreck instead of a wealthy and relatively in demand Beta. The effects of Feminism are broad, far reaching and in many cases invisible unless you've been red pilled and know what to look for. Maybe he was simply angry that he's still trapped in the Matrix, and didn't know how, or didn't have the strength, to be able to get himself out.

Obviously I could be way off the mark here. But it's an attitude which seems to fit what we know so far. We know he was angry, bitter, resentful, and ready to rage at the world. So maybe it was our entire cultural decline that he was raging at. Maybe he's a center left Omega, with no real interest in politics, and without the wit to understand why his lot in life has been so devalued. Maybe he was one of those guys who never understood why he wasn't more respected, like any Omega. And with his creeping depression and anxiety coming from his advancing years giving fuel to the fire of his general resentment, maybe this was what fostered his malignant intent.

Maybe the mail order Filipina Girlfriend had finally had enough and left him. Maybe the 100K he sent to the Philippines was his apology. But maybe that event was the thing that finally underlined for him how poor his outlook is in today's wide open sexual marketplace, and forced him to face down his crashing ego. If he can't even get and keep the third rate mail order Filipina girlfriend, he really was a total loser with women after all.