Saturday, April 29, 2017

- A Word On Tribes

Another Saturday, another episode of Radio Derb. Actually, I haven’t listened yet. My daughter is at my place this weekend, so I’ll listen while I make her breakfast. Like most 17 year olds, she ignores every word I say, mainly because I said it. But if I listen to Radio Derb on speaker while she’s in the room, she’s bound to absorb a little clarity of thinking. She’s met John, and knows who he is. So I find she pays more attention to Radio Derb, than she does if I’m listening to someone she doesn’t know. I figure it can’t hurt.

Feel free to copy this strategy with your own wives or children.

Anyway, I haven’t listened yet, but I did read the sub headings on the Vdare webpage. For all I know James Fulford writes those. But there was one that got me thinking a little. (My brain is always very ‘on’ in the mornings.) It reads “QE2 has had only 158 birthdays.” I’m not sure what that means exactly. I simply ignore the 158. Whenever the Derb mentions numbers I expect he’s going to a place I haven’t thought of yet, through some interesting and curious route. But I was thinking that it must be the boat not “Betty” herself, because I imagine the Derb would have written that as HRH E2. A lot of assumptions I know. I’ll be interested to see how it turns out.

The Brits have a lot of cultural tradition and decorum when it comes to the royal family which aren’t explicitly formalized into law, and I’m not completely sure what they are. Is the term HRH only for ‘subjects’ of the crown? The Derb was an Englishman, though he’s been an American for years so he isn’t any longer. So is their one rule for subjects, another for ‘foreigners’ and a third for ‘former subjects’? It’s not impossible. Does the rule fall under the ‘if you want to be polite’ umbrella, or is their some more formalized structure to it? It all feels very much like an ancient tribal rite, smoothed over by time and repetition, and brought into 21st century cultural legalism to me.

Which of course gets me thinking about my own tribe. My kin and clan are pretty easy for me. When you have as many first cousins as I do it’s easy to visualize. But my Tribe is a greyish area. Just like it is for most people who have lived in America for multiple generations.

I’m an American of course. And I’m also Irish. My family came to the states around the start of the 20th century, give or take a generation. Memories are short here so that’s far more than enough to culturally claim an American heritage, especially with my family’s propensity for military service.

But before that, my family went to Ireland in 1170. When we got there, we immediately began intermarrying with the locals. And I’ve read that the term ‘more Irish than the Irish’ - a description used to characterize the Norman Lords of Ireland of which I’m descended - was first said about some ancient relative of mine. I don’t really know for sure that it’s true, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

But what about prior to that? 1170 was just 3 generations after William the Conqueror, England’s first Norman King. And thanks to a little bit of scuffling between his mother Matilda and her cousin Stephen, Henry II who was King of England at the time of my family’s ascendency to a Barony, started his life as the Count of Anjou. He probably spoke not a word of English, and at the time French was the spoken language of the English court.

And while that might have made Henry French, it doesn't do so for me, because Normandy was the territory of a different tribe. Rollo the Viking was the first ruler of Normandy who was granted a charter in 980 (probably with a knife to the Frankish king’s throat), and settled there with his own tribe. Though my own family history disappears from the written record prior to 1170, Henry’s does not. I’ve never done the research myself but I’ve read that William, Henry’s great grandfather could trace his own ancestry back to Rollo.

The genetic record for me bears all this out. I have Celtic Irish, and Norman DNA, with a little mixing from the other northern European tribes. Elizabeth II the current queen, claims Norman ancestry with her own more recent bit of German mixing. The French royals descended from a different Frankish lineage, again, with some mixing. And it seems ironic to me that given the peasantry moved very little, the royals probably all have less pure tribal blood than the people they ruled over.

So though I’m an admirer of the current Queen, and may be a very distant relative to her in some long forgotten and unwritten past, I probably have to go back to 7th or 8th century Norway to find it. Your average displaced Rhodesian Farmer, inevitably descended from some Dutch Fisherman, is probably as closely related to the current queen as I am. So do these genetic connections actually mean anything at all?

With all that said though, you can see the tribal affiliation in Americans. And for what it’s worth, I have a look. That tall, lean, intense look is a common thing that I, and all the men in my family possess. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Derb, Peter Brimelow, and Jared Taylor all have it too, at some small measure of lifestyle remove. Personally I think it’s a Norman thing. And that look plus my mother’s general attractiveness allowed me to masquerade as someone with ‘good breeding’ the entire time I was on Wall Street. I know it was taken notice of by people who felt it was important.

And that’s my point. I think in 21st century America, my tribal affiliations matter if I say they do. If I feel it, it matters. This is sort of a contradiction to the way I normally think, where facts say more than how you feel about them. But Tribe is different. Genetics will tell us who are ancestors were, but only we can say who ‘we’ are. In my case, like many Americans, I have a choice. I feel the American very firmly, and I reflect it in my manner and behavior. But I also feel the Irish, and the Anglo-Norman.

The genetics only represent limits I think. You can’t make a Pekinese into a guard dog. But you can do so with a Doberman, or a Rottweiler, or even a Giant Schnauzer. And all my perceived tribes have their strengths. Americans are brash and creative, the Irish are tough and loyal, and the Normans are determined and smart. I like to think I can be all of that. I certainly wasn’t built to be a victim. That culture will never sit right with me.

And though the Exeter guys probably think it takes more than that, to me it all feels like pretty good breeding.

Friday, April 28, 2017

- Who Enslaved Atwood's HandMaids?

I’ve always liked sci-fi, especially of the dystopian future variety. And from that perspective Margaret Atwood’s 1985 Novel “The Handmaid’s Tale” is actually a pretty good story. I’d recommend it. I think it’s well written, and raises a lot of serious questions about the nature of the sexes and the effect of tyranny on a populace. It’s not particularly groundbreaking in that respect. And I like the Hulu series that’s based on it, and is making such a fuss right now. It’s well shot, well acted, and engaging.

But our culture’s representation of the lessons it ‘should’ be teaching us, are typically laughable.

Here’s the basics. Infertility has struck humanity. 90% of all women cannot have any children, and for those that can, the chance of a healthy birth has fallen to one in five. Into this culturally shattering event, Atwood imagines that men would effectively enslave all the healthy childbearing women and subject them to authorized ‘rape’ by the powerful as breeding stock. The women are denied all rights in the decision of who will impregnate them. Those decisions are made by the state. They are treated as nothing more than ‘walking wombs’ and are denied all agency in their own breeding. This means, of course, that men are horribly evil tyrants.

But Atwood was dead wrong about that. In a future culture dominated by men that had to deal with that kind of drop in cumulative fertility, reproductively viable women wouldn’t be reduced to slave status, on the contrary. They would be elevated to godlike status. There would be parades in their honor after every birth, and statues would be erected to them. They would become the ultimate ultimate status symbol, and the ability to attract a fertile woman would be fought over tooth and nail among men. Imagine Bill Gates vs. Elon Musk duking it out with their best technological toys in some future-tech version of the thunderdome. That’s how men see female fertility, and how it would be treated if men were in total control.

Which isn’t to say that Atwood’s dark fantasy couldn’t happen. But if it did, the people who made it happen wouldn’t be the men, it would be the infertile women.

In effect, all the imagined Misogyny of third wave Feminism is just the psychological projection of Feminists. It's a reflection of the hatred that undesirable women feel for their more desirable sisters. That's why, apart from some occasional adolescent flirtation, you don't meet many desirable Feminists. It's a cult of rationalization for women who are ugly on the inside, outside, or in many cases both. And Atwood's entire chilling vision is based on that same sort of projection rather than a reflection of how men really feel.

Just imagine the women in your circle. Imagine their reaction if suddenly all the things that make a woman attractive to men today were suddenly reduced to irrelevancies compared to whether or not a woman was capable of giving birth. Imagine that physical attractiveness, intelligence, charm and grace have all become utterly irrelevant for women compared to breeding health. How do you imagine they would react when the fat, stupid, slovenly, uneducated and bad smelling mess of a woman is able to out command the attention of handsome billionaires with six packs, while all they can get is the fat, ugly, bad smelling and dim witted men.

How do you imagine today's actresses, models, and members of the women’s elite would react?

I’ll tell you what I think. I think their cruelty and brutality to those women would be total. They would immediately demand that their men impose deep restrictions on those women, not too different from what Atwood’s story imagines. There would be some rationalized justification for it, maybe in the form of biblical references and deference to tradition. But if that didn’t work, their rationalization hamster would find some other excuse.

There is simply no way that the 90+ percent of infertile women would allow the small percentage of fertile women to usurp their status, simply by virtue of being able to have kids. The National Organization of Women would DEMAND that they be enslaved. They would lobby for it. It would be considered as 'essential' as the abolition of slavery. If men did it at all it would only be to shut them up so we could get on with other things, and god help the man who resisted. They would make Antifa look like the mormon tabernacle choir.

Atwood doesn’t actually mention that. Instead she imagines the flip side of the Feminist coin where all women are considered ‘the same’ as men, and assumes that all men are ‘the same’ as women. But that isn’t how the world works either.

Nothing would make men happier than to have a woman deserving of the kind of love that men can have for each other. Give us a woman from whom we can expect the same kind of loyalty, devotion and mutual self sacrifice that men in combat (as the best example) typically feel for each other, and not only would the man consider himself lucky, he’d be considered lucky by all other men.

Unfortunately, women like that don’t exist. Even the very best of them are solipsistic narcissists, who compared to the best of men’s nature, are capable of thinking only of themselves. That doesn’t make them bad women. Women are as they should be. But it does make them terrible men.

Atwood didn’t understand this. And neither do the laughably hysterical reviewers who are ranting and raving about what “A Handmaid’s Tale” should teach us as a “Warning to Women”. Women in that circumstance have nothing to fear from men. The only thing they really have to fear is themselves.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

- Happy Birthday Ollie

Today is Oliver Cromwell's Birthday. Cromwell was not a much beloved figure in the Irish Catholic world of my childhood. We were descendants of the 'Norman Lords' who came to Ireland with Hugh DeLacy, in 1172, the very same people who had been ruling England for 400 years before Ollie came along. But that Irish expedition was centuries before the reformation so they were all Catholics. Ollie wasn't a big fan of Catholicism, and the Irish church still despises him. I grew up in the US of course, but there was enough tribal affiliation for us all to remember him as a monster of the past. So... not a big hit at my grandfather's house, was Oliver Cromwell. Why precisely we continued to bear him some familial grudge, I chalk up to the nature of being Irish and our general unwillingness to 'let things slide'.

But stepping away from all that, Ollie little adventure as Lord High Protector and the British Civil war seems to me at this altitude to be the closest model history has to offer for our own coming revolution in America. I mean let's be frank, the players in that conflict really are already established. It will be some liberal in the central government who eventually sets off actual armed revolt. I say this because in spite of Antifa and the hyperbole of the left over Trump, they themselves aren't capable of much in the way of action. They say things not do things. They are planners and deciders, not executors. They leave the lowly doing of things to the conservative proles. And that includes fighting actual fights with actual bullets.

They control the bureaucracy sure, but they've dumbed it down to a point where any idiot can do it, and that's who's doing it. It's become a holding pen for the client's of liberalism. The swamp creatures that Trump has promised to drain the water out from under. They have fallen into government work because the private sector wouldn't have them. And when push comes to shove, they could no more mount an armed resistance to a conservative or nationalist government than the National Organization of Women would be at good at organizing an armed militia.

So it will be a totalitarian (probably Social Justice) liberal who sets off the second American Civil war, and a Cromwell like figure will be the guy who overthrows them. Someone Nationalist, with a military background. Charismatic enough to generate political support of a portion of the landed gentry, but not so landed himself that he can't draw support from the masses.

I don't see that person out there right now, but I wonder how visible Cromwell was before his rise. I'm not exactly an expert on him. But one thing is for certain, his popularity was not universal. The Irish still hate him, and our future Cromwell will no doubt pee in a few rice bowls before it's over too. Maybe the gays, who technically have no reason to be liberal in a climate with the radical Islamic wolf at the door and liberal academia feeding it from the table, that will end up bearing the ire of whoever it turns out to be, and end up holding the next permanent grudge.

But the most likely group taken from a snapshot of today, is obviously the jews. The jews are the big source of division among the various nationalist factions. The more extreme groups see them as a source of outsized influence and cultural decay, while the more centrist groups see them as productive, peaceful and inoffensively prosperous. I'm in the latter group, but I don't know how it will play out. Until the first shot is fired, and very often for a long time after that, you never know how it's all going to fall out.

But anyway, I wanted to wish Ollie HAppy Birthday and let him know that for my part, I'm perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones. I'm not much for bearing grudges when I don't know the details of what happened. And if history is the final arbiter of right and wrong, then whatever his sins were, they seem largely forgiven to me.

I hope our future Cromwell does as well.

Monday, April 24, 2017

- 13 Excuses Why

Have you seen 13 reasons why yet? It’s the latest hip binge watch on Netflix about a high school girl who commits suicide, but leaves 13 tapes which explain her reasons why. Though it’s heavily slathered with anti-male propaganda, it’s not terrible story telling, and the plot does drag you along. And the scene of the poor girl’s act of demise is horrifying to watch and that’s an editorial decision I absolutely agree with. It’s horribly de-romanticized, and I congratulate the producers for their decision to handle it so.

Though with that said, the whole thing is laughably unrealistic. There’s literally nothing bad that has ever happened to anyone in high school that doesn’t happen to this poor girl or that she doesn’t play some small part as a witness to having it happen. There is even an allusion at the end to a potential future ‘school shooter’, shown as the class geek who’s been secretly stockpiling guns. Though thankfully our heroine Hannah didn’t live to see that.

It’s not real life of course, its just Hollywood. It’s more a sincere left wing fantasy about the worst possible high school experience than a serious talk about a serious problem. And the solutions proposed are just like the rest of the useless tripe that the entertainment industry has foisted on us, and that our collapsing culture has embraced. ‘Talk therapy’ for the victims, ‘teaching boys not to rape’, everything except what might actually help.

More than anything else, it strikes me as a great example of how a society can’t bring itself halfway back from collapse.

What Hannah herself experiences in a movie covering 2 years of high school isn’t all that much different from what most girls go through these days, but most of them take until about age 30 to do it. She takes a run at dating the popular bad boy jocks, who treat her badly, ruin her reputation (In this fictional case somewhat unjustly – but what would you expect from Hollywood) and eventually turns to the sweet but passive beta boy who worshipped her from afar. But by then she’s sees herself as too ‘damaged’ to deserve him and in typical high school drama queen style, she can’t find a way to forgive herself. She spends the whole movie telling people to ‘leave her alone’ and storming away, but spends the next few minutes after each emotional outburst continually hoping they will chase after her. Its all very high school.

And yes, I’m sure you knew this was coming… there’ rape. Lots of it. Or at least as it’s depicted, it’s something that comes closer to rape than the lies most girls tell. It may not be the ‘hit her on the head and put a knife to her throat’ kind of rape that everyone agrees is wrong, but it’s not quite the ‘we were both drunk and I said yes and then no’ type of thing that is so common on college campuses now either. At the very least it’s in the grey area of serious sexual misconduct. And though in the real world there may be some genuine confusion on the part of a man, this fictional villain is cartoonishly unambiguous.

And that’s what I mean by our not having a society that can bring itself halfway back from collapse. What the Feminists of Hollywood want is half of our problems. They want to prevent rampant sexual misconduct that in reality occurs in a grey area, without having to give up the unrestrained promiscuous sex that plays such a big part it making it all happen in the first place.

How this plays in the film is that they want the boys of Hannah’s world to be constrained, but they want them to be constrained in the way that women would be. Even more to the point, they want them constrainable by women. They should be gay, or weak, or too riddled with self doubt to approach a girl let alone have sex with one. They should be passive, inoffensive things that allow the women to make all the choices about who is inevitably dating who, and the path that dating takes.

They don’t want to allow masculinity and the positive value of men to be something that boys are allowed to see and strive for because it highlights how unequal women are. It emphasizes difference between men and women that they don’t want to be forced to admit exist. And even if that’s the only thing that has ever constrained the behavior of young men, they think it would come at too high a price, so it’s never even mentioned.

In that world view where the most respected men are the strong and responsible, women are something to be cherished and protected. And women very much like that half of the equation. But today’s women don’t want to be forced to behave in a way that would make men think they’re worthy of that cherishing. They would rather try to redefine what men ‘should’ find appealing in terms that they get to dictate.

They prefer to be the competition to men than to be their partners. They want to be considered absolutely equal to men in all things, except when they don’t. They want men to be willing to sacrifice it all on their behalf and to chase them down the hall to profess their unwavering love, even when they were just told not to. But they still want to be able to tell him to go away when they feel like it so they can go skinny dipping in the hot tub with the captain of the football team.

Taken by itself, only one half of that formula for building society, is never going to work on it’s own. You can’t expect men to step up and do the hard work of being the kind of men that are good for civilization (and for that matter women), when they are only ever going to be berated for it. And women, as we’ve clearly seen, can behave how they like. But they can’t expect men not to react to it. They can have their night in the limo catching chlamydia from the lead guitarist, but that means they’re going to have to handle the rest of it on their own too. If the swelling ranks of pickup artist culture tells us anything, it’s that men are done picking up the societal tab for women. And when it comes to their support, their care and even their safety, today’s girls are very much on their own. If today’s women want those things, then they have to live lives that warrant it.

As the father of a beautiful 17 year old girl, I think that’s a shame. I don’t know what kind of a future is out there for her in the dating world. She’s a good girl today, but the pressures of society will find their way to her no matter what I do about it. And I wouldn’t want to protect her from everything anyway. Like it or not she has to live in the same broken society that I do. And just because I can see how badly broken it is, doesn’t mean I can fix it for her. I wish I could.

But 13 reasons isn’t pointing to any answers on that score. It’s the same old Feminist garbage about how if we would all be just a bit more feminine, everything will work out. Though it didn’t seem to work out too well for Hannah.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

- Never Apologize

Some of you out there 'of a certain age', will remember the glory days of Tennis is the late 70's and 80's. I'm not much of a sports fan, but my brother was, and he was very skilled in that particular game. And since he is only 11 months younger than me, Tennis knowledge (if not skill) became something I could pick up around the house through osmosis.

So while browsing through the DailyMail this morning, I discovered the name of Ilie Nastase being mentioned. The Romanian was a major top tier star of the sport at its popular peak, akin to Jimmy Connors or the much younger (but probably more familiar) Andre Agassi. He was loud, passionate, argumentative and outspoken. He was the cold war 'bad boy' to Jimmy Connors' captain America act. But very much a champion in his own right, and very much respected for his talent, if not his demeanor.

Personally I always liked him. I had a pretty serious rebellious streak going at the time, and since the cold war was starting to cool down just a little, I was all in favor of seeing past the continuous anti-commie programming we got back then for any talented individual outside of politics. In my mind, government was something that did things to people, not for them. And I saw no reason to dislike a talented sports star just because he was having things done to him by a different kind of government than the one that was doing things to me.

Well the man is back in the news, and proving that when it comes to a man's character, some things never change. He made some off color (grin) joke about Serena Williams' expectant child, and got tossed from a match as punishment. Good for him I say. He has never been big on apologies for an offended public, and apparently isn't going to start now.

I still like the guy. And it doesn't matter at all to me that instead of the government that's trying to do things 'to' people, it's now the continuously offended mob of the Twitterverse of Tennis fandom that seeks to punish people who dare to speak things we all know, but have been trained not to notice.

Screw them and their prudishness, I say. The man is a legend who contributed greatly to the building of the sport. They all owe him their jobs, whether they are inclined to admit it or not. Wha they should really be doing is thanking him for doing what he's always done, demanding excellence in the payers, and drawing attention to the sport with his antics. Instead of tossing him, they should simply say thank you, and get on with their game.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

- A Note of Appreciation

I've been ignoring the news for the most part (save a daily 4:30AM review of the previous night's Tucker Carlson show) and staying away from the blogs because they have a negative effect on my productivity. My dollar per hour productivity at the moment, when viewed in a 'probability of discounted cashflows' way, is very high value. So I've been cherishing it somewhat more than usual.

But I always make time on the weekends for RadioDerb, and I've gotten in the habit of absentmindedly browsing the web while I'm listening, in order to catch up on at least the headlines from some of my regular reading that the Derb might not have mentioned. In doing so, I've noticed an interesting trend.

Hither and yon I'm seeing a familiar name pop up more and more often. As the American popular media abandons reason and objectivity at an increasingly alarming rate, a counterculture based on data driven empiricism and objectivity seems to be growing rapidly. Not the alt-right per se, since it often only barely touches the political. But a rationalism that looks like a nice opposing force to the leftist dogmatism of academia.

And our man Derb, once defenestrated from popular media and thrust to the hinterland of opinion journalism, is developing a outsized influence in this counterculture. This doesn't seem particularly unlikely to me. His wit, intelligence and clarity of thought has been long known to me personally. But I have to admit, as a question of character and temperament, I cannot imagine a less likely messiah for the new right. He'll tell you this himself if you ask him. Though online, this seems to be increasingly how he's being viewed.

This soft spoken, genteel and bookishly cerebral geriatric english immigrant, leading his quiet life on Long Island with his lovely wife and dog, is hardly the hate filled and spittle flecked firebrand reactionary the left has made him out to be. His days are filled with pedestrian things like home improvement projects, crossword puzzles, and (dear god I hope Rosie doesn't read this) sneaking the occasional cigarette while out for a walk with the dog. His life is the suburban bourgeois ideal in may respects.

But I wish I had a dollar for every time I was reading something somewhere and was pleasantly surprised to find his name mentioned in glowing terms as an example of a 'right thinking' American. His fan base is truly legion in the new media and it continues to grow in spite of the traditional media's efforts to ignore him. And the more successful of those types like Gavin McInnes and Milo, in their more serious moments, refer to him constantly. This is unsurprising to me in every way but one.

With the exception of this blog, everything I've ever done has followed 'Tony Montana' model for influence building. "First you get the money, then you get the power" (then you get the women according to Tony, but that's somewhat off my point.) And I think most people in the private sector follow a similar plan. But the Derb is doing it the opposite way. More or less semi-retired from professional life, and his days as a cubicle dwelling corporatist long behind him, his power and influence seems to be increasing in spite of his best efforts to the contrary.

Even more surprising (and probably disappointing, especially to Mrs. Derb) is that his influence seems to be vastly outsized compared to the relatively modest sums he collects for stating his thoughts and opinions. and I'm pleased to say that it seems to be growing more rapidly than he and his modest ambitions ever imagined. Hopefully the pay will find it's way to him as well.

So I want to drop yet another quick note of appreciation down here for our man Derb. Guiding the new right in the path I, and a apparently many others, believe it needs to follow. It may not be as substantive a reward as a high paying speaking gig, or chair at a prosperous think tank. But it's sincere and from the heart.

- Are Academics Just Stupid?

While I've been focusing on other knitting, one of my all time favorite Youtube personalities Janice Fiomengo of the University of Ottawa, has been getting back to hers. She's got a first rate talk posted which takes a look at whether Academics and Intellectuals are simply dumber now than they were in the past. As you can imagine, she takes an extremely anti-Feminist spin on this, and uses a second rate academic from a third rate University as example.

I've posted the video below, but it got me to thinking about her broader question. I wonder if the changing world hasn't caused some selection bias so that yes, Academics really are simply stupider than they used to be. Which is to say that Academics of the past were sampled from a more intelligent subsection of the population than they are now.

I don't think anyone can dispute that Academic thinking is far more subjective than it used to be. That statement is so obviously true that in many cases, Academics now endorse the value of subjectivity and subjective experience over objective reason. From a certain perspective, that's about 50% of what Janice so eloquently rails against. But is it possible that the greater need for intelligence in the private sector has drained Academia of the cream of society it used to attract, and left only skim milk?

Truthfully I have no idea. I'd love to see research on it. But it does fit my general appreciation of some of our cultural changes in the information age. There is a far larger need for Database Administrators (for example) in the modern world than there ever was for structural engineers. Every single company uses technology and once they reach a certain size, a DBA is an integral part of that, but only bridge building companies ever needed engineers who know bridge building.

Women's participation in the workplace too has probably also had some effect on things. Women tend to gravitate to lower risk careers than men. And few careers could be described as lower risk as a tenured teaching position at a University, where there is quite literally no penalty whatsoever for being wrong. Women too, tend to be more subjective in their reasoning, which is why the Women's Studies departments seem to be the consistent launching point for so much of the radical social engineering that comes from Academia.

But while they may, as a rule, be more subjective than men (Janice herself is a notable exception), women are not empirically stupider except at the tails of the distribution. And not every private sector position in the information age requires a fields medal winner. though if you were that kind of person, that's certainly the place to get the greatest reward for your intelligence. I'd put the staff at Bridgewater associates up against any group of academics in a test of pure intelligence.

With that said though, the fact that one now succeeds in Academia by endorsing the subjective dogma of leftist resentment, it might be just as true that the real thinkers weren't drawn away from academia by the private sector but pushed away from the sloppy thinking required for success there. If that's the case, than women in Academia surely must take some of the blame.

So I don't think it's totally unreasonable to believe it's possible that a greater need for intelligence in the private sector has left academia wanting when compared to past eras. That's not Janice's point at all, but I think she'd be as curious about it as I am. Here's her take on it:

Friday, April 21, 2017

- Arm The Populace, Seal The Borders

The title of this piece is the suggestion given to PJ O'Rourke on how best to address the situation in Somalia, by an unnamed US Army officer stationed there during our intervention in that country's domestic problems. Peej related the story in his laugh a minute book, "Give War A Chance".

Well Steve Sailer, who has been detailing how America's problems have become third world problems by importing huge chunks of the third world, has another more telling example. The huge post-Ferguson bump in inner city violent crime doesn't seem to be evenly distributed. In fact, more than half of it is coming from just the three 'one party' cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington DC. All of whom have been as welcoming as possible, to uncivilized immigrants from the third world.

These increases were highly concentrated. More than half of the 2015 urban increase (51.8 percent) was caused by just three cities, Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. And Chicago alone was responsible for 43.7 percent of the rise in urban murders in 2016. It is important to remember the relatively small base from which the percentage increases are calculated.

Ah... the glories of a multi-cultural society. The culture of those three cities may involve a lot of murder and mayhem relative to the rest of America, but just think of how diverse that is. It's also important to remember that unlike the civil rights movements of the 60's, today's black rights movement, #Blacklivesmatter, is based entirely upon fictitious information. And it's equally important to remember, as we have been endlessly told by the left, that 'Black American Culture' is very different from 'white american culture', heretofore previously known as 'American Culture'.

We don't know how many of these shootings are a result of immigrants, and there is no immediate reason to believe that immigrants played any outsized role in them. But wholesale immigration from ungovernable cesspools plays a role in society in other ways. They affect the broader conversation, and provide a new perspective from which to view society's success and failures. Surely someone who thinks it's their right to come here in violation of the law, to live by the largess of the American taxpayer, after being raised on another continent in an ungovernable cesspool, will have a different view of how the society should be run than someone who grew up in Eden Prairie Minnesota as the 5th generation descendant of an immigrant dairy farmer. That theoretical descendant of a dairy farmer now lives within a 10 minute bus ride of thousands of Somalis, but they're all considered 'equal' as American now right?

So maybe Peej's unnamed Army Officer has the right idea. Maybe we should build a huge wall around 'the jungle' in Calais ala 'Escape from New York' and do the same with our 'refugees' here. Then upon arrival, give every illegal immigrant 'refugee' a Beretta M9, a box of ammo, and lock them in the box to see what happens? An armed population is a polite population right? That's one of the fundamental unwritten rules of American culture, and works extremely well for the descendant of that dairy farmer, or 3rd generation european families in Texas or North Carolina. It also doesn't do to badly among the descendants of Italian immigrants in New Orleans, or even recent Hindu Indians in Edison NJ. How I wonder, will it work if we treat the recent immigrants from Africa the same way?

I'm not serious about that idea. I'm just trying to highlight how the unwritten rules of western society, work well for, and for the most part apply best to, western men and those that assimilate most easily to western culture. They are crafted to match our sensibilities, our priorities, and our instincts. All of which, I believe, are a product of our genetics. For people who, either by birth or by culture (you can pick) don't possess those same sensibilities, it sounds a lot like a recipe for madness, violence and mayhem, as Steve is detailing in his piece.

And I'm using recent Somali immigrants as a sort of extreme example here. And I don't hate black people at all, in spite of how many of them seem to hate people like me. But after decades of effort, the left has finally convinced me that black culture really is different from 'white American' culture. And I think we only have two choices. Either we put incentives in place to finally make inner city black culture more like the culture of 'White Americans', or we recognize that these differences are a permanent part of the genetic makeup of everyone, and we separate them, and let black Americans 'be black'. Then they can be spared all the verbal violence, oppression, and ill will of those evil white men, and can live their lives in the culture of their own making, constructed for their own sensibilities and instincts, and based upon rules that they themselves can create. Of course, that's exactly what they had back in Africa... but let's not nitpick. The other alternative is to make black Americans into a group of people who, at every available opportunity, behave like 'White Americans'. Some, like my black investment banker buddy, would argue that this would make things much better for everyone, and being a man of the west I don't disagree. But I can't imagine the gang bangers of south Chicago will feel that way about it, at least initially. No group has assimilated more poorly to the ideals of America as black. I'm not sure why that is, but the results are clear. And it's equally clear that racism isn't a cause of that lack but a product of it. Since the end of slavery American blacks have been lapped repeatedly in the race to the top of American culture, by a number of groups, all of whom were seen at the moment of their arrival, as being racially very 'different' than the American culture in place at the time. And all of who suffered discrimination because of it, both overt and systemic, and of the more subtle variety. The Irish were the first to hop above blacks in the societal pecking order. Then the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. Even some black immigrants from the west indies are doing considerably better at assimilating into American society than blacks whose families have been here for generations.

But whatever the cause, there are only two roads open to us. Assimilate or separate. That's it. Those are the choices. Neither will be easy, but there are no other options.

And by the way, you should have a similar reaction to the idea of providing welfare upon arrival to illegal african immigrants as you do to providing them M9's and ammo. Because in far too many cases it's essentially the same thing. The main difference is that in spite of their soaring black on black violent crime rates, Chicago, Baltimore and Washington DC don't have walls built around them. (Though maybe they should.)

Thursday, April 20, 2017

-It Was Always Fake News...
You Can skip ahead to the 2:50 mark...
Every liberal I know is crowing about the fall of Bill O'Reilly... big deal. These same dupes will point to Bill Moyers as the most honest journalist on the planet. Liberal News is about as real as "No Touch" Martial Arts.
A good friend of mine has a green-belt in Aikido. I don't know what Aikido is but after seeing some demonstrations, I wouldn't depend on it in a street fight!
Years ago, another friend of mine claimed that his Kung Fu Master in Staten Island could do all these mystical secret tricks... I asked, if he could bend bars with his mind or boil water with his fingers, why couldn't he train his brain to get the hell out of Staten Island? Phooey!
While surfing a wonderful series on Bogus Martial Arts techniques I came across a segment in this video where that Icon of Liberal News Supremacy, Bill Moyers of PBS Fame is in China being completely hoaxed. The video appears to be from the late 70's or early 80's and Bill is narrating ever so smugly that the "no touch" bogus martial arts he is witnessing is some highly evolved science that us knuckle-draggers in the west just can't comprehend. Because its on Bill Moyers... IT MUST BE TRUE!!!
But there is an interesting Fu that is happening in US Media today. While the left cheers the demise of Bill O'Reilly (if you hate the guy that much why pay attention?) they are now stuck with Tucker Carlson...  Maybe Fox News can give Derb the 9 PM slot? That would melt some snowflakes.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

- Saving Antifa By Banning Ann

UC Berkeley has banned Ann Coulter from speaking.

This surprises no one, I'm sure. But I find it kind of interesting that they decided to do this the easiest way instead of the right way. the right way is for them to allow and maybe even encourage, free speech on their campus, and then have the police deal with the rioters by throwing them in jail. That would be making each individual responsible for his or her actions, and would be about making things 'just'. Instead they decide to silence the people who are out of favor on their campus, because... they can.

This actually makes me much more angry than the police failing to do their job last week. I'll be interested to see what comes of it.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

- Antifa Lives Matter

for post mortems on the Berkeley riots, I think Ace contributor OregonMuse's take on it stands alone:

Meet Jese Arreguin, elected mayor of Berkeley, progressive loon, terrorist enabler, idiot. His Twitter TL reads like a conservative parody of a progressive Twitter account. The above tweet is a good example of Arreguin's idiocy. Because what it really means is "free speech for we and not for thee." Or, even more succinctly, "Shut up." Now, you might think Arreguin knows this and is just being cynical about his preferences. But I believe the more logical explanation is that he's dumb as a bag of nails.

What it boils down to is that the rioting that happened this weekend, as well as the previous riots, occurred because Arreguin wanted them to. After all, it was his peeps that were rioting, and the people they were punching, beating, and pepper-spraying, i.e. Trump supporters, veterans, honest free-speech advocates, and other normal people, are generally not "progressive" enough for the likes of the Berkeley mayor.

It would be ludicrous to argue that he didn't know this was going to happen. Even a cursory glance at social media would have told him that the antifas were gearing up for another fight.

One other thing that hasn't gotten through to the antifa supporting liberals in government is that if they aren't going to protect us from violent mobs and are going to leave us to do the job ourselves, then what the hell do we need them for?

Surely that's the next step in a place like Berkeley right? In this last riot, the antifa kids all brought M80's. What happens if they bring pipe bombs to the next riot? What do you think the conservatives will bring to the 'free speech' rally immediately following that one? At that point it will be beyond the ability of the cops to control.

I've seen cops shoot. I'll put my money on your average devoted hobbyist (especially those with a military background) anyday - disorganized as they may be.

I am very much against violence as a response to politics, and I'm all for the free exchange of ideas. I'll debate anyone and will restrict my actions to ... wait for it... speech. But I'm absolutely 110% for violence as a means of self defense (with that extra 10% for the sake of my daughter where the violence I meet out on whoever harms her will be considerably more severe than any they may inflict on her) and it looks like it's coming to that. It certainly did last weekend.

I'm grateful for the courage of the guys who stood up to the Antifa goons and the nominal police presence (because there really isn't any doubt who they were there to protect), and I thank them for putting themselves in harm's way for the sake of saving the rest of us. But the government can and should be the arbiter of force. None of this should be necessary. And if the government doesn't hop to it and put an end to this nonsense, we are going to end up with more than one effeminate male feminist and militant 5 foot tall filipina middle school teacher lying in the road afterward.

Ann Coulter is speaking in Berkeley on the 27th. And the way it looks to me, that's quite literally the last chance for government to fulfill its appropriate role in society. If they don't, then I'm quite certain that power vacuum is going to be filled by people who have far less personal restraint than the police in this country ever have.

Monday, April 17, 2017

- Getting Rid of White Men

Just a quick comment on this piece from The Heartiste".

The social justice left is happy to say that everything is the fault of white men. Well in a sense that's true because we are the ones who are responsible for it all. We're responsible for the food you eat, the car you drive, the phone you stay permanently glued to. We built the building you live in, the power grid that lights it, and the water system that keeps it clean. If it moves, and even if it doesn't, white men were responsible for its creation, its manufacture, and environmentally safe disposal. We did it all.

And if you get rid of us, then it's all going to go away.

Now no one is seriously making the argument (no one worth listening to anyway) that America should somehow get rid of all white men. And even if they did, the Army (which by the way is the world's largest) has combat units that are disproportionately white, wouldn't make it particularly easy. But if you really want to live in a world where all the white men are gone there are a wealth of options available for you. I'd suggest Liberia which was specifically set up as a home for repatriation of black slaves. There you cn be free of all the reliable electricity, clean water, and comparatively efficient healthcare that white men have inflicted upon America.

To quote a friend of mine who did some business there back in the day, they do have 6 foot 4 transvestite cannibals in wedding dresses who carry machetes. So no matter how marginalized and oppressed you are, I'm sure you'll feel right at home. Just think of how oppressed that machete wielding cannibal must feel.

- Firearm Panic

This is an interesting story. There was a panic at Coney Island when someone thought they heard shots. Interestingly enough, though it didn't make the papers, something similar happened near my on Friday.

I was at Penn Station Friday evening, meeting my daughter who was on her way into town for the weekend. There was a train broken down in the tunnel under the Hudson river, so lots of trains had been cancelled, and the places was mobbed with confused and irritable commuters and holiday travelers.

I was waiting in the area for Jersey Transit in the southeast section of the station. It's sort of it's own room where I can stand in a section above the people getting on the trains, and can see all the people who get off of track 10 or below. When all of a sudden, and seemingly for no reason, a crowd of about 3,000 people began running for the exists. I was out of the lane of travel so I wasn't nervous about the rapidly approaching mob, but it was interesting to watch the panic spread through the room and see the whole place empty out of the exits - dropping their bags and water bottles on the way.

Eventually I took a walk down to the other side of much emptied station through the wreckage that the panic had left behind. The homeless guys were sifting through it all helping themselves to anything of possible value. I spoke to a cop and he told me that someone thought they had heard a shot, but the panic was the real show. "In 35 years I've never seen anything like it." he said.

There was no blood, no body, and since I had been standing nearby in a closed space, I'm pretty confident that there was no shot. I'm certain I'd have heard it.

I don't really blame people for being afraid, I'm never comfortable in big crowds either. That's why I was waiting in an elevated hallway with a back to my wall. But I think this story and the one linked above, highlights a clear disparity of culture. Most of the people in New York have never held a firearm or for that matter even know anyone who has. They are a different breed than 'American' it seems to me, so no wonder they work so tirelessly to see the place destroyed.

They are an easily frightened bunch these liberals.

Saturday, April 15, 2017

- Women, And The Women Who Love Them

More antifa violence in Berkeley today. Only this time it looks like a bunch of Americans fought back. The girls of antifa are seen here being chased down the street and getting slapped around a bit by the men. Yay grrl power.

That's the thing about them. Any shot where you can tell the size and shape of the antifa people you can clearly see it's about 50% women. And the others I guess are the women who love them. All of them the brave 'white knights' of the beta world, willing to say and do anything for the slim to none chance of getting a little.

After getting swatted in the face a few times I imagine they'll rethink the whole thing.

- The Alt-Right Going the Right Way

When I was talking about the Alt-Right appealing to the center,this is exactly what I was talking about:

If you are a white student in college, you doubtless hear daily that white people are evil, the principal cause of everything wrong with the world. Whiteness is bad, white people are bad. We are to blame for everything.

If you believe this, you are being gamed. What you are being told is nonsense. If you have the intelligence and self-respect to think for yourself, ask:

“What have other races and ethnic groups accomplished in the world compared to what we white people have?”

This question will be shocking to you because you have been carefully programmed not to think such things. But ask. I think you will find that the groups who complain the most have accomplished the least. Check for yourself.

Look around you. Can you find anything with a moving part that was not invented by whites? Anything electronic? Cars, telephones, computers, aircraft, antibiotics, on and on–all sprang from the minds of white people. You are not supposed to say such things, and could be run out of a university for it–but ask yourself, if you have the courage: Is it true? Do not think that because things are commonplace or easy to use that they are not products of fields of extraordinary difficulty.

Read the whole thing at the link.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

-Global Bitch Slapping Has Commenced

Tom already addressed the Syria imbroglio , in which my comment is available. Gavin McInnis has a take similar to mine in his recent column.

However, you can disagree with your peers and agree with your enemies when we’re talking about a board game that’s in 4-D. You can be an isolationist Trump supporter who hates meddling in the Middle East and still think this was a brilliant move. This wasn’t intervention. It was a fireworks display. We’re done. There will be no abdication of thrones nor any boots on the ground. 
The entire article is worth a read and I agree with the various elements that have been neutralized by Trump's recent actions. Does dropping a MOAB on Afghanistan mean we're going back in? Nope. Unfortunately we are still there. But I like the idea that the MOAB was in response to the killing of a single Green Beret by ISIS. ... Bringing a knife to a gunfight...

What bothers me about the Alt-Right (the outspoken Alt-Right) as well as the Neo-Cons is the insistence that a military decision or a political decision different than the campaign trail automatically follows a pattern of predictability. I disagree. Similar to the excerpted scene from the Godfather, is Trump settling all unfinished business? Syria plays into Neo-Con hands, but does not concede that there will be an invasion. Trump said on the campaign trail that he will bomb the _ _ _ _ out of anyone that messes with the US. He didn't say he'd wait until it happened, but like a boss, he kept his pimp hand strong

The impact is multi-level: 

Xi jin Ping was witness to the event while scarfing down chocolate cake at Mar-A-Lago. Xi is like Freddo here. Freddo needs to clean up North Korea, if not Mikey (Don) will have to send the Navy over to take out Mo Green (Kim Jong Un).
That's an interesting and savvy point of negotiation. While my experience with Chinese history and philosophy is limited (1-year graduate school) Trump boxed-in Xi inside the dilemma of "Save Face... or Lose Face". I recall my professors placing most significance on this element of Chinese life.
I think Xi JinPing heard the message loud and clear. 
But is this part of a big plan that has been in the works?
The National Enquirer says Trump has launched "Operation Clean Sweep"; a global military effort to rid the world of all these two-bit dictators.
What if?
Think about it: not nation building or spreading democracy, but taking out all the biggest jerks on the planet and leaving a vacuum. The neo-cons will squeal that we will need to repair the damage or fill the vacuum. Screw that... vaporize Mugabe, turn Maduro into mush, finally, finally, turn Tehran into cinders... Hamas: gone, ISIS: gone. Any country that even thinks about sponsoring terror in the slightest... whoopsie! Here's Tomahawk to your gut.
Next - move the UN to Ascension Island. One can only dream...

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

- Heartists And Cuckold Culture

Hooray for me. I just finished the design for the AI I've been working on, which I expect to revolutionize ... well, I'm not quite ready to discuss that yet. Let's get the investors signed up and onboard. But I really think it's gonna be big.

So I decided to reward myself with a short break, and hopped around the web a bit hither and yon, looking for some new bit of wisdom to impart. Lo and behold, I found it at one of my regular haunts - Chateau Heartiste. One of the more unapologetically pro-male blogs. Herein is a new term for the culture war: Cuckoldism:

Cuck Nation is the acculturation and codification of cuckoldry, both the duped and voluntary versions. Voluntary cucking is in a way more loathsome than unwilling cuckoldry, because it’s harder to fathom the depth of depravity to which a man must have sunk if bartering his cuckoldry seems to him like the only way he can buy sex and love, and with damaged goods no less.

It's been said that Feminists want to be men. That's partly true. But what they really want is for men to be women, without the natural biological advantages that some women have. Because let's face it, an attractive woman has power. She can more easily persuade, influence, and modify a man's decision making. And in that way she can make the world into exactly what she wants it to be, without ever taking the risks that the men she has so easily persuaded have to. Her only risk is that there will be another woman who takes him away.

Feminists though, don't want men to ever have that kind of power. They want them to have all the downsides of being men and a few new downsides of being treated like women. they want them to be morally compelled to chastity, while still having to bear all the financial burdens and all the physical risks. It's a one way street designed to allow unattractive women to have the same (or at least similar) power over men that attractive women have always had. Except their power is the force of law.

In that respect, just like the race war is really the 'good whites' against the 'bad whites' (HT Derb), Feminism is a war waged by unattractive women, on attractive women. It's those genetically blessed beauties that the Feminists really despise, and if a few men need to rot in jail on false rape charges to get there, it's seems a small price to pay for them.

Male Feminists are just unattractive men who are trying to bottom fish by intellectual affinity. But there is absolutely no good reason for an attractive woman to ever embrace Feminism.

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

- A Word On Chemical Weapons In Syria

The world is full to the brim with ruthless, heartless people who are motivated toward evil. And the use of Sarin gas is atrocious. It's a horror. But it isn't my horror.

My world works out from the self. First, of course there is me, and my survival. Just behind that, is my immediate family, and I'll admit the lines get blurry there because there are a lot of circumstances where I would sacrifice myself for them. But as we move further out from my family, there are fewer and fewer circumstances where that will be the case. Third in my priorities, are my friends and allies. And since I consider myself a man of honor and loyalty, there are still a few circumstances there where I would sacrifice myself for them. Hopefully it never comes to that, and all it ever means is a sacrifice to my wealth or standing. But I'd defend my closest friends with my physical well being as well. Fourth is my tribe. I see my tribe as "Americans" though that pool has gotten pretty muddy lately. No, that's not a racial comment. I just mean that there is a fairly large contingent of Americans who believe that America is the worst place in the world and the people who support it are monsters. they can hang for all of me. But if the military started drafting middle aged former hedge fund manager,s I don't think I'd have any trouble sacrificing myself for my brothers in arms.

Fifth is another group, I'll call them my 'extended tribe'. These are people from foreign nations who are similar enough to me that I can see them as having a common interest. The British, Irish, Canadians, Australians, and the other members of the anglo-sphere certainly. I like every German I've ever met so they'd qualify. In fact I think most ethnically northern europeans would. But I don't have a thing in the world in common with a Cambodian rice farmer or Nigerian shephard. So I don't feel very compelled to risk myself on their behalf.

Now I don't feel affinity with everyone in Northern Europe. But to the degree that they have collectively chosen a government and that government has stated their affinity to mine, I'm happy to help them stand up to existential threats. Either through diplomacy, or if it comes to it, with force. But I don't want it to cost me much in either money or treasure. this is the nature of international allies.

As for the rest of the world - the part incidentally where most of the people are from and where virtually all of the uncivilized monsters who will use Sarin gas on their civilian population are - I have no real interest. In as much as they may represent a threat to our nation I believe in pacification from orbit. As the Derb so often says "Bribe em, bomb em or leave em alone." But I go further than him.

To all the nations or failed nations who are engaging in atrocities toward one another or themselves, I would say we should seal the border and let them fight it out. Their brutality toward one another is no real concern of mine. I can appreciate that there are US interests in the region, but I don't think it's worth much in US blood to try to ensure stability, in a region that won't be truly stable until everyone is dead.

If the cultures of the third world stabilize themselves and want to act like responsible members of the international community, I would welcome them. If they act like they're acting in Syria, then I'm disappointed, and horrified but I don't want to die to get them to stop.

I appreciate that this is a simplistic, un-nuanced and deeply linear view. But we've been up to our eyes in that part of the world since 9-11. And I think it's time to stop.

- And One From The Derb

I'm short on time this morning - busy, busy. But I wanted to mention this piece, also from UNZ, by our man Derb. He takes his time getting there, but comes to a very important point:

Dr. Wood’s careful remarks, and Bob’s more straightforward ones, touch on what is perhaps the greatest, the most unmentionable, of all the many Unmentionables about race in America: that whites, in the generality, are scared of blacks, in the generality.

This is an obviously true statement, and I think that fear exists with good reason. Blacks are strong, quick to violence, and far less dissaded from it by fear of the law.

But there is no courage without fear. And some things are more important than an incidental bruised lip or black eye. I'm not telling anyone to be hero. But I was raised to believe that if a man wants to hold his head up, he will have occasional times where holding his fists up will be necessary as well.

I'll tell you one last thing, and then I have to go write an aggregation algorithm.

I've been in a lot of fights in my adolescence and youth. More, I dare say, than the average man my age. I'm a pretty tough and intimidating guy in most circumstances or at least as my years continue to advance and opportunities to prove that statement decline, I believe I still can be. But I've certainly lost far more of the fight's I've been in, than I've won.

But when it comes to physical violence, of the post adolescent high school variety, it usually doesn't matter. All you have to do is put up a good fight. Demonstrate you have the self respect to defend yourself, the courage to face down a man intent on doing you harm, and most of the rest will fall away. Hopefully the next generation will be tougher than this one.

And if we're all afraid of blacks, then the problem is us, not them. And how we let that fear affect us.

- Sociology 200: The History of Pseudo-Science Racial Theories

If you've ever met Robert Weissberg I'm sure you'll agree with me that he's a very hard guy to not like. He has a razor sharp wit, and a geniality that for me, is vaguely reminiscent of Milton Friedman. His typical MO is a cheerfully good natured deadpan delivery, with a grain of sarcastic truth. As if he's quietly chuckling at the absurdity of the world.

He's got a great piece over at the Unz Review today, talking about how the ideas behind the Alt-Right view of race, can still be presented in a campus environment that see's them as the most incendiary heresy. His claim is that the facts can be raised so long as they are weakly denounced as well. So he's proposed a new course for the heretically minded professors to propose:

Sociology 200: The History of Pseudo-Science Racial Theories. This course surveys the development of “scientific racism” in the writings of Madison Grant, Han Eysenck, J. Philippe Ruston, Richard Lynn and others. Special emphasis will be given to the alleged scientific basis of their work and why this research is hateful.

My instinct when I first read it was that although he knows the academic world much better than I do, he was giving College Students too much credit. But then I had to rethink that. I'm sure there are many kids for which that's true, but to cite an RFNJ axiom, "It isn't true for ALL of them". And in Bob's plan a hard line will be drawn between the kids who can see the facts behind the opinion, and those who can't.

The opinions will all be hard left culturally marxist, but the facts will all support the Alt-Right. And as a result, more people will learn the truth so long as they're capable of forming their own opinion about it.

Bob retired from the University of Illinois several years ago. But it's very easy for me to imagine him speaking to a room full of kids, his deadpan delivery turned up to 11, citing fact, after fact, after fact, followed by the weakest condemnation you could imagine. IT might not be possible for everyone to pull that off, but Bob certainly could. With luck, there are others out there.

Hopefully one of the kids attending will put it on youtube.

Definitely read the whole thing.

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

- Give Susan Rice Immunity

For 8 years, Team Obama played it very fast and loose with his authority as President, the constitutional limits of government, and certainly some would say, the truth. And even if his base was upset that he "just didn't do enough", the media simply couldn't wait to fellate him for for what he did do. Now it's looking like at least one chicken has come hom to roost, and she's gonna have to testify to congress for her trouble.

Woe unto Susan Rice.

I get the impression that Rice isn't very smart. She's been horribly exposed in all this, just as she was when the Benghazi incident was "caused by a youtube video". In that case her people really hung her out to dry in such an obvious way that even the worst of the media lickspittles had to admit that she lied on national TV. In the process she's lost virtually all her credibility. I wonder what they're going to say when this all plays out?

I'm hardly a deft political operator. Time and again it's been my downfall. But at least I always had the work I was doing to defend myself, and I never once even brushed up against an illegal act, let alone actually did somehting that was illegal. Susan Rice can say the same for now. And there may have been some justification for what she did. But it's gonna have to be one hell of a story she tells. That whole 'youtube video" thing ain't gonna cut it this time.

My thinking is that at the time, the left was seeing the Trump thing as an existential crisis for the survival of the nation, and simply assumed that if they violated the rights of his team, the evidence would be so obvious and so egregious, that no one would care how they came by it. That doesn't seem to have been the case. But it terms of motivations, it was just the usual liberal panic and paranoia, except with the NSA and FISA court at their beck and call. The truth is that they're only barely getting used to the idea of Trump as President today.

In my experience, the more liberal someone is the worse a boss they are. Their ego and their insecurity is all they really care about and that makes them poor at their jobs. The same seems to be true of Susan Rice, or whoever it was that ordered Rice to do the things she did.

I can't wait to find out who that was. I hope it occurs to someone in Congress or the DOJ to offer her immunity to find out. And I hope she has knowledge that justifies it.

- All Racism Is Fake

Even Ty Cobb wasn't actually a racist.

Monday, April 3, 2017

- Goodbye America (In Photos)

A picture is worth 1,000 words. Very ironic for me to say given the nature of the business plan I'm working on, but it's true. And the picture you'll see here tell the story of post Obama's America very well I think.

Goodbye America

The gang at Heartiste have something to do with it - so prepare yourself. Those boys are not the type to spare the harsh medicine. But it's entertaining in a sadistic sort of way, and the photos there will only bother you if you've already decided that you'll miss America when she goes - which looks like it happened about 5 years ago.

Lots of these are perfect for that Facebook post to make your liberal cousin scream at their computer. Some are too subtle for the blue pill minded. I'm sure you'll be able to tell which are which.