Wednesday, May 31, 2017

- Good Hearted And Honorable

This video isn't a burden. This is a sincere, attractive, and seemingly intelligent woman explaining how she began thinking for herself instead of believing the endless propaganda she was fed by academia and the media all her life.

She's not a firebrand. She isn't a hate monger. She's not a racist or a misogynist. She's a woman who used her intelligence to free herself from the lies she was told. Listen for the phrase I used as the title. Somewhere around the 7 minute mark she uses the phrase 'Where is the justice for the good hearted and honorable man".

Regrettably, the answer isn't "here in America". These days, this is no country for honorable men. What the left doesn't get, is that when you create an environment like that the first thing you lose is the honorable men.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

- Meanwhile, In Another Galaxy

Since I was just talking about the way the idiocy of gender and ethnic studies is like a huge black hole sucking other disciplines into its gravitational void only to shred them into their entropic constituent bits, this piece from Ace is timely:

A feminist academic affiliated with the University of Arizona has invented a new theory of "intersectional quantum physics," and told the world about it in a journal published by Duke University Press.

Whitney Stark argues in support of 'combining intersectionality and quantum physicS" to better understand "marginalized people" and to create "safer spaces" for them, in the latest issue of The Minnesota Review.

Because traditional quantum physics theory has influenced humanity's understanding of the world, it has also helped lend credence to the ongoing regime of racism, sexism and classism that hurts minorities, Stark writes in "Assembled Bodies: Reconfiguring Quantum Identities."

Ace has everything to say about this that I ordinarily would, so you can just go read his comments.

- Take This Down To The Memory Hole

The surprising ancestry of ancient Egyptians: First ever genome study of mummies reveals they were more Turkish and European than African

From the piece:

The study, published in Nature Communications, found that modern Egyptians share more ancestry with Sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians did.

So the Cairo of today with it's riots, filth, driving by car horn, and occasional mass murder of Christians is more sub saharan than the Cairo of Pyramids. That ought to go over well in academia. If you listen carefully you can almost hear them down in the basement opening the lid of the memory hole.

- The Dark Star of The Social Sciences

There are some phrases that while you may be relieved to be hearing them, still give you a bit of a shake. “Don’t worry, it's just syphilis.” is a good if somewhat graphic example. Given the full range of possible outcomes in any situation where you hear something like that, it’s way better than lots of other options. But it’s still not exactly the kind of thing that makes your heart leap for joy.

My daughter gave me one of those this past weekend, thought thankfully it was totally unrelated to the topic referenced above. She’s getting ready for college – not next year, but the following year. And she’s so smart and such a hard worker, that I’m sure she’ll be successful at anything she does.

There was the question of her intended major though. Up to now she’s been very successful at only a few activities outside academia. Photography is one. She’s entered contests with tens of thousands of entrants and still ended up in the finals. She’s actually having some of her work published as a result. She's really very good at it, but I have to confess, as a sole major it gave me pause.

Think about it. In an era where roughly 1.5 billion people are now walking around with a digital camera from their smart phone in their pocket, it seemed to me that the law of supply and demand would certainly be lowering the commercial value of the good photo. And that would have to have an effect on the earnings power of those who are trying to keep body and soul together by taking them. It's never been a particularly lucrative field on average anyway. And these days it can't be any better.

But she still loves it, and is still very good at it. I have her photographs all over my apartment and she really is talented. So I smile, and hope that she get’s a really great teacher next year for Calculus or Economics or something, and a newfound interest lights a spark.

But this past weekend she told me that she’s now had a slight change of heart. She’s now considering a ‘double-major’ of Photography and Political Science. Now god knows you can make a good living in politics. Bill and Hillary turned a little political juice into hundreds of millions of dollars (and only explicitly broke a few laws to do it) and their daughter is an empty bucket of a woman who still lives in a multi-million dollar penthouse.

But I know my daughter, and I’ll be honest. I think she’s too idealistic to succeed at it the way the Clintons did. Politics requires the kind of compromises of character that will be very hard for her. Low cunning, which is what the path to political greatness is always about, simply isn’t her way. And it’s very hard for me to imagine her developing the skill for it. She's just too honest.

Does it pose a better option than photography? I think so yeah. And at least she’ll meet boys with more of a potential future. But my really big concern is that it will also put her dangerously close to the Black Hole of Social Sciences that is currently destroying the rest of academia. The grievance majors of ‘gender’ and ‘ethnic’ studies are so devoid of serious intellectual support that they’ve begun ruining other departments as well. And I’m deeply concerned that Political Science is too close for her to successfully escape their orbit.

A part of it, it seems to me is how we argue against it. Gender studies, and ethnic studies aren’t just built on a core of anti-intellectual lies but are in fact built on just a singular anti-intellectual lie – that the subjective experience of someone who feels aggrieved, is as much a part of objective reality as anything else. But when we describe the obvious problems with that idea, the things we say to our kids sound like overly broad simplifications.

Meanwhile, the academics who lead these exercises in narcissism have had decades to come up with all the cult style mental tricks and traps to keep kids from seeing the obvious falsehood. It’s more like they’re spreading an intellectual disease than ‘teaching’. They’re embedding in the minds of a new generation, all the tools necessary to keep them from being able to learn... really anything. They are providing them a delusion so total in it's scope, that the very act of learning is prevented. And in the process they are condemning them to a life of misery, where everywhere they look is an enemy of the righteous, and all they have to do to see new enemies is imagine them into existence. How happy could I be about my daughter getting close to a circumstance like that?

Anyway, she’s still just a 17 year old high school junior so I’m not getting too choked up about it. It’s entirely possible that when she learns how much of 21st century academic life is about the baseless demonization of people exactly like her father (who she does not really resent the way most high school kids do) it’s possible she’d snap back from it, end up transferring to Hillsdale, and eventually working for the NRA. So I’m not going crazy about it.

In the meantime, I’ve reconciled myself to these issues being mostly outside my control. I can help, and try to steer a little, but I won’t command her. It’s her life. And she’s going to have to make her mistakes. All I can do is hope that the mistakes are small and the effect of them short lived. Like syphilis. Instead of longer lasting, like the mental illness of gender and ethnic studies.

Monday, May 29, 2017

- Understanding Dunning-Kruger

The Dunning Kruger effect is not a social construct, but a fact of the real world. I've mentioned it here many times before - even before I knew what it was called. I might have mentioned it before the term had been invented to describe it, I'm not 100% sure about the timing. But I'm sure you're familiar with it in concept.

The Dunning-Kruger effect refers to incompetent people, being too incompetent, to understand that they are incompetent. I have mentioned it many times particularly with regard to self assessment of intelligence. Intelligence self assessments run the range from "much above average" down to "about average" and no lower, even though it's an obvious fact that 50% of the world's humans are by definition, below average in intelligence. But there is no telling them that.

I have also often mentioned a delta in the assessment of other's intelligence. As you go from the right tail of the intelligence distribution to the left, one of the first skills that falls away is the ability to successfully estimate the intelligence of others.

For a new and spectacular example of this, I will henceforth be referring to this treasure which I snatched from Taki's weekly column. It's a person who is clearly very stupid. So stupid, that they assume that the rest of us are also just as stupid as they are. It's a statement of breathtaking stupidity, obviously displayed. And would be hysterically funny if we didn't live in a world where most of academia agrees with it:

I'm only posting a link to it, out of the risk that putting the headline here will both ruin the joke, and that it's incandescent stupidity is so deep, that it will suck the comparative intelligence from the surrounding posts into it, like a black hole devouring a star.

But ya gotta admit, that's some pretty amazing stupidity. Even in post Obama's America.


I just showed the headline of the article linked above to my girlfriend without uttering a word, and she broke out in uproarious laughter. She then came back with what I view as the perfect reductionist description of the current liberal Dogma. "You don't have to be an 'anything' to be an 'anything'. You don't have to be a girl to be a girl, you don't have to be a dog, to be a dog, you don't have to be a table, to be a table. It isn't that the words themselves have no meaning, it's that everything else has no meaning."

If we ever wondered why liberals don't seem to be able to do much of anything successfully, we now know why. It's because they are blind to everything in the world, except their own feelings about it.

- The Latest Summer Accesory

Well at least the press is admitting this happens:

Hamptons bachelors are getting vasectomies so golddiggers can’t trap them

In a just and fair system, both parties would have their rights protected by the courts. Women do lie sometimes. (I know... shocking right?) So men should have some protection. There should be a law that requires a woman to get the written 'consent' of a man for paternity. And he should be able to disavow that paternity, (not deny... disavow) and not be liable for any child support. If she doesn't get him to agree, then she shouldn't get any money.

You get that? If the man doesn't want to be a father, then he shouldn't be compelled to pay for a child. If the courts would make this one simple change, than this major (and constant) miscarriage of justice would end. And one of the most serious civilization destroying incentives of Feminism would be seriously limited. Women would start saying 'no' again, rather than risk solo parenthood.

Of course, our family courts are far too enthralled by Feminism to ever consider this seriously, but that's what would happen if it were a just and fair system. Unfortunately, it's not. It's really a system designed to punish men.

And just to tie this to the last post for Memorial Day's sake, while I'm glad to see some prudence on the part of men, and some pressure of our society to abandon Feminism, I'd just like to add that "this ain't no way to save civilization guys."

Saturday, May 27, 2017

- Context And Cowardice

I’ve been thinking about context a lot lately. Context is very important. Just think about the simple phrase “Are you allright?” Imagine a man saying it to another man. The next thing you probably imagine is a burning building, overturned car, or incoming projectiles of copper and lead.

Now imagine a woman saying it to another woman. What is the next thing you imagine? Is it a woman sitting alone on a bed with her head in her hands and crying? Maybe she’s in a hospital waiting room or a church pew. Wherever she is, the next thing you expect from each of these circumstance is very different.

For the men, you expect the questioned man to check his own vitals or for the existence of his limbs. Maybe he’ll pat his own body or pull the Velcro on his body armor to see if he has a hole or just a world class welt or maybe a broken rib.

For the woman wherever you imagine her, the next thing you expect is to hear about how she feels about herself.

There is a biological imperative for this. Women are supposed to be this way. It’s natural for them. It doesn’t make them bad women, it only makes them bad men. They are genetically wired to worry more about their own survival than the survival of those around them because their biology invests them in then next generation of humans. And if you’re going to worry about the future rather than the present, then you need to be more defensive.

Men aren’t like that. Men worry about the present. And I don’t mean just today, I mean the right now… the right this second. Men are less vested in the future than women because the future requires less of them. A momentary investment from men can assure an entire new generation of humans. And this makes them disposable.

But if the natural order gets overturned somehow, all sorts of things start to fall apart. If men worry more about their future than the present, they become cowards. They run when they should fight, and that puts everyone at risk. We’re not terribly strong or sturdy individually, but we’re organized and cohesive. That’s what makes humans the most dangerous animal on the planet.

And if women worry more about their present than their future, then in very short order, there is no future. Women have a very short reproductive window compared to men. The big investment than nature requires from them for creating the next generation means that they have to get to it earlier than men. A 40 year old man has nearly the same reproductive odds as a 17 year old man. But for a woman, when she reaches 40 her reproductive odds are on average, just 2% of what they were in her reproductive prime.

So when women spend age 20 to 40 worried about their present – their career, their personal fulfillment, ‘sowing their wild oats’ like the much more disposable men often do, the system breaks down. And that makes them just as disposable. Which is what men of the west are doing with them now. They’re disposing them.

The disposable women don’t realize this until they reach 40, because when you ask a woman if she’s allright, she only ever thinks about herself, and her feelings about herself. This is tragically natural for them. It’s how nature designed them. But speaking as a man, I have a much more important question for you.

What conceivable excuse could all those cowardly men have?

Our culture is falling apart and the truth of it is that it's men's fault. And only men can save it.

Friday, May 26, 2017

- Safer With Sikhs Around

I don't know how much you know about Sikhs, an indian minority group - who are neither Muslim, nor Hindu exactly, but more closely related to the Hindu faith. I personally think of them as a kind of Hindu - Mormon.

The Mormon church isn't what anyone would call a 'typical' Christian faith. They have some wacky ideas to my Catholic eyes and some interesting takes on convention. But I don't think anyone would believe they are closer to Judaism or Islam than Christianity. They are a Christian faith, for what it's worth. And I've liked every single Mormon I've ever met.

Anyway, the Sikhs are kind of like that, only for Hiduism. Which isn't to say that there is any direct relationship between Mormons and Sikhs, except that they are both major subdivisions of one of the world's largest faiths.

I've had the pleasure of working with a few Sikhs over the years in various positions. And like the Mormons I've met, I've enjoyed every minute of that as well. I think it's mainly because the Sikh's are such total bad-asses. For example, being armed to protect the rights and safety of others is a tenet of their faith. It's a rule. Look it up.

One Sikh friend of mine in New York city went to fairly extraordinary lengths to stay true to that, because as you know, being armed in New York is expressly illegal - even if your god says otherwise. I won't tell you how he resolved it except to say that if it ever comes to it, it's probably considered a grey area.

But more than that, my experience has been that they have a very modest and unassuming nature to them. That's not the kind of thing you expect from a guy who carries a dagger around 24-7 but it's true of all sikhs. They fear no man. Courage for them is a matter of personal pride and being thought of as a coward, makes you less in the eyes of god. But you don't have to be a dick about it.

What's not to like?

Anyway there is this story in the Ace overnight thread, about a sikh cab driver in Manchester who offered Free rides to help out, and Cosmo (the chick Magazine) reported that he was a 'Muslim' cab driver. How can you tell someone at Cosmo is typing a lie? They're keyboard is making that clickety clack sound. But in this specific case, the Turban is the tipoff.

Muslim's don't wear turbans except as a fashion statement. Hindus aren't required to do so either (at least I don't think they are.) But Sikh's are. so when you see the south asian guy wearing a turban, a bracelet on his wrist (Usually copper in my experience) and looking like he's packing, fear not. You're safer with him around than you would be if he weren't.

And let me chime in on the Ace guys and say "Fuck you Cosmo."

- The Rise of a Super Villain (Part Three)

Seriously - this guy is a sociopath.

- An Amazing Admission

From Unz Review (of course) I just this moment read the following sentence from a card carrying member of the intellectual left:

First, it seems to be a fact that the genuinely intellectual wings of the alt-right or neo-reaction (NRx) or whatever you want to call it, are probably too intelligent and sophisticated for bourgeois intellectual workers to engage with, let alone compete with. … So if those essays are actually pretty smart and a legitimate challenge to your institutional authority as a credentialed intellectual—you are functionally required to close ranks, if only with a silent agreement to not engage.

Speaking from personal experience, I'd say this is almost certainly correct. And I'm not even talking about 'half-measure' guys like Charles Murray, who concede the moral ground to the left, but argue the minutiae.Look at Derbyshire, Brimelow, Jared Taylor, Steve Sailer. Show me the leftist who can even keep up with them let alone offer a logically consistent intellectual argument to refute what they say.

In the world there are facts. Facts are inescapable. Gravity doesn't care how you feel about it. Then there are ideas, which may in the fullness of time prove to be facts when their supporting evidence becomes so well known or inexpensive to learn, that they ean that status. This is the intellectual border of the objective world.

Then there are opinions. Opinions are not facts, and never will be facts. Opinions are a subjective reflection of facts. They're conjecture, or assumption. But they are not facts, and a fair number of them (I'd say 50% but that's slightly unfair) will turn out to be simply wrong.

Then there are feelings. Feelings are something we all possess but none of us truly ever share because they are purely subjective. They are in many cases, how the facts and ideas of the world make us feel about ourselves. But whatever their basis, every aspect of them except their existence, is mutually exclusive from the world of facts.

The intellectual left has retreated from the world of facts, and now tries to make the claim that there is no world outside the subjective. They deny it, in whole and in part. They view it as an abomination of the religion of the ego, to which they all strictly adhere. To them, even pointing to anything which challenges the ego of the subjectivists in the tiniest way, is to be guilty of a great moral sin. And it doesn't matter if the fact is as inescapable as gravity, if you notice it, you are considered, not wrong - anyone can be wrong - you're considered evil.

And you can't imagine how pleased it makes me to know that there is at least one apostate in their midst.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

- Behold Feminism's Future Demise

I was almost not going to post this because I was so pleased with the outcome of my last 'stream of consciousness' piece. But it's really too much fun not to share. What we have here, explained with the typical serious intellectual clarity of my favorite Canadian academic Janice Fiomengo, is a detailed description of the snake of Feminism, finally turning on itself, and devouring it's own tail.

And when the academics all turn on each other, as Janice ever so clearly explains they have, the rest of the mindless drones can't be far behind. In no time they'll all be locked in their bedroom closets in the Fetal position, and the rest of us can get on with the serious business of being civilized men and women.

The long night of excess obviously isn't over just yet, but I think you can see the end of it from here.

- We Are The Problem: Part 87,462,837

Ask soldiers why they risk their lives, and once you get past the political platitudes about god, country and family, you get to the truth of it. They risk their lives not for high minded ideals, though that's a part of it. The reason they really risk their lives, is for the men standing beside them.

Did you feel that? did you feel that surge in you when you read those words? That's exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe you've felt that on a football field or basketball court. Maybe you've felt it with your friends or brothers. But you need to feel it again now. We are all men, we're all in this together. And though we didn't ask for it, we're engaged in a life or death struggle with an enemy that wants us as their slaves or dead.

My brother was a soldier during peacetime, or at least during a war slightly colder than the ones we’re in now. He was stationed near the Czech border in West Germany, where they could see Soviet bloc Troops on the other side. He fired no shots in combat, and had no shots fired at him. The worst thing he sent toward the enemy was insults in German. But even now, decades later, he occasionally talks about the grip that his connection to his squad mates still has on him.

This is the nature of how men connect to other men. Most of the time we compete. My brother and I are only 11 months apart and spent our entire childhood competing. He was better at some things and I was better at others. But all that competition with its wins and losses, didn’t put any obstacle between us. Now, with both of us in middle age, we’re closer than we’ve ever been. And he’s literally walking around with my blood in his veins.

Men don’t usually get together in big groups to get behind big political ideas. And it’s a good thing too because if there were ever a men’s march on Washington the size of the recent women’s march, with it’s stupid vagina hats and dedications to Sharia law, the Congress would probably call out the National Guard. And they’d be right to do so, because if men ever get so angry that a group that size forms, we’ll be getting together to burn the halls of government to the ground. And as my brother said once it's other men who are driving the tanks, and ‘he can only imagine the look of shock and horror on their face when that tank turret spins around to point in the other direction’.

But they don’t have to worry about that, because men don’t feel big kinships the way women do. We feel small ones. Personal ones. We feel a connection to men who we can look in the eyes and see the connection. The same dedication to principle. The same love. That’s how we connect. Personally.

But we need to do something different now.

There is much talk in my normal reading list about the differences between races. Yes, race is a real thing. But I’ve got to confess, I have always felt more of similarity and kinship to a black man than I ever have to a any woman. (Even my daughter who I'd kill and die for, is a very different kind of animal than me.) I've felt that connection, particularly with black men of a certain age who have matured beyond the stage where adolescent volatility is still an issue. Treat a more mature black man with the kind of courtesy and respect you’d like to see from him, and my experience is that he’ll always respond positively to it. He is a man after all, and it’s how all men are wired. Personal connection is always possible whatever the differences.

And that’s the lesson I think we should be taking from all this business in Manchester. We men need to begin to appreciate just how far down the Feminist rabbit hole we’ve all been dragged by our libidos, and start thinking again like men. We need to start removing the Feminist mindset from our society and our halls of government. We need to discard their pettiness and frivolity. ‘Coming together in Love’ will not defeat our enemies. Only violence will defeat our enemies. Harsh and rigid male logic and reason is the order of the day, not the silly soft apologies and social media virtue signaling of women. We’ve tried that. It’s failed. It’s now time to do something more serious. It’s time to solve this the male way.

Women don’t respect men who don’t stand up to them. This is the nature of the $4it test’. It’s time for men to realize that all of Feminism is really just a collective $4it test’. It’s a test we can only pass if we ‘fail’. It’s time to tell the Feminists to shut up, go home, and let the men handle it. It’s time to tell them that having to ‘wash bits of 8 year old girls out of our hair’ is too big a price to pay for political correctness. The only other inevitable choice, is ceasing to exist.

There is no need for cruelty here. Women are silly and superfluous, and should never be allowed to make big decisions on their own. But that doesn’t make them unnecessary. Let them ramble on about Ivanka and Melania's hair-styles and how important it is to let transexuals in bathrooms.

We should listen politely to all their wailing and teeth gnashing, then ignore every word they say. Until very recently, this is what men have always done with women. And in a time of crisis like this one, it's always the right thing to do. This is wired into our Y chromosome. You felt it just a moment ago. If you're honest with yourself, you can probably feel it right now. The problem isn't them. They'll always be women. The problem is us.

It’s well past time for men, to start acting like men again. All of us.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

- Save Our History - June 10th - SJWs Going to Texas to Protest Sam Houston?

To anti-american SJW scum: watch the video above. The narrator speaks real slow and there are large subtitles. Let it sink in as to why you are protesting for the removal of Sam Houston's Statue.
So if Antifa or anyone else wants to mess with Texas... I'll bring the popcorn.
If you get past the Proud Boys, you'll be confronted by OathKeepers. Or a motley assembly of Americans sick and tired of your bullshit! Yeah the same folks that ran you out of your Safe Space in Berkeley...
If that ain't enough... you will be greeted by one of the many Texas Volunteer Militia's
Best Wishes!

- Louise Mensch: Alt-Right Recruiter

From Vox's site:

To all my dear Muslim brothers and sisters in Manchester and across the U.K., we got your back. Neither terrorists nor Nazis will divide us.

Vox's reaction is similar to my own:

I put a poll up on Twitter.

If a Muslim happens to drive a truck through the Manchester vigil tonight, what would be the correct response?
Hold another vigil
Pray to St. Breivik

St. Breivik is a reference to the Norwegian Shooter who took an Assault rifle to a Progressive Summer camp and killed 69 people. He's a self describe 'Fascist' and 'National Socialist'. From his wikipedia page:

On the day of the attacks, Breivik electronically distributed a compendium of texts entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, describing his militant ideology. In them, he lays out a worldview encompassing opposition to Islam and blaming feminism for creating a European "cultural suicide". The texts call Islam and Cultural Marxism the enemy and advocate the deportation of all Muslims from Europe based on the model of the BeneŇ° decrees, while also claiming that feminism exists to destroy European culture.

Vox has a pretty good defense of of his citing Breivik, and I'll let it speak for itself. In this context though I read him to mean that the only answer to a people who want to blow up innocent little girls is violence. Though I'm not advocating shooting up a summer camp or college campus, I can definitely see his point.

I believe the government should be the only arbiter of force. I don't think it should be necessary for individuals in a country with a functioning government, to resort to force on their own behalf, in order to protect innocent children.

The question I have is, is the UK, or for that matter the US, that kind of country? Or are we already as ungovernable as Louise Mensch and the Social Justice Warriors say that they want us to be?

And what do we do about it if we are?

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

- Fashionably Hating Western Culture

Social Justice Warriors hate western traditions and the institutions that grew out of them. They want to smash it all and replace with their own neo-marxist values. They invest a great deal of time, energy and money trying to convince us that despising the west and all it stands for is the only legitimate moral choice.

Radical Muslim terrorists also hate western traditions and the institutions that grew out of them. They too want to smash it all and replace it with their own values. They invest a great deal of time, energy, and money trying to convince us that despising the west and all it stands for is the only legitimate moral choice.

So when Salman Abedi, 23, a British man of Syrian heritage was thinking about blowing up a stadium full of children, all he sees wherever he looks are people who feel exactly the same way about the west that he does, but just don't have the courage to do something about it.

But I'm sure that's all just a coincidence.

- Being Callous About Manchester

You're looking at a photo of Saffie Rose Roussos, age 8. She was killed last night in Manchester.

I am the father of exceptionally sweet teenage girl, and unless you are too, you cannot possible imagine how this photo affects me. I speak from experience here. There is no greater tragedy in all of human experience that can come close to comparing with the loss of a child. It's the big Kahuna. The great fear. And with good reason. I know few fathers who wouldn't happily take the place of a child who's been killed. Dying at the hands of a terrorist is hard, but carrying on afterward is in some ways harder. My hands tremble just thinking of it.

The bomber has stolen a lifetime of experience from this girl. All her future joy, and all her future accomplishment, both large and small. And all that's left for the people that cared for her, is a huge gaping hole where she and all her future potential used to be. If I were the father of this girl I would tell any lie, distort any fact, manipulate any resource, to get my hands on anyone involved in her death. Nothing in the world would stop me. No wall, no law, no moral code. And once I did, the last few months of their life would involve a quiet and remote place filled to the brim with almost unimaginable suffering, and the careful administration of medical supplies designed to prolong the experience. The end would come with them 'passing to paradise' through the digestion of several different alligators.

There are those who may claim that I'm being callous by pointing to the politics of this tragedy. But I am a man. Men fix things. And the thing that needs fixing here is not Islam, it's us. Our politicians are what is broken here. Our leaders have failed to protect this girl. They are as responsible for her death as the man (probably) who set off the bomb. By demanding that we admit a people to our society who despise us so much that they are willing to kill innocent children, they are absolutely complicit in the death of this girl, and the 21 others like her.

And Yes, in all likelihood this was a bombing motivated by radical Islam. You don't need to be psychic to make that prediction. But the problem doesn't come from radical Islam. Radical Islamists apparently think it's perfectly moral to murder 8 year old girls. If that's how they choose to structure their society, then I certainly wouldn't want to live there, but I respect their right to do so. But I object very strongly to their acting like that ... here. Let them set off bombs in Pakistan and Yemen. Let them slaughter their own 8 year olds. We don't do that here, and it isn't wrong to say so.

If you're the kind of person arguing for inclusion of a people who so despise us, remember that this is what you're including. The almost unimaginable pain and suffering of the family of this girl is in some small part, on your head. It's your fault social justice warriors. Not yours alone, by any stretch. But some of it is certainly yours. Look in the eyes of the girl you had killed with your inanities and idiocy. You ignore reality to defend your fragile egos. But this is what your monstrous ideology brings to our homes.

It's not callous to want to fix what's broken. What's callous is pretending that things are other than they are, and getting innocent children blown up in the process.

- Another Amish Bombing

We are told by the media, that according to their religion, (progressive social justice) there is no us and them. We are told that we are all 'us'. One can reasonably assume they mean 'all' to include whoever it was that set off a bomb in a stadium full of children, at an Arianna Grande concert in Manchester. Moreover, we're told that it is morally wrong to think of an us and a them.

But even worse than drawing an intellectual line between us and them, is any act or thought which might successfully predict who is us and who is them. An excellent example of this is NY's 'stop and frisk' law which took place at transport hubs in high crime areas, and was called racists because those high crime areas, by some coincidence, seem to be more heavily populated by blacks than whites.

I personally can't recall ever feeling a desire to blow up and kill a room full of teenagers listening to bubble gum pop music. My brother, arguably the closest individual to me on the 'us and them' spectrum, has never done so either. Nor have any of my cousins, nor my friend, nor my business acquaintances. I might have come into some vague contact with someone over the years who felt that way - maybe I rode in the back of his cab, or frequented a restaurant where he worked. But if I have, our contact was polite and uneventful, and he gave no indication of his plans.

This statement though is considered deeply racist, or so I'm told, 20 gazillion times a day. There is nothing wrong with assuming it's a man because men, as the high priests of Social Justice instruct us, are morally inferior to women. While women are psychologically much more cruel to each other than men, acts of actual violence instead of verbal violence of the social justice identified type, are overwhelmingly a male phenomenon. That's a difference that it's considered OK to notice. But by implying that the Manchester bomber may not look exactly like me is definitely considered racist, even though it's likely to be the case.

We are all also told that no religion is superior to any other, except social justice of course. We're endlessly told that fanatic christians are just as likely to detonate bombs in Northern English cities as anyone else. (Remember that great rash of Amish bombings back in the 90's? Me neither.) But to notice that this statement doesn't have anything in the way of supporting evidence, is considered both racist, and proof that we have brought this on ourselves by our oppression of 'them'. How have we oppressed 'them'? By succeeding in the face of their failure.

Meanwhile, in the real world, this is really just an example of the circular nonsense of Social Justice, and is proof of nothing except that the whole psycho-babbling mess is just an excuse for bad character. Here in the real world, there is an us, and there is a them. We don't do things like this unless the member of 'us' is severely mentally ill. Which according to our moral standards, makes them, or at least makes their behavior, not a part of 'us'. 'They', meanwhile, do this sort of thing all the time and they tell us that their reasons for it are noble and moral. This is what makes them, 'them'.

Why do they really do it? I couldn't say. But I'll give you 50-50 odds that when we find out, the name Donald Trump is in justification there somewhere. So Donald Trump is responsible? Social Justice Warriors will certainly think so. But in my opinion they are collectively mentally ill enough to be considered a part of 'them' as well.

Monday, May 22, 2017

- What A Steaming Pile Of ....

If there is one thing you can be certain of, its that when you see a writer telling you the time for debate is over and it's now 'time for action', it means the time for debate is very much is not over, and in all likelihood, they are going to lose the debate if it's allowed to continue. From Steve Sailer:

The cultural appropriation debate is over. It’s time for action

Steve points out the most obvious hole in this argument on his site.

- The Impending Trump Backlash Vote!

I regularly review Drudge Report for a scan of headlines. There a brief headline about how the Dems were already breaking fundraising records in preparation for 2018.
I'm gonna go on a ledge here and say that the prospect of Nancy Pelosi returning as the Speaker of the House will probably keep most Dem-on-the-fence voters at home.
The  media reported Trump Backlash lacks any scintilla of substance.
What are voters supposed to be outraged about? If you are Derb or Ramzpaul or Ann Coulter, you might be disappointed by the lack of border initiative (although I see positive steps in that direction). Is it enough for the first conductors aboard the Trump Train to jump off at the next station stop in protest?
The media keeps jamming this "Trump-Evil, Must Impeach" rhetoric down our throats.
We might see a real backlash, a second wave if the economy continues to improve, foreign relations improve and more Impeach Trump rhetoric get debunked.
Here's a pair of Mark Dice video's (pun in there!) that demonstrate what I'm talking about:
CNN Host Has Emotional Breakdown - Because People Don't Trust CNN Anymore
.... And this Gem!
No the second wave backlash is building and will probably crescendo with a tidal wave of angry protest. People, ordinary people that get up every morning and make valuable contributions to society are going to experience an economic pop in their 401-K or IRA and an improvement in their neighborhoods. It's already happening. Never-Trump analysts and economists have been stepping on rakes weekly saying that the "Trump Trade is Over" or "We can't pay for Trump's Plan!"
The national democrats are actually dialing back the Impeachment crazy-talk because of loons like Aunt Maxine, and the sheer lack of evidence.
Why did I post the video of Robert E Lee's monument being removed?
Another backlash has been triggered by the cowardly Mitch Landrieu who spoke out of both sides of his mouth  when he said "We cannot be afraid of the Truth" while completely running in fear of the truth by choosing to remove the monuments of Confederate Heroes (Most Notably Robert E. Lee).
The South will rise again no matter how much the left wants to pervert US History to nothing more than a Ken Burns telling of it... The Civil War was not entirely about slavery or civil rights. The left can call me a heretic! If this perverted Bolshevism continues on American soil the next step will be to deface Mt Rushmore. What's next? Thomas Jefferson's Memorial is removed because he had sexual relations with a slave... why yes, that is the definition of Rape therefore we cannot honor a rapist!
Wake up America: regardless of your creed or color, the act of sanitizing history is a big step in retelling it. It will ultimately marginalize the "black experience" as it used to be called years ago...

- Democratic Traditions

Sunday, May 21, 2017

- Starship Troopers Reboot

I got an email from a frequent commenter the other day about the death of Powers Boothe, the enigmatic actor who played Cy Tolliver in the Deadwood series. And he shared my sense of loss that it may not bode well for the Deadwood reboot we fans have been hoping for. I could see them remaking it with Cy having shuffled back to San Francisco, but you're right... something would be lost.

Then today I saw this over at Vdare:


It's an interesting piece for any Heinlein fan, of which I very much am one. But I was even more excited by the linked piece from Hollywood reporter about a reboot of the Movie currently in the planning stages. The goal it seems, is to be a bit less ridiculous parody than the original film. The critic who wrote that article obviously doesn't understand human nature any better than anyone else in Hollywood, and the screenwriters will probably make a total hash of it by trying to distort it into a box that SJW's will find acceptable. But to even have it on the table is promising.

Heinlein's take was very proto-libertarian, with a military bent. His three really big literary hits were Starship Troopers, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, and Stranger in a Strange Land. Gay controlled hollywood would probably prefer a reboot of the latter, but Starship Troopers holds a special place for me. Raised as I was by men who loved to fight, and who all believed that the 'lowest common denominator' aspects of Democracy were more problem than solution, it's just a much more natural fit.

That is what Democracy is after all. It's government of the lowest common denominator. And when you import people from a totally different culture, the common denominator between them gets much lower. In that respect this is a part of why our institutions are so strained and untrusted. In a nation dominated by a homogenous and abiding shame for not paying your own way, the Welfare State model works fine. It remains limited, and of short duration because the people who use it feel that way about it. Import a bunch of people who feel no such shame, and the takers eventually outnumber the payers.

Paul mentions the post Democratic options in his piece, and I'm a big fan of denying the vote. I think there are tons of perfectly legitimate moral reasons to take the vote away from more than just felons. IF for example, we took the vote away from anyone without a positive tax burden, I think that would be fair. Surely the people who pay the bill are the ones most entitled to pick from the menu.

Heinlein has other options, and I think it would be useful to discuss them now, no matter how triggered some people will be. And the movie certainly can't be any sillier than the last one was.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

- Steve Sailer Plays Whack a Mole

Steve is on a real roll here. A sentence by brutal sentence take down of the VOX story trying to discredit Charles Murray, and the heritability of IQ.

That Steve can swat this drone down should surprise no one. And since he has rationality and the truth on his side, it's fun to read. But I've got to admit, I'm kind of impressed at the vast permutations and transformations performed by the Vox guy in order to make 2+2 equal to a nice neat progressive 5. And that's with none of the advantages that Steve has. The guy is taking total horse shit, and spinning into somehting that he'd managed to sell to some people as pure gold.

Of course... it's still horseshit.

Friday, May 19, 2017

- Apropos of Nothing

Busy day today. The deck is done, and we're ready to pitch. And, we now have a patent pending on the process. This is gonna be big fellas. Maybe VERY big.

Through a weird train of thought that would be too boring to write up, all this reminded me of my oldest friend Skeet, who died last year. His absence still leaves a pretty big hole for me, and it's days like this one that I used to call him to check in.

Thinking of him I got to reminiscing. And I'm remembering a cold day in 1983 where he and I, along with two other guys, played the following song in our second set, at the corner Tavern on Somerset St. in New Brunswick NJ. To my knowledge this was the first time any of the 'nice jewish girls' from Rutgers had ever heard this song, and they absolutely howled with delight. I can still see Skeet's face, that big smile planted on it, while he leaned into the microphone. Filled to the brim with pride that the crowd was reacting so strongly.

Good Times.

This is very much not safe for work, but for readers of a certain age it will probably ring a bell.

- The End Of Carlos Danger

It's tough to find a man more prototypical of the problems of the American left than Carlos Danger - the pseudonym that Anthony Wiener used for online sexting. Before being exposed, the combative New York Democrat was a rising star of the left, and was being groomed by the machine he married into, for a bigger national role.

Congressman Wiener? Senator Weiner? President Wiener? All of them could have potentially been on the table had he received the unequivocal backing of the Clinton political machine. That machine is of course, a big part of the problem too. The Clinton machine's ability to ignore serious character flaws cast in the shadow of their unbridled lust for power, was a well documented problem. And if good old Carlos had stuck to women over the age of 18, he'd probably be well on his way to glory.

But, as it turns out, he liked em young. Too young. And in spite of the left's rapid success in recent years in destroying the fabric of American society and the institutions that support it, pedofilia is still a step too far. The Clinton's could have seen past it of course. But when it all became public, the American Public could not.

That makes this story from the New York Times, Anthony Wiener's epitath: Anthony Weiner to Plead Guilty to Resolve ‘Sexting’ Inquiry

None of the stories I could find on the topic mention whether this is a Felony or Misdemeanor. Since Mr. Wiener is a Democrat, the failure to mention it by the press means that it likely is. Had he been a Republican the world Felony could be read in the headline, but Democrat's don't get that kind of rough treatment in the press, even Democrats like Weiner.

Also unmentioned is whether this guilty plea will put him on the sex offenders list, so by the same rules of modern media, one can assume it does. If both of those unwritten assumptions are true, then he is no longer qualified to work in a number of industries, or to vote. He will however be eligible to hold office again, though the odds of that are small, even in New York.

Of course, it's possible that neither of those assumptions is true, and the press is failing to notice these important details in order to spare a prominent and well connected Democrat the public outcry that would come from Wiener being given special treatment. You never can tell these days with the press.

But whether he's being held to the law like the rest of us, or being held above it by the media and the courts, this admission will ensure that we have seen the last of Carlos in what we still laughingly call, the public service.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

- Just a Matter Of Time Now

This piece has been talked about quite a lot in the blogs. (It took me 5 hops to link to it.) It's a professor claiming that heterosexual white men should all quit their jobs to make room for Transgenders and women.

I view this as an optimistic sign. Just think for a minute how close this is to actual honesty from a liberal. And as the overtone window moves (ceaselessly shoved by the progressive left) it's just a matter of time before the difference between left and hard left will be the difference in policy between imprisoning we cis-white men, and flat out killing us in the street.

And at that point a white man can reasonably claim that he was acting in self defense in a whole variety of new circumstances.

The moral of this story is, we built it, we're gonna keep it. Don't think so? Come try to take it away.

- Making the First World More... Third

Erdogan's Turkish Secret Police bodyguards, mix it up with Turkish protesters outside their embassy in Washington.

One of the many things that puzzles me about liberals is how much they're willing to ignore about human nature, in order to preserve their perception bubble. The core of multi-culturalism is an excellent example, and it makes me think that Liberals must never travel at all beyond going from one college campus to another in the top of the first world.

I've spent a substantial amount of time in the third world. And I find it difficult to believe that anyone else who also has would look at the idea of multiculturalism, and think we should bring anything from the third world here. The world on average is a brutal and dangerous place, as Erdogan's bodyguards have demonstrated.

Suppression by force doesn't mean saying "I disagree with you". It means I and my 12 burly mates are going to pummel you with our nightsticks until you're too bruised and bloody to stand. Until you're no longer able to have children. And if you resist we're going to take you, your friends, and your families, and lock you all in some damp hole for an unspecified amount of time, because we feel like it. This is what happens virtually everywhere except the anglosphere. According to my brother, even the German police used to be this way prior to their surrender to the forces of Islam.

And it's not just the forces of 'oppression' in the third world that make it dangerous. In Bangkok you can buy a 15 year old Hmong girl for the price of a decent used Lexus. I don't mean rent her - you can get her and her best friend to stay at your hotel with you for a weekend for the price of a decent Manhattan meal. I mean you can 'buy' her. You'll own her. You can do with her more or less what you wish. You could theoretically kill her if you plan to leave the country quickly afterward, and are pretty good at hiding the body. No one is knocking themselves out looking for dead teenage hookers in Bangkok. Say what you want about the poor black or Latina girl in the US inner cities, but no one is buying her.

And if I'm being honest, Bangkok is one of the more civilized high points in the third world. It's a 'sort of' developed place, populated mostly by a friendly, and welcoming people. Plenty of liberals visit there, but I get the impression that they do so while staying in nice hotels with western amenities, and toting gallon jugs of hand sanitizer. They think it's oh so quaint that the kids are shampooing their hair in the muddy river, and they never seem to notice grandma (no wait... that's not grandma, it's their 26 year old mom, she just looks like a grandma) filling the stew pot with water just a few feet upstream.

Civilization is a molecule thin veneer layered over the top of almost unimaginable brutality. And it was always the first thing I saw when traveling.

Back when video cameras were still a rare thing, my ex and I found ourselves in Kathmandu Nepal. White tourists were still a kind of rarity there at the time, and a small crowd of urchins, average age about 12, had caught sight of us and had run up to us to beg a few rupees. Rather than give them money I raised the camera, and flipped the screen around so they could see themselves. They all started mugging for it saying "Hey! TV!" and pushing each other out of the way to get on camera.

Eventually they were shuffled away by our guide, and we went about our touristy business looking at old stuff in even older buildings. Well on our way back to the car, I caught sight of that same Nepali version of 'our gang' across a plaza kicking around a ball in a semblance of soccer. One of the younger kids grabbed the ball and the biggest kid delivered a beating to him, complete with kicks into his supine form, that I thought was a little excessive. Being a caretaker type, particularly with kids, I considered jogging over to them and putting a stop to it. But when the rest of the kids joined in as well I realized that it wasn't worth getting involved in. It's just how things are when there is no civilization.

This is what I thought of when I saw this little dustup outside the Turkish embassy. This is the Turk version of that gang of kids, all grown up now, who still don't think anything of pummeling people whenever they're even slightly annoyed by them. This is man in his natural state. And if you think 'it's a man thing' don't kid yourself. Men are brutal, but they're mild in terms of cruelty compared to women. Ask that Hmong girl who she's afraid of, the bar owner or mama-san. Making the world more female would only have all the violence of the world of men, and constant (and often random) psychological abuse thrown in as well.

We don't do things that way in the first world anglo-sphere. And we don't teach our kids to do them. At least we never used to. But this scene plays out everywhere else from Mexico, to Somalia, to Jakarta. And that's mild by comparison to the stuff the tourists never see. Heroine addicted 13 year olds with guns, are not uncommon in the Brazilian Favelas. Even the police don't go there.

That's the way of the world. It's our way that's the exception. And liberals should remember than when they're arguing for bringing more of what those countries are, here.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

- Just Cause It Says 'Intelligence'...

The joke in more scientific circles is that if it says 'science' in the name, then it isn't really science. Certainly "Political Science' isn't. And there is a debate about 'Social Science'. Economics can be approached scientifically, but often isn't. And there is nothing you can do to save the Gender Studies, Ethnic Studies, and Gyno-Feminist-Queer-Bi-Oneleggedlefthandedlesbiandwarf Studies departments at all. Not only are they not science, they aren't actually studying anything. They're simply proselytizing grievance culture to narcissistic kids.

And as far as I can see, the same holds true of the word 'intelligence'. The 'intelligence' services don't seem to be terribly interested in being intelligent.

As an aside, my startup involves the use of an artificial intelligence of my own design, assigned with the task of identifying and destroying the economics for 'fake news'. And one of the things we've discovered is that it's stunningly good at figuring out if the Twitter feed you're reading is a bot. This was not part of the plan, it's just a happy side effect. We're not sure precisely why. The bots are supposed to be very clever too, but just because it says 'artificial intelligence' doesn't actually make it 'intelligent'.

And apparently the same holds true of the Federal Intelligence services. I've always thought that in spite of their praise in the media (who we know are by no means intelligent.. or at least too lazy for it to matter) that they were for the most part just career government workers of middling intelligence and no better. You rise to the top in government based not on intellect but on low cunning, which is totally different.

My point is, it's very easy for me to imagine Trump saying what it's claimed he said, and meaning only that he hopes that Comey can get past the whole election mess emotionally and 'join the team' in his heart. Maybe that's not the actual inference, but something like that. Surely Comey himself didn't think it anything worthy a 'freak out' or he would have said so at the time. In that respect, it's sort of like the rape accusation from the college co-ed. If it arrives in the first 24 hours along with visible indications of emotional trauma, then it's probably legit. If it shows up for the first time 9 months later as a discussion point in Women's studies class, it's probably BS.

None of that is to defend Trump exactly. I think he's too careless with his words. I believe that words have explicit meanings and those meanings sometimes have consequences, and he isn't going to always be able to wiggle out of what he actually meant. I'm not saying he should surrender the point either. He can never ever concede the framing of his words to the media, who would apparently do anything to see him taken down.

But I know what hysteria looks like, and this media freakout has all the signs. I don't think we're helping anyone by adding more fuel to this fire. I believe that slathering them with more reason to justify their delusions (as Trump often does) will in the end do us more harm than good. They're awful people I think. But they're awful people who we're going to have to live with. And if things keep up as they are, we're going to see junior AP reporters with bombs strapped to their chest trying to sneak into the Whitehouse Press briefing room.

Think of the press as a totally hysterical woman. This is the point where they begin throwing lamps and breaking things, because you won't admit that the pizza stain on your shirt is proof you're having an affair, instead of proof that you ate your lunch in the hallway running between meetings like it really is. They're at the point where they're now projecting all their hatred and animus, and utterly ruthless 'king of the ashes' ambition onto Trump.

Does that mean they're trying to destroy America themselves? I certainly think it supports that view, but that's hardly news is it? Who could read the NYTimes and think anything else?

But I think it's time to try to calm them down a little. Because just like that hysterical woman, they aren't only going to hurt themselves.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

- Wiping Out Neanderthals

What you see here is the much lauded 'World's Most Important Graph', created by Steve Sailer. Mark Steyn spoke about it recently. The Derb spoke about Mark Steyn, speaking about it. Steve created the thing a while back and though I don't think he's talking about it at the moment, it wouldn't surprise me if he did soon. So in this post, I guess I'd like to talk about, all those guys talking about it it as well.

There are better sources of information on the intersection of genetics and culture. But I've read a little, and there is one fact I found intensely interesting. All humans from every part of the globe have, if my sources can be believed, somehting like 2% or 3% Neanderthal genes. The only exception, are sub-saharan Africans. Asians do, whites do, Indo-aryans do, Australian aboriginals do. Black Africans do not. So in some respects, the graph above might be seen as the 'end game' plan for finally finishing off the Neanderthals.

It raises a question for me though. Not about intelligence, that's done to death. I'm more interested in the other behavioral characteristics of the differences between we semi-neanderthal, and non-semi neanderthal peoples.

For instance, one thing I've become aware of after sharing countless sidewalks with the countless rainbow colored New Yorkers, is that black people seem to be less concerned with their immediate surroundings than whites and asians, particularly black women. They are perfectly content to stagger and sway slowly down the center of a narrow sidewalk, preventing anyone from maneuvering past their bulk. They seem to be utterly unconcerned with the inconvenience that their behavior represent to others. And this tendency seems to be correlated to their lack of physical desirability.

As someone who tends to walk very very quickly and who lives in a crowded place, this is a big hassle for me. It bothers me more than most, certainly. In my eyes it's the pedestrian version of driving 55 in the fast lane, which black women seem to also do with stunning regularity. And it annoys me to no end.

I'm not sure if it's cause is just the normal solipsism of women taken to an absurd level, or maybe the excessive rudeness that comes from the normal culture of black New York. Either could be the case. But so much of the path we end up on in our lives is defined in our genes in subtle ways, that I thought it might be worth mentioning.

We are good at what we're good at because of our genes, the same as we're bad at what we're bad at because of them. I'm walking faster than everyone else because I've so internalized my ambition that I don't want to waste time going from one place to another. I want to either be here doing things, or be there doing other things. Transit time in my mind, should be kept to a minimum in most circumstances.

Well it's my experience that black women take the opposite tack. In their minds I imagine them thinking that they are precisely where they're supposed to be, mainly because it's where they are. And whatever is happening at wherever they're going will damned well wait until they get there. If that represents some minor inconvenience to others, that's no problem as far as they're concerned. If it were, they'd maybe shuffle over to just one side of the sidewalk, and let the crowd of people who are looking to maneuver past them go by.

Maybe they're just rude. Or maybe, because they are on average undesirable as mates (both physically and intellectually), they have become accustomed to people behaving with less courtesy toward them than they typically exhibit toward more desirable women, and see themselves as just responding in kind? They are rude and unpleasant because the world is always rude and unpleasant to them. That would explain the correlation between rudeness and unattractiveness. And stepping back from it, there has always been an element of 'chicken and the egg' type logic in accusations of racism. Blacks say they act badly as a reaction to racism, and whites say they don't like blacks because they behave badly.

But if that's so, then isn't the whole thing the product of genetics? Good looks is obviously genetic. But doesn't that also set a person's expectations for how the world behaves toward them?

Over at Heartiste there is an axiom which says that the sexual market is the only market, and all the rest is a product of how the behavior of the opposite sex toward us shapes our views. The most desirable members of the opposite sex behave toward us in a manner commensurate with our own level of attractiveness. So beautiful women get conditioned to expect men to respond well to them, as do the rich and powerful men. While the undesirable women (and men) expect indifference at best. So their personalities are shaped by disappointment, anger, and a deep hostility to those who are more attractive.

Obviously I don't have an answer here. I can't imagine a two legged creature that I would have less luck trying to get inside the head of, than a sub-saharan black woman. The difference between what I am and what they is simply too great.

But I wouldn't be surprised to find that those few Neanderthal genes had some kind of settling effect for the rest of us, that sub-saharan africans simply do not possess. Something that turned up our empathy slightly or something. Something that made it possible for us to be more willing to live within an agreed upon set of rules, or made us less likely to cheat the rules because we see the rules as having some connection to our own well being. It lets us set our expectations of others in a reliable way, and that seems like a good trade for the inconvenience of living within the rules ourselves.

The rules I mean are the rules of 'common courtesy'. And spend a weekend in Manhattan trying to get where you're going as quickly as possible, and it will be clear to you that 'common courtesy' is the last thing on any black woman's mind. Not exactly an important point I know. I'm just trying to connect a few dots in my mind today.

Friday, May 12, 2017

- Where Our Hero Forgives Himself His Greatest Sins

My daughter turned 17 last week. I’ll be seeing her later today for the first time since her birthday, and unfortunately, in the interim she and I have come as close as we ever do to having an argument.

In a post the other day, one which she read, I wrote something which hurt her feelings, because she felt it was unfair to her mother, my ex-wife.

I could see her point, and in fact I did think that maybe it involved telling a little too much personal information. So, in deference to her view, I immediately apologized to her and redacted the portions of the post which upset her. She too has since apologized for making such a big deal about it, which I’m led to believe means that she recognizes my right to my own views about my own life, and to reveal them or keep quiet about them as I see fit.

My relationship with my daughter has been one of the biggest things in my life. As big as my career choices, my choice of habitation, or my choice of getting, or staying married. And I’ve written quite a bit about it over the years. It’s all in tiny dribs and drabs because I’ve always tried to be sensitive to exposing too much.

But by most people’s accounting she’s almost an adult now. She has her own life (as much as anyone would ever call the last 12 months of High School a life), her own opinions, and her own very distinct and very charming personality. So I thought it might be a good time to begin to take stock of things.

This little disagreement with her has gotten me thinking about Fatherhood and how that role has changed for me over the years, and how vital a part of me it feels. It’s an interesting question, the changing role of fatherhood as your children become adults. One that I’m sure many men have different answers for.

One thing that hasn’t changed though, is that I have always felt that the word ‘love’ is too small to describe the relationship. When I think of my daughter I don’t think of ‘loving her’, the way one loves ice cream, dogs, or even one’s spouse. It’s something considerably bigger than that. The analogy I’ve used to describe it is that you don’t love your hand, you don’t even think about it. You don’t have to. It’s a part of you, and you’ll do anything, including a long list of totally irrational, dangerous, or immoral things to keep from losing it.

Being a parent is sort of like that for me.

When I was my daughter’s age, my father the drunk was brutally trying to get me into the box he wanted me to be in. To him I was never my own person, but an reductionist extension of him. This went all the way down to the bottom of his fragile ego, and if I slipped up in any way, he saw it as a direct reflection on him, worthy of all the violent rebuke he could muster. As if I were his hand, but instead of being controlled by him I was giving him the middle finger, outside his own volition. I never wanted to be that way with my daughter.

From an early age I related to her the mantra that her life is hers, not mine, and though I want her to have the tools and the strength she’ll need to make that life into what she wants it to be, her life’s choices will always be hers. And though I might not like the choices, and will in all likelihood say so, she’ll always mean the same to me no matter what they are.

In turn she has rewarded her mother and I with an astounding degree of trust. At 17 I was utterly convinced, with more than a little cause and considerable evidence to support it, that the most dangerous person in the world to my personal well being was my father. While she is often frustrated or annoyed with me, my daughter does not feel that way at all. And I can’t tell you how relieved I am about that.

One of the things I’ve written a lot, and that many of you have heard me say in person, is that I became a father with no idea how to do the job properly. I always envied guys like my buddy Rob who see their dads as an ally – someone who will back them up, and help them through the rough spots in life.

All I ever had as an example for a father was a man who created most of my rough spots from whole cloth, and did his best to make their effect on me as amplified as he could. And it’s hard to learn to do a job properly when all you have as an example is one particular way ‘not to do it’.

So when I became a dad, I did it on purpose, with the full knowledge of what I was getting myself into. And all I wanted in the whole world – the way I would prove to myself and the universe that I really was a good man after all - was to be better at it than the example he had set for me. I still don’t really know for sure if I did or didn’t. But even if I did, a negative example isn’t really any example at all, and it doesn’t mean I haven’t made a total hash of it in my own way.

So anyway, I decided to read through my past posts, for anywhere that I made mention of my daughter in more than a passing way. There are dozens of posts that detail in varying degrees, the barbaric violence I would visit on the people who might harm her, and I didn’t include those. I only included those that give you some small window of how the role of father has changed for me over the years.

It’s a sort of RFNJ retrospective on fatherhood, and the effect a changing society has had on a man who had no intention of changing with it. Given the last week, it seemed important to me.

So here, in more or less chronological order, is all the stuff I’ve said about my daughter over the years. I won’t say every experience is one I’d like to repeat, but on the whole there is no other human who has so enriched my life, and made me so glad and grateful I’ve lived it. It doesn’t stop here of course. But I think it’s useful to look back sometimes as well as forward.

One last thought. We men, in many respects, are the sum total of what we do. Our acts upon the world are what define us. And if you're curious, reading back on these posts has made me feel that in spite of my every expectation and fear, I probably haven't been all that terrible a father. I'm imperfect of course. We are all fallen creatures. But I tried to do as well as I could with the tools I had, in the unplanned circumstances where I found myself.

And anyone who has seen what an amazing person my daughter has become, will likely feel exactly the same way.

9-11 Redux

The Virtues of Closed Captions

Look... An Eagle

Grammar School Politics

Black And White

Pyongyang remix

Keynesian Monopoly

Home Alone

Where I Support Obama

Still Thankful

A Joke From My Daughter

A Holiday Message

A Father's Day Message

Gators and Foot Dangling

Rich Kids Revenge

Hyper Regulation

Hunger Games

Immoral Health Care

Those Who Can't

Pondering The Perfect End

An Alternative Universe

Laziness And Insecurity

RFNJ Greatest Hits

A Working Vacation

A Shooting in Chicago

About Minecraft

What a Coincidence

When Cultures Collide

Don't Miss This

A Dog's Life

Low Information Comments

Turning A Corner (my life's low point)

An Airwheel Review

Facing Reality

Alitos Replacement

The Red Pill (My divorce Explained)

Endorsing Trump

Obama Fallen

White Privilege

Make Bone Marrow Great Again

Black Men And Race Traitors

The Gays are Revolting

Thursday, May 11, 2017

- Feminism For High School Kids

So I was thinking about the last two posts this morning, and I've come to a decision. The tone of my writing definitely needs to change because one of two things is true. Either (1.) my daughter, being the exceptionally intelligent, attractive, and clever girl she is, is reading what I write reliably, or (2.) she told one of her Alt-leaning, 4-Chan reading friends that I write a blog, know all the key thinkers of the Alt-Right, and they are reading it and relating it back to her.

Either way, it had never occurred to me that some of the people reading this blog might just be kids. And in that light, some things have got to change. It's one thing to complain over the barstool about things you both know from life and experience to be true. It's another thing to say them to kids who are still young enough to be figuring the world out, and lack the perspective of age.

So... with that thought in mind, (and with a link from the Federalist coming up) I'd like to say a few words about what Feminism really is. And because there is no talking to teenage girls about some topics if you're a middle aged man like me, I'll address this to the 4chan guys who no doubt think that as Milo so succinctly put it, "Feminism is Cancer".

So guys, here's the thing. Apart from a little flirtation in high school and college (early embrace of it should be read as a sign of intelligence as much as discarding it early should be) most women don't really care about Feminism. At it's core what Feminism is, is a philosophy of ugly women, inflicted upon attractive women, and the crap we men have to deal with from it is really all just collateral damage.

It's women who look like Lena Dunham trying to reshape the cultural laws that give women like Emily Ratajkowski more attention from men than she gets. The Lena Dunham's of the world are nearly total in their lack of self reflection. They didn't ask to be born into the body they live in. And they say to themselves "looks don't matter to me as much as a good personality, intelligence, and power, and I have a good personality, intelligence and power, and should therefore be considered more attractive than that dirty whore Emily (truth is less important than emotional tone here) who doesn't."

It doesn't occur to Lena that this isn't what men find attractive in women and never will. For us, for both better and worse) it's all about fertility and the outward cues of fertility. I know you probably don't think that's what you're looking for. you want a nice smile, pretty eyes, a nice bod. Maybe you're a leg man, a boob, man a butt man. I get it. I was young once too. But those things you find attractive, are things you find attractive because on some level they ARE outward cues of fertility.

Take it from me, that isn't going to change. You will always be more generally attracted to youthful symmetrical beauty, than you will ever be to a misshapen blob like Lena Dunham. Just cause she can't accept it doesn't mean you don't have to. But there is a flip side to it.

She, and the aforementioned Miss Ratajkowski, will always be more interested in power than they are in good looks. Power to women is what beauty is to men. And by the way, power isn't the perfect word for it, but it's as close as we're gonna get. What do I mean by power? Well money yields power. Political power is part of that. The power to influence those in your social circle. And the power to resist her desire to influence you. Strength, in most cases strength of will rather than strength of body, is going to win you more women's attention than being the best looking guy. Certainly beyond a certain age anyway.

But back to Feminism. The reason most girls don't care about Feminism is because they want a man in their life. Not those whiny, deflated, "bearded things' that hang around the women's studies department constantly divesting themselves of their 'male privilege'. Women are kinder to them, but they don't have any more respect for them than we do. And the less responsible of you will no doubt have some great fun in college defiling their girlfriends behind their back. What women want is a man who is strong enough to protect them, civilized enough to not need protecting from them, and productive enough to be able to afford to give them what they really want, but these days find it hard to admit.

What they want, is children.

Every society needs strong backs. They also need replacement backs when the first ones wear out. We are the backs, and they make the new backs. In the traditional sex roles, this is how things work. And it goes deeper than that. They are genetically programmed to be afraid, all the time. At least compared to us. That's not their fault. It doesn't make them cowards. It makes them women. If it were a man acting like that then he would be a coward. But our measurements simply don't apply to women any more than the measurements they want to impose on society fit for us. They should run to the back of the cave while you and I and the rest of the men fend off the saber toothed tiger. It's the way it's supposed to work.

Here's the real crime of Feminism though. What women want is children, but thanks to Feminism, they don't usually figure that out until they've hit 30, and it's probably too late for them to do anything about it. Before 30, it's all about the party, and being as promiscuous as they can be, because Lena Dunham would rather spend 15 minutes having a meaningless quickie with a man who would normally only go for an Emily Ratajkowski, than otherwise get no attention from him at all.

Feminism is a moral excuse for unattractive women to be empowered to use sex to get high quality men, even for a moment, than would otherwise be available to them. That's the real point of feminism, and why in a few years, only the least attractive women you know will still be considering themselves Feminists.

Feminism is a lot of other things too. I've written about them in the past and will again. But for your direct personal experience, you shouldn't think too much about it. Because as soon as your classmates are old enough to figure out the reality of what Feminism is about, the only women you'll actually be interested in will have totally forgotten about it. In high school no one has a clear idea of who they are. That changes very soon, and so too will their flirtation with Feminism.

High quality women don't need Feminism any more than a fish need's bike riding lessons. They can get attention from men. If they find one they really want they can persuade him to get married and have children. And they should. Because if there is one thing that worries me above all others, it's the way Feminism has elevated the value of meaningless sex over intimacy, love, and meaning.

I know, you can't stop thinking about sex, the more meaningless the better. That wears off, and it's an instinct that can get you more long term trouble than you think, so better to resist it as much as you can. Besides, you probably won't believe me yet, but in my mind, there was absolutely nothing in my life that compared to being a father. It has given my life more real meaning than all the other things I've done put together. And if you're ever lucky enough to do it too, you'll know precisely what I mean.

Which brings me to this piece in the Federalist:

Why You Should Consider Starting Your Family Earlier Than You’re Planning

If you really are Alt-Right, then having kids should be paramount on your mind, because to quote an anti-immigration axiom, demography is destiny. If you want America to be great again, you should be thinking carefully about finding a girl while young and having kids.

I know what you're thinking. There are lots of girls you think are beautiful enough to date, but none you want to marry. "And Besides Tom, didn't you just say what an awful deal marriage is for men?"

I did, and in the present legal structure, it is. But don't you guys worry about that. Leave it to we old fogies. The laws will change so that it isn't such a totally shitty deal for you all. Because it's either that, or America and the world we know will collapse utterly. We can't endure the collapse of our birth rate like they've seen in Europe. That's the real effect of Feminism. It causes women to think of themselves and their egos, far more than they think about their family, their society and the world at large. And like I said, most women don't really care about Feminism, and no longer think they can wait until 40 to have kids (they can't.)

So keep rattling cages. Keep harassing Shia LaBeouf or whatever it is you guys do. Go hang out with Gavin's proud boys and stand up against the anti-free speech nazis. And we old fogies will deliver you what you need to keep America in the civilization game. Speaking of Shia, I read a great quote the other day that I can't find now, but I'll paraphrase to share.

Talking about how the Alt-Right keeps ruining Shia LaBeouf's little 'He will not divide us' art project by stealing his flag and replacing it with a MAGA hat or some such, I read the following:

"If Shia LaBeouf got into James Cameron's deep dive submersible and went to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, within 24 hours a fish would swim by the window with the word 'cuck' written on it."

Surely guys like that deserve all the support we can give them.

- Going Over The Line

Well... this was bound to happen eventually. And going forward, I haven't decided what to do about it yet.

Yesterday, my daughter, via methods that aren't entirely clear, read my brief review of The Red Pill movie one post down from this. In the original post, I included much of the detail of why I got divorced and how I learned about the overwhelming anti-male bias that's embedded in our family court systems.

More than that, I told the story in a very one sided way. I took it straight from my half of the divorce documents where each party tells 'their side'. I didn't couch my explanation in how intelligent or well intentioned, or how generally good hearted my ex-wife is. She's all of those things, but it was apart and away from the point. My point was that I tried to do the thing that I thought a good father and a good man is supposed to do, only to find out that given the bias in the courts, it's all but impossible for a man to do that. And if he does it anyway, the bias in the courts require such hyperbole to get over the bar and win, that it makes it impossible to avoid the kind of collateral damage that I found unacceptable.

These were some very personal details about my life. I've shared some personal information here and there from time to time, and I've always been careful about it. I'm not doxxing myself or anyone I know, and that was true in this particular case as well. In my mind there is clearly a line that shouldn't be crossed when it comes to things like that. But I figure that in my life and from my own experience, I'm entitled to share my own view of it, from my own perspective.

Well my daughter was ... lets call it 'less than thrilled', that I shared my perspective on my divorce. And she immediately sent me a text to tell me so. I would never want to embarrass her, or make her life any harder than it has to be. She's a teenage girl after all, and that sucks enough without your dad piling on from the internet. And I'm not exactly a NYTimes reporter, dedicated to the non partisan dissemination of facts (cough). I'm a third rate blogger chronicling his own experience and his own opinion, while the world loses it's mind around him.

But in the interest of my daughter's feelings, I redacted the personal information, and left only the objective part of the review. That makes it a pretty boring piece, but so be it. It's not like THAT hasn't happened before, and I'm sure it's something I can live with. It does leave me in a bit of a quandary though going forward. Do I shut up about my own life simply because in stating my own personal views, sometimes people I care about are going to have their views known as well?

There is another thing coming around the bend too. This startup I'm working on shows real potential. And though I will never, ever apologize for my views to anyone, there is a legitimate reason to distance myself as I can, from giving anyone any reason to doubt my sincere dedication to fact over opinion, and the inevitable primacy of objectivity and truth over subjectivity and feelings.

No rational person would question that based on what I've written here, but we all know how things work in the Social Justice world. You don't have to do, say, or think anything to be found guilty of something, you only need to be accused of it. If eating a ham sandwich is seen as being insensitive to Islam by some exceedingly irrational Social Justice Warrior, then posting a picture of you eating a ham sandwich is proof positive of your racism, sexism, xenophobia and hate, and the mindless internet swarm will demand to see you driven from public life because of it. Even if all you ever wanted to really do was 'have lunch', and have no idea that you were micro-aggressing anyone.

In the social justice world, denial is considered supporting evidence (ie. "that's just what a racist, misogynist, xenophobic monster like you would say") and an apology is considered a confession. So I will not be apologizing for my thoughts ...ever. But I don't want to be insensitive to the feelings of my daughter, for whom I have sacrificed much and will continue to, or to the people that are relying on me to do all I can to build a business which will assure them future employment. When there are people depending on you, there is more at stake than 'saying what you think'.

That's the thing about feelings right? They do matter. On a personal level they matter a great deal. And we all have people we care about whose feelings should be important to us. It's the making of that part of personal priority into a political priority that's the real horror of the Social Justice view. Just cause the SJW's care about their own feelings doesn't mean everyone else has to care more about SJW feelings than their own.

But that is what the SJW's think. That their feelings matter, but no one else's do. So all must be silenced except those that agree with the the aggrieved.

The obvious difference here is that this isn't some random Smith College Sophomore with a chip on her shoulder telling me I'm being unfair to my ex by talking about the abuse I personally suffered at the hands of the NJ Family court system. It's my daughter. Whose feelings I do very much care about. So in the interest of making sure she knows that she does matter to me (and she matters considerably more to me than you lot do), I'll silence myself in this particular case. Even though I think I'm utterly entitled to my view, and entitled to share it as I see fit, I'll keep it to myself in this case for her sake. Though I make no promises about the future. We'll have to just see what happens there.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

- "The Red Pill" Movie Review

This one has been a long time coming, and it's a good news bad news post. The bad news is for Cassie Jaye, the (former) Feminist who made the Documentary “The Red Pill”. The good news is for you. And they’re both driven by the same fact. “The Red Pill” is available on Kodi. That means less cash from legitimate screenings for the filmmaker, but it means you can see it for free. And I get the impression she didn’t do it for the money. Loathe as I am to urge you to hurt someone who has made such an honest film, I’m urging you and your wife, and girlfriend, and your Feminist friends, to watch it.

You all know the story of the creation of this film. A young attractive Feminist from Hollywood goes off to make a documentary about ‘Rape Apologists’ and discovers that the Feminist characterization is actually dead wrong. In the process she learns about the Men’s Right’s Movement, and changes the topic of the film, to call much needed attention to the obvious wrongs created by a culture steeped in Feminist Dogma. In the process she’s alienated by Feminists who interrupt her funding, she’s ostracized and threatened online, and she’s forced to experience what anyone who dares challenge Feminism deals with every day.

The movie runs just a little long in my opinion. And the directorial decisions seemed to not flow very well to me, but that was probably because of my own experience of dealing with the Feminist Dogma in NJ family courts.

Naturally I thought the red pill should spend more time on the family court issues. But it’s probably just me.

On the whole I’d call it a great and compelling movie. The MRA's are sober, thoughtful and reasonable, the Feminists are hyperbolic, emotional and furious. Just like it is in "The Real World" as Morpheus said to Neo. So that red pill keeps proving itself as an analogy. It's all told from a women’s perspective of course, but it's at least told. And by an honest woman at that.

And I'm begging you all to get out there and find the time to watch it, and urge others to see it.


I redacted a piece of this post, because in the end it was too personal, and my daughter read it and was upset by it. So I thought I'd take just a minute before I get to more important work tis morning, and mention what I thought was the most important point for this movie.

Feminists claim that women are seen as sex objects. And I think most honest men will confess that life contains an element of that. But what Feminists will never, ever, EVER admit, is that men are seen by women as 'success objects'. Everyone I know can name a woman they know who married for money. Many can name women who married THEM for money. It's a long obvious tale.

But under Feminist dogma, men are supposed to lie down and take that. We're supposed to simply accept that there is nothing more for us in the way of personal intimacy, than that callous take. That isn't why I got married, and it isn't why my ex married me. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen to a great many men.

The whole idea of 'equality' between men and women is somehting Feminists really abhore. And with good reason. Men are wired to be the risk takers of society. We're less emotional than women, and therefore less likely to panic in a difficult circumstance. Women are wired to think only of themselves and their own survival and future, because their future is the future of the species. Men are wired to be self sacrificing, because that too is the future of the species. In the end, men are replaceable in a genetic sense. And this movie tells that story, in a light so harsh that even avowed Feminist Cassie Jaye see's it plainly. And when she does, she renounces our new leftist religion.

There was one other point I found incredibly compelling but had never heard before. Women claim that men can't possibly understand the experience of women. But since the distance from A to B is equal to the distance from B to A, then women can't possibly understand the experience of men. I find it's one of those things no one talks about. Being a man (or at least a good, responsible man) involves sacrificing yourself in ways that no one ever even mentions to women. And women never think of it themselves.

That's really the biggest issue with Feminism. It's a one sided narrative where the woman is always right, and the man is always wrong. That's obviously a ridiculous and totally unsupportable position. But say so in public, and you'll suffer the consequences.

It's actually a very good film. Well worth your time. And it opens a door to issues that no one is thinking about.