Thursday, June 22, 2017

- Jordan Peterson Explains National Review

I can't stand long introductions to things like this. I'd recommend starting at the 17:50 mark or so. With that said, Jordan Peterson is explaining what happened to National Review, and the old right in general.

- Why I Read Steve Sailer

I'm not a politico, so I'm not much interested in election mathematics. But tidbits like this interesting little hate-fact are why I ALWAYS read Steve Sailer's Blog at Unz:

I can explain why The Establishment (e.g., the Democratic Party, the media, the Soros-like NGOs, etc.) aren’t pushing Black Lives Matter hard any more in one word, a word not mentioned in this article: Dallas.

BLM followers murdering all those cops in Dallas and Baton Rouge got Donald Trump elected president.

Besides alienating non-blacks by unleashing a huge upsurge in violence in black cities, both riots and black on black homicides, BLM didn’t even boost black turnout.

You can get more useful watercooler 'shut your idiot mouth' points to use against liberals in 10 minutes on Steve's site, than you can from 3 months of reading Fox News and watching Tucker Carlson.

And it feels good to know that facts still matter someplace. Yes, in this case I'm calling attention to Steve's opinion. but I've learned that what usually separates the two is usually just ex-post verification.

- The Eichenwald Way

Personally, I'm a pretty plain vanilla guy when it comes to those private moments. I'm a heterosexual man which means, for those younger readers who have probably never heard of such a thing, I'm a man who is physically attracted to women. Though 'women' is probably overstating it because I generally prefer to be with them only one woman at a time.

I also prefer them 'age appropriate', because I've found that you do have to occasionally talk to women. If a woman's reaction to me saying "What you talkin bout Willis?" is to say in a totally deadpan voice, "Who's Willis?", there is going to be an inevitable communications gap.

About the 'weirdest' thing in my romantic life at the moment, to the eyes of someone in the same position as me 50+ years ago, is that my girlfriend is Asian and I'm not.

I didn't pick her because she was Asian, I picked her because she's smart, and charming, and very good looking. Her fashion sense and how she looks in high heels had more to do with her appeal than her skin color. And although she looks a little different than I do and is a substantial number of years younger, she was born in Oregon, so there is a very small cultural gap.

All this means that while I'm unusual in many ways, my sexual preferences aren't one of them. I don't begrudge anyone their own proclivities so long as they involve consenting adults. I just think that sort of thing should be kept private. In the age of public weirdness and aesthetic as a political identity, "Do what you like, but leave me out of it" has become my motto.

But all this 'normalcy' makes me strange in a different way, in that, strangeness still seems strange to me.

These days we're supposed to applaud people for their strangeness, but I have a problem with that. If you're only sexually attracted to amputees, or get turned on by dressing up as a stuffed Teddy bear and being spanked with food products, I have a very hard time relating to you. And I can't help but think that having a proclivity as odd as those makes your mental processes very different from mine. In effect, it makes me wonder about your character in other areas.

Which is why I keep coming back to second rate columnist and serial public forum liar Kurt Eichenwald. I can't help but think that his character is warped in some way, at least when compared to mine. I don't care about him per se. It's just that the world we live in gives a guy who does his job a great deal of influence in directing our culture. And the direction of more 'tentacle porn' for 21st century America, doesn't seem to me the direction we all want to go.

Luckily for us all, Mr. Eichenwald is also pretty careless. So instead of quietly propagandizing a more 'tentacle friendly' lifestyle choice in the pages of Newsweek, he's stepped on a landmine by letting the 4chan guys find out about his weirdness. They have continued their non-stop ridicule of the man and his habits, to the entertainment of us all.

- Mental Illness As A Political Philosophy

Calling things what they are:

Probably NSFW. These days, who can tell.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

- Don't Let The Interns Drive

In a typical example of the stalwart gang at National Review standing in the road of history yelling stop, while being crushed into the tarmac by the liberal steamroller, one of the interns has some important commentary on free speech:

This is obviously quite problematic. Reasonable people can, of course, disagree about the propriety of giving a platform to those with views that engender wide, bipartisan disgust.

I'm not linking it, go look it up yourself if you're curious.

In the young lady's defense (wait... is the word 'lady' now a microaggression? No, that's just in Canada.) the article is defending Dave Rubin and a smear by mother Jones. So it's the same old BS from them. Ceding moral authority to the left, while ostensibly defending the right.

I've seen her (trigger warning) picture, and while she seems more masculine than most of the people at NR, I don't think they should be encouraging this. Then again, the men (trigger warning) there don't have much resistance to Grrl Power, so by September she and her lawyers will probably be running the place.

- Different This Time

You're probably getting sick of Jordan Peterson by now. The shame of it is, the readers of this blog don't need to see this stuff. The people who really need it are the destructors - those mentally ill idiot children dedicated to the destruction of the west for the shallow and pointless goal of getting laid more often, who really need to see them. All those thoughtless idiots pulling down statues and burning the past. They need to see it.

In this one, Peterson makes reference to the cultural revolution in China, where it's estimated that 100 million innocent civilians died. This is well within living memory and I have a quick story to tell there.

When I worked in research at Moore Capital, I had a brilliant Analyst/Programmer working for me, a man I liked a great deal and still much admire. We got together in off hours occasionally, and after having Dim Dum in queens one day, I ended up back at his place and had the chance to meet his mother, who lived with he and his wife. His mother told me this story about China and the Cultural Revolution.

She (his mother) and her husband were academics, and were therefore comparatively well off and insulated from many of the horrors of the cultural revolution. But she told the story of the refugees from the worst of the starvation. Long lines of people who walked everywhere, with no specific goal in mind, just the hope that they'd find somewhere 'better'. One day she saw a woman who was obviously starving, shambling along the road, glassy eyed, and carrying what she could clearly tell was a dead infant. She stopped the woman, and said "Sister please... your child is dead. We need to stop and bury him." The woman responded:

"God help me, I know he's dead. I'm only carrying him because I might have to eat him."

My friends mother, obviously horrified, replied "Please... we'll feed can have everything we have. Take whatever you want from our kitchen, but you have to let me help you bury your child." The woman, thankfully complied. This wasn't one of those "I know a guy who knows a guy" stories. This was a first hand account by someone who was there at the time, witnessed it first hand, and was obviously very affected by it. It's a story of one nameless random woman, not unlike 100 million others in China then. Not an enemy of the state, or some political activist. No one of any real import at all. No one will ever know if she survived or not, or what became of her.

I haven't seen my old friend in a while, and I hope his mother is well. But I wonder how she would react to the "burn it all down" attitude of the social justice warriors. Mrs Derb, who is Chinese born, has often remarked how similar the Social Justice movement is to the cultural revolution. The only difference is that they don't have the power of the state to starve their perceived enemies into submission. And we had all better hope they never get it. Their response would only be "It will be different this time."

They're right of course. It would. Because you can't willfully starve 100 million heavily armed people. It would be more likely that every single trans person in the country and their alphabet soup allies, would all end up swinging from lamp posts. But I don't want to see that and neither should they. So they might want to take a lesson from history.

Jordan Peterson:

Monday, June 19, 2017

- Either We Talk... Or We Don't

It's no secret what bullies the Social Justice Left has become. But I can't believe they realize what they're doing here. In Canada it's now a crime to not call someone by their sex pronoun of choice. If I go to Canada and demand that people refer to me as [insert absolutely any word here] the person who fails to do so is committing a 'human rights violation'.

The point Professor Peterson has been trying to make is that if we can't talk then we have no choice but violence. This is very true. Violence is something you can control, but your speech is now officially subject to the potentially rapidly changing whims. the people detailed in the video below can demand to be called he at this moment, she the next, Xe, the moment after that, and the second you fail to keep pace with they changing opinions, you've committed a crime.

But if you refuse to speak to them at all and simply beat them in the street with a stick the moment you see them, well that you can control. It would be wrong of course, and a crime. But at least it's a crime you can only be convicted of, if you decide to commit it. And I'm quite certain that there will be some people somewhere who now feel that's their only rational course.

A white man ran down a bunch of Pedestrians outside a Mosque last night in London, in what seems to be an act of retribution for the London Bridge attack. I'm quite certain the 'Trans' bullies of the left can expect the same treatment from someone. Especially now that disagreement with them has become illegal.

- The Problem With Equity

Most thoughtful people agree with the things that Jordan Peterson is saying. It's a shame he's the only public figure out there who has the courage to say them.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

- Happy Father's Day

You all know how important being a father is to me. Well I have suggestion. Ask the women in your life to give you the gift of 1:57 minutes, watching this:

Saturday, June 17, 2017

- The Cosby Mistrial

The Cosby mistrial cause is obvious. There were women on the jury. At least one of those women sat there in the jury roum, filled with gyrrl power and said "I don't care what the evidence is or isn't, I say he's guilty and going to jail."

Personally, I don't know if he's guilty or innocent, but I find it hard to believe that in this climate, it would require actually proving he's guilty to find him so, and because of that I'd like to see him acquitted. Mine is a purely political position.

I remember Cosby mostly for his classic comedy, and his assertions about the black community which I found to be clear headed. I can't find the latter, but this is one of the best bits from the former. This is what you should think of when you think of him:

- Disrupting Shakespeare In The Park

Very interesting occurrence in light of today's Radio Derb. If you want to know why, you'll have to go there and listen for yourself.

I'm quite certain the Derb will have a reaction to this, so you'll probably have to listen to next week's podcast to hear that as well.

- A Holy War on Republicans

James Devine:

“I am sorry if my #HuntRepublicanCongressmen hashtag hurt the feelings of any GOP snowflakes but you have not engaged in civil discourse,”

Why is it always NJ?

Much has been made of James Devine's endorsement of political violence, but I don't think that's the telling part of the story. Let's be honest, the thing keeping most hard leftists from violence isn't a lack of commitment or some high minded principle, but a lack of courage. More than anything they don't want to risk getting hurt. This is why they collect into mobs before engaging in violence, rather than doing it individually like 'what's his name' (I know, I just won't say) from the Alexandria shooting. Just look at the professor from the Antifa Berkeley riots, who struck a man in the head with a bike lock before bravely retreating back into the mob.

But Devine gets right to the matter by accusing the right of not engaging in civil discourse. The only way a statement like that can make sense in today's climate, where no left wing speaker has been shut down but right wing speakers are constantly shut down with violence and threats of violence, is if you see the sin of the right as a lack of faith.

Devine's problem with the right is that we don't believe. We are heretics, who are unwilling to accept the precondition that all issues are discussed, and only discussed, from the progressive post deconstructionist perspective. First we must admit that the invisible forces of hate that they say are secretly controlling all aspects of American life are real. Then, and only then can we all engage in "civil discourse".

How do you determine if something is real according to a progressive? That's easy. You take it on faith. Logic, reason and evidence are all just tools of the patriarchy, constructed from whole cloth by a racist misogynist society in order to keep the oppressed down.

Assuming you aren't a delusional madman, you probably have some small problems with this. I don't blame you. But the question remains. How do we do anything about it? The National Review 'Let's all be reasonable here' argument is an obvious failure. The Proud Boy style 'hit him back twice as hard' things works on the small scale, but if it ever gets big enough to make a real difference it's going to come with it's own set of problems. So what do we do?

Mostly hang on I think. Delusion, even widely held mass delusion, can't endure forever. Reality has a way of crowding it out over time. In the meantime, we work, we build, we maintain, and we wait for the madness to run its course. We defend ourselves and our loved ones since the state either won't or can't. And we wait to see if there is enough cumulative sanity left in American culture to weather the storm of liberal psychosis.

FYI - Congrats to our feeder blog MoreMonmouthMusings for being the VERY FIRST to break this now national story. They're getting no credit from the big media outlets, which is a shame. But some of us have noticed.

Friday, June 16, 2017

- 'Fake News' And Duplicity

The stories for anyone right of center, are legion. An MSM reporter contacts you for an interview and is all sweetness and light promising impartiality. You agree to an interview which is done in something like a reasonable way, and then in editing, you're made to look stupid or crazy or both. You're portrayed as a psychotic, racist, misogynist, blah blah blah. You know the drill.

Achieving the leftist goal is probably easier when you are a little crazy, and Alex Jones may be. But he has followed the new playbook of the right when dealing with the press, and surreptitiously recorded his interview with Megyn Kelley. And he's announced that he'll be releasing the tape.

If you don't agree with the left, you can't expect fair treatment from the left. No secret there. Secretly recording the 'actual' interview is some defense, and it seems to have worked in some cases. I don't know if it will in the case of Alex Jones, but this high profile example will probably put the lazy, duplicitous press back on it's heels a little bit.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

- Ace: "Why Are The Shooters All Democrats?"

I had a conversation years ago about this topic with Jonah Goldberg, of all people. My thinking was that since Liberals believe that all it takes is 'the right person' to make Communism work, the corollary is that they think they can change a failing system by eliminating the 'wrong person'. There is also the question of Liberals who are driven by passion instead of logic and reason, which makes them more comfortable with rationalization.

Conservatives meanwhile typically see the system as the problem because they believe in incentives. Get rid of a Nancy Pelosi (not that I'm saying you should... quite the contrary) and another dim witted power mad grandma will pop right up to take her place. Maybe a Maxine Waters. Then some new young, power mad crazy person will simply fill in the bottom of the crazy train.

In fact from a conservative perspective, you can get rid of scores of people and it won't really help things. The malignant system will simply continue unabated in it's malignancy, because the incentives for the power mad continues to remain.

These days it's much easier than ever to draw a connection between shooters, who are almost always crazy, and the left, who are almost always crazy. At the time, Jonah had no definitive comment, but in retrospect I think that means that it was probably true, but he would never say so until he knew how angry it would make the left to call attention to it.

Ace's piece is at the link.

- The Tools Of The Oppressor

I’ve been familiarizing myself with one of those ‘most hated villains’ for the Feminist left, Jordan Peterson. Professor Peterson is a Canadian Psychologist and Psychology professor with over 20 years of clinical experience. But most of what he’s known for is his refusal to use the long list of morally compulsory ‘gender pronouns’ of the laughably named ‘Canadian Human Rights’ council.

His talks tend to wander around between psychology and philosophy. But his big beef is with post-modernism, and any sentence that ends with ‘…is a social construct’. Using the language of statistics and science, he unambiguously calls this ‘wrong’. As usual, those who disagree with him either hurl invective about his Nazi-ism, or run away as quickly as they can from any potential debate. He speaks about facts, and since facts can’t be shamed or harassed away, the left has no interest in engaging with him.

This matches my personal experience as well. The left has totally lost the war of debate, logic, and reason. In fact, says professor Peterson, they don’t believe in ‘logic’ or the science that’s constructed upon it, and instead call it a ‘tool of the patriarchy’ that is specifically designed to keep the oppressed down. In one particularly comical rant he complains about people using their computers to type that the foundations of thinking that make that computer work, don’t exist. For that reason he can’t take them seriously. But this puts the left in an interesting mental position.

When logic, reason, and discussion are all identified as ‘tools of your oppressor’, what other option do you have for resolving disagreement than grabbing a gun and shooting up the place?

The left pretends that anyone who disagrees with them is an inhuman monster. That’s a useful thing because it justifies violence, and makes it emotionally possible for those who are unwilling to accept their own monstrosity. The Nazi guards at Auschwitz thought the same thing about the Jews. How else could anyone push women and children into gas chambers?

There are a number of leftists, it seems to me, who would happily do this to the President and his family. Even 10 year old Baron, who by any estimation I’d take seriously is a complete innocent, would be murdered by many if you gave them the chance. And it’s still an open question how many members of the left would do the same to anyone who disagrees with them, but we do know one detail there. Whatever the number is, it’s greater than 1.

James Hodgkinson took the decision making process of the hard left to it’s inevitable end. He didn’t believe the people he despised were well intentioned. He believed they were filled with hate, and dedicated of the destruction of their opposition by any means necessary, just like he was.

The word for this is psychological projection. And it’s an intersectional issue pulled into the post-modernist left from Feminism. This is what the left recommends as a replacement for the ‘logic’ that’s not only used to oppress them, but is expressly designed to do so. In essence, it’s the way the left pretends that they still have a valid argument.

But they aren’t the only ones who are pretending. The right has it’s own set of delusions. National Review, as is typical of the NeverTrump right, refuses to see that the left has changed. They still think making logical arguments will have some effect on a group that has identified logic itself as a tool of the oppressor. This has been described as playing politics by a set of rules that the left refuses to recognize, but it’s more than that. It’s a willful decision to lose.

Emotional reasoning doesn’t go down that road. Emotionally hysterical people like James Hodgkinson (and the multitudes from the left supporting him on Twitter) don’t ‘change their minds’. It’s a better description to say that they don’t have any minds to change. Their entire motivation is their own fear, their own hatred and their own emotions, none of which have any basis in reality. They look at the same world as us, but they don’t see the same world as us. What they see are the inhuman opposition and the holy martyrs. The divine, and the deplorable. Nothing else.

The 21st century left doesn’t need dialog, they need psychotherapy.

This raises a point I’ve mentioned here before when discussing the black average IQ, but really applies across a spectrum of issue for the left. What would you do when the incontrovertible facts point to you as lacking the components required to ‘win’? How would your ego cope with an inescapable fact, which points to your basic inferiority to others? Suppose the only way to get into a an Ivy league University was to be able to dunk a basketball? What would you do if you were only 5 feet tall?

The answer, of course, is deny the validity and rationality of the test. The answer is that you would probably rationalize it away. That’s easier to see when the question is as arbitrary as the example I provided. But this is what the left sees in the liberty of free market competition. They cannot succeed against people who are smarter, faster, and stronger than they are. So they deny the tests of logic and reason, and work to change the game.

Failing that, as they clearly are – their only other option is violence. And now that violence has arrived.

The left has what they see as an unsolvable problem. If they play by our rules they will lose. They have come to realize this, so they are changing the rules – with or without our permission. The rule of law has become a tool of the oppressor. Western Civilization is a tool of the oppressor. Dialog, logic, math, and reason are all just tools of the oppressor. The only thing that matters to them now is their own hatred and fear, and the ability of their egos to project that hatred and fear onto others.

Plan accordingly.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

- The Republican Shooting

I've been reading the news and I've got this all figured out.

A lone wolf (probably conservative) terrorist (probably) member of a (probably) white wing militia group went on a shooting spree because of the lack of gun control. He shot several people of color and a few members of the colorless, using an ultra high powered armor piercing sniper rifle.

The reasons for this, according to the news, is obvious. It was obviously because of hatred, xenophobia, a lack of support for illegal immigration, islamophobia, hatred, Trump, and a lack of gun control.

Also Racism.

The race of the shooter is unknown, but it is known that he was a misogynistic and toxic male, who was a misogynist, filled to the brim with misogyny and hate.

Also... Racism, and Russia.

Unnamed government sources have confirmed all of this.

It's all true. I read it on the internet.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

- And Now... Some Controvery

And since Jordon Peterson generates controversy among the ideological, let's see why:

- Rejecting Radicalism

Jordan Peterson is the darling psychologist of the Manosphere these days because he calls real scientific attention to some of the obvious difference between men and women, without bias or ideology. Naturally, the left and particularly Feminists despise him for this. And when idealogues despise you, I think you're probably on the right track.

Personally I prefer Steven Pinker right now, since he has an overlap in my current work, and more of a Friedman-esque charm. But I get why Jordan Peterson is winning so many hearts and minds.

But this bit below struck a chord for me.

This is really up here for my daughter, who I know is lurking here these days. As I've said in past comment sections, I'm worried that she'll fall into the easy route of believing all the nonsensical programming dished out at Universities these days.

They tell pretty lies to kids about how their life isn't really their own and all the bad things that may happen to them aren't under their control, but are the fault of unseen evil forces. It's the fault of whites, of men, of heterosexuals. The evil white male cis-normal heterosexual patriarchy. They (the kids) are just object who are either victims, or to the degree they resist psychological indoctrination, oppressors. None of them are treated as individual agents who are capable of acting on the world, as well as being acted upon by it. there is no individual responsibility, only collective guilt, collective victimhood, or collective oppression.

That's all bunk. But they've gotten so good at lying that many kids end up believing them. They don't realize that they're being fed an ideology rather than actually 'thinking'. They don't see the left as being about radical destruction, because the people who shovel it at them don't believe it is. No cult calls itself a cult. And that's what a University is these days, especially the programs that end in the word 'studies'.

But she won't believe me if I say it cause she's a teenager and I'm her dad. So instead, here is Jordan Peterson, a serious cognitive scientist, telling them why it's a bad idea to embrace any radicalism. Because if you do, you're never really making up your own mind.

I just wish he had admitted that the 'National Socialist Party' (Nazi for short) is really a creature of the left.

- Pols Pretending For the Cameras

MSNBC Pretends an Obama Campaign Director Is 'Everyday Folk' in Man-on-the-Street Interview

Tis sort of thing happens more than you think.

Way back when I was working on the Trading Floor at Moore Capital, then one term Mayor of NYC Rudy Giuliani was running for a second term, and since he had gotten more than a couple of campaign donations from Moore employees, he stopped by for a little Q&A. A few softball questions were lobbed at him from the group, but then the room fell silent. We were all voting for Giuliani after all - he was wildly popular at the time, had just cleaned up Times Square, banned the squeegee guys, and had implemented the police practices that made NYC safer and cleaner. We were all big supporters and didn't care much what he had to say.

But that doesn't play in politics.

So another question was tossed out from a crowd of people near the elevator who had collected there from the back office. Giuliani offered a pad answer, but it occurred to me that I didn't recognize the voice that asked it. when I looked more carefully, it was clear that this was his campaign staffer, more or less just providing the Mayor a chance to launch his talking point.

This was a relatively small, private, friendly crowd, so it didn't seem such a big sin to me. But it always struck me as a reminder of how much of politics is just play acting. The cameras are complicit in the whole thing. Life is just a play and we are all but players, blah, blah, blah.

As you would expect, MSNBC takes this a little further than they probably should, but it's not as shocking as the PJ folks are making it out to be. At least not to me.

Monday, June 12, 2017

- Some Bad Advice From Slate

Offered here:

I’m in my early 40s, never married, no kids, but always wanted both. I’m in a relationship of 10 months. The guy could not be sweeter or a person of better character. He loves me and treats me well. I was so in love the first six months but he is increasingly getting on my nerves—he is a bit quirky and goofy. And I don’t always find it amusing; increasingly I find it irritating. I have had several relationships like this (start out great, then fall apart at eight months or a year), and I am starting to wonder if I’m just projecting my insecurities onto him or if I need to end the relationship. I am in therapy. I just feel like there’s got to be something wrong with me if I have dated all these different men and nothing’s stuck. I long to be like most of my friends: married, settled, happy, in a family, kiddos running around.

Well bad news toots. At age 40 your reproductive chances are now roughly 2% of what your chances were in your prime. If you can get pregnant at all, and it's not the way to bet, the risk to your own health and to the health of the child are much higher. So high in fact that it doesn't sound like you (and your therapist) will be able to handle it.

I'd recommend a French Bulldog instead.

It's a shame that you've missed the boat on parenthood, but based on the fact that you project your insecurities, you get bored when the vangina-tingle of a new relationship starts to fade, and most importantly, you look to Slate to solve your personal problems, I'd say you'd have probably been an awful parent anyway so it's all just as well.

Some people are just too insecure and self involved for the life a parent, and this pretty clearly is you. Maybe you should instead start thinking about all the therapy you've spared your never to be born children, who would probably not grow up to be any more emotionally stable and responsible than you are. It's a shame that Feminists can't seem to grasp this reality, but being angry at me for not being afraid to be honest with you isn't going to change any of the facts.

Not that you'll let that stop you.

You can't have it all. But it isn't me who says so, it's reality and father time.

- Meanwhile, Back In Reality

Janice Fiamengo dissects the Evergreen College Fiasco.

- In Praise Of Beta Males

I'm finding stuff on the internet, only to post it and immediately learn that Ace is finding it all too.

Great minds.

I wanna throw this up though. The Manosphere has a lot of almost negative things to say about Beta Males, but they do Beta's a serious disservice because women judge alphas as more valuable. Well they shouldn't. You don't have to be a real leader in a real leadership role to be a real man. You don't have to be some pu** magnet to rate as far as men are concerned. That's a woman's standard and we should have our own.

There is nothing wrong with being a Beta. Bets's sign up, betas take direction. Beta's are the the men who actually build a civilization. They care for their home and family, and take responsibility. They are the ground troops of civilization. They are the men who leave the world better than they found it. More developed. More productive. More efficient. Victoria's Secret models may not be attracted to them, but they are very much worthy of respect anyway.

The differentiation should really be, between Beta's and Omegas. An Omega is the kind of person who buys into Feminism whole hog and sometimes even becomes more of a Feminist than the women who advocate it, because he knows it's his only shot. They are the unattractive, socially awkward, damaged, clueless losers (think Antifa boys) who still think they should be in charge. Omega's should be striving for Beta-dom, but because of their fragile and deluded ego's they typically want to be awarded 'alpha' status, even though they wouldn't know what to do with it.

At my last gig there was an Omega who worked in a mid-level managerial role in another department, which by no coincidence, was run by a woman. He would scream in meetings, berate his staff, and sulk if he didn't get his way. Emotional outbursts over non-emotional issues was his norm. He would go off on his own, ignore the strategic plans of others, and struggle to find the 'big idea' that would catapult him to the executive suite, without ever realizing that he didn't understand what was going on in the company well enough to even be involved in planning, let alone to perform any of it. The result was a staff who despised him, other departments who avoided communicating with him, and his own department which was so mismanaged and generally useless that I had to promote a guy on my team just to be his babysitter, and to make sure he didn't get the company into into too much trouble.

Thousands of what could have been productive hours, wasted.

An Omega is a woman in thought if not deed, trapped in a man's body. The same solipsism, the same emotionality, the same fragility. He may be a heterosexual, but in most cases it doesn't matter. They call them Omega's because they are the last men women would choose on their own. They are the 'little bitches'. I'm sure you all know one.

But Betas aren't like that. Betas build, save, and protect. Beta's are the guys you see with the dad pants, living in the suburbs, and working in middle management - more or less happy with their wives, their kids and their golf scores. They are the salt of the earth men who still follow the old rules, in spite of the odds being stacked against them, and rely a little on luck to have things all work out.

The POA's may not like them, but real alphas not only admire them but value them. Real Alphas are never going to let the woman's standard for judging men be the only standard. Betas are the 'good soldiers', and may with proper maturity and care, become a lesser breed of alpha themselves. Leadership may not be perfectly natural to them, but they are capable of learning it.

Women might not see it. Particularly young women. But a Beta man is the man that most women should be looking for because alphas are too high risk and too rare for most women to get for the long term anyway. Not all women are supermodels after all. And a house in the burbs, in a good neighborhood, with a man who is ready to sacrifice his own agenda for the wellbeing of his wife and kids, isn't a bad deal in most cases. This guy who is talking to Steve Crowder strikes me as a Beta man who may one day be an alpha. He's not going to stand around and let women be pummelled by the LGBTQAFGRESDGETPMOUSE girls and Omega crowd of Antifa. He's going to stand up. He's going to help. He's gonna be a man.

He deserves as much credit as any alpha. In some ways, maybe more.

- So THAT's what Intersection Means

This is fun. A gay pride parade was blocked by a black lives matter protest, preventing the parade from continuing. The two marches quite literally 'intersected'.

One can only assume that they squared off and accused each other of various oppressions, micro-aggressions, and privileges, in a verbal scurry to demonstrate which group was the more aggrieved. All they'd need to make the picture complete is a bunch of blue haired and psychotic Feminist activists running around topless, while accusing everyone of rape and toxic masculinity.

No heterosexual white males could be reached for comment. They were all too busy building functioning societies.

There are 320 million people in America, and some of them are bound to be such crazy losers that they have nothing better to do than things like this. But why in the world would we value the effect of mental illness so highly that all of these tiny, broken, fringe groups that can't get out of their own way (wink) are driving our broader culture? The only real intersection here is between, the 60's, the media, and early onset alzheimers.

- The Jewish Media

Jim Goad is talking about the dreaded 'jewish question' over at Takis today. My position on the broader 'jewish question' is well known, and sounds a great deal like the one Jim attributes to Jared Taylor which reads: 'They look pretty white to me". I'll expand that to say that with a very few tiny differences, they 'act' pretty white too.

This is really about a confluence of the word 'Tribe' with the word 'Race'. You can be of the same race and be of a very different tribe. While no one has any doubt that I am white, (We're so white that my dad usually returns home from the beach in an ambulance) I myself am a merger of two major, and several minor tribes.

Genealogically, I'm an American, Anglo-Norman Irishman. Which is to say that while I was born in America as were my parents, all of my ancestors on both sides of my family, are either from the Norman splinter of the Anglo-Normans, or the Irish which my family helped rule over for for at least a few hundred of the roughly thousand years they spent there. Since my family left the Welsh coast just 3 generations or so after they showed up from Normandy with William the conqueror (the curious can look up "The Marcher Lords"), I don't imagine I have much in the way of Saxon mixing, though I guess you never really know for sure.

But what about the jews? Well the ashkenazim have been very resistant to the kind of mixing with the locals that my family had no issue with. Religion will do that to you. And as a result, they have a few tribal idiosyncrasies which have hung on through the ages. As an example, they tend to be more matriarchal than my tribes. The mother is the center of life, and often dominates the man in the home. This is a peculiarity whose modern effect I have some questions about, but having nothing concrete to offer I'll simply say: "OK...whatever they're in to".

They also tend to be very urbane and to focus a great deal on the benefits of advanced education. Here in America, they also seem to overrepresented in media careers, and this has no doubt had an effect on the state of our media. Media and entertainment, let's not forget, is utterly dominated the world over by America. It's one of our chief exports, and along with financial and legal services, is one of the areas where America most excels - one other being the very non-jewish career of food production.

This isn't an accident, and the effect of 'jews' on the media is much debated.

I was speaking to a prominent jewish opinionator about 'the Jewish question' a few weeks ago. For obtuse reasons that are too difficult to explain here he has to remain nameless, though I doubt he'd personally mind being quoted. He had just published a favorable piece on the alt-right and I had mentioned that when I saw it I had to pour through the comments section to slap down anyone who impugned his clarity of thought by virtue of his 'jewishness'. No such comments were forthcoming (thankfully) and we both chuckled about it a bit.

But what he said about the current state of 'Jewish Media' was that there is a schism in the Jewish community. The jewish community is either the 'tough jews' or the psychoanalysis jews. The tough jews simply accept the fact that many people will hate them and devote themselves to fighting back with force when necessary. The psychoanalysis jews believe that they are smart enough to 'cure' the hate, and therefore object to fighting.

I very much respect the man (you probably do too), so I found myself persuaded. And that meant that on the chicken and egg question of which came first, the leftist or the jew, I come down on the leftist side as a root cause, rather than jewishness. Moreover, every big mistake I've ever seen made (and I've seen some expensive ones over the years) was made as a result of someone believing they were smart enough to solve a problem, that was either completely unsolvable, or unsolvable by them. It's a surprisingly common mistake, so I tend to forgive it.

I don't think anyone can argue that Academia (another jewish dominated arena) has swung far too much to the left. But I think it's an aberration. I think it's a curable condition. And when academic after academic goes smashing face first into realities that contradict their thinking, some portion of them will have no choice but to reform that thinking. It will be slow, but it will happen. Facts are in the end, more universally persuasive than any opinion.

That will, in the end, cure much of leftism in academia, and that will in turn cure the leftism in the media. And I don't think it much matters if it's run by jews or not. Any man of any tribe can see reality when he is left no other choice. And bit by bit, the facts of reality are reliably chipping away at the lies that modern leftism needs to endure.

- Today in Puerto Rican News

Instead of voting to throw off the chains of racist oppression and exploitation by the evil white man, Puerto Rico has instead voted to become a State:

Puerto Rico on Sunday overwhelmingly voted for statehood. But Congress, the only body that can approve new states, will ultimately decide whether the status of the US commonwealth changes.

Ninety-seven percent of the votes in the nonbinding referendum favored statehood, an increase over the results of a 2012 referendum, official results from the State Electoral Commission show. It was the fifth such vote on statehood.

I have some experience with 'working' in Puerto Rico. My first startup got its funding from BPPR based in San Juan, and they gave us free office space. So it was me and a bunch of Chileans, trying to cope with a place where no one who wasn't an illegal immigrant actually did any work. As far as we could tell, nearly 100% of the population was on welfare.

My former partner and longtime friend has a great story about it. He (still) tells the story of when he went with his wife to see an R Rated matinee movie and found little kids playing hide and seek in the aisles. The man behind him never paused his long cellphone conversation for the movie's dialog, so my friend asked him to quiet down. In response the man took his phone from his ear and said "Hey... can't you see I'm on the fucking phone asshole?"

These are cultural problems with PR, as is the breathtaking brain drain the tiny island has had.

But let's not be silly. There is a ruling class in PR, much like our own, that makes the decisions. Like the decision to borrow 70 Billion dollars in US guaranteed debt - 68% of GDP - and piss it away on useless 'public works' projects and swiss bank accounts. They know 'someone' is paying that bill, and they don't want it to be them. Throwing off the oppressive yoke of the white man means throwing off his debt guarantee, and that would mean they'd have to pay the bills themselves.

And you can't very well pay your own bills when no one does any work.

That Puerto Rican Statehood would be a bad idea for the US, should go without saying. There is a big net cost, and virtually no net gain. Which means that the yoke of racist oppression might actually be on the other sandal.

On the plus side, there were zero rapes reported at this years Puerto Rican Parade in New York City. That looks like a big improvement and a step toward peace and progress. That is, it does until you realize that this year's grand marshall was a convicted terrorist and murderer. So now I guess it's the decision makers who are the ones endorsing crime.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

- The Tragedy Of Former Beauty

Paulina Porizkova was at one moment in history, the most beautiful woman in the world. She still looks pretty good, but for women, all status is relative. And as she became an anti-depressant addled middle aged mom, her sexual options dropped precipitously compared to her former glory. She says America made her a Feminist. I say it was solipsism, age, and a world class cratering of her sexual options.

Now, she’s past the age of childbearing. And thanks to Feminism, older women are no longer valued for the things that made them important. An older woman now is nothing but a small weak man, usually filled to the brim with hyper-emotional resentment that even middling quality ‘actual’ men are still considered higher quality men than she is.

Paulina doesn’t make that connection, but you can’t really blame her. She is a woman after all, and objective reasoning about their place in the world is not their strong suit - especially after 5 decades of non-stop indoctrination from popular culture about how nothing in their lives is ever their fault. It’s ‘The Patriarchy” you see. I’ve been to the Patriarchy meetings, every one of them, and I should know.

Paulina always seemed pretty bright, especially for a woman of her astounding youthful beauty. A woman that attractive doesn’t hav eto think, but she learned to do a little thinking anyway. And yet, she still married Rick Okasek, who by the way must be a True Alpha male to have roped in a girl like that in her prime. Yes, he was a really big star back in the early days of MTV, when they still played music. But the guy always looked like a train wreck, and still does.

I saw the two of them together on Third avenue (right near Astor Place) about a year ago. She looked good but old. He looked like a much older version of his same gaunt self. No beauty prizes for either of them. But where he was never a prize winner for his looks, she definitely once was. So it's she who has 'lost' the most thanks to the ravages of father time.

If you want to know who she is now, don’t look to the past. Those days are gone for Paulina, much to her regret. If you want to know her now, have a look at this. This is what Paulina Porizkova is today. An increasingly irrelevant, drug addled mess. A woman who once ‘topped the charts’ but these days, just isn’t there anymore.

It’s a shame to see her fall so far from perfection. But it will happen to all of us eventually.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

- The War On (Attractive) Women

Here it is guys, a story which perfectly encapsulates intersectional Feminism, and its war on ... women. That's right, it's a war on the women with the most 'sexual options'. That phrase can be tricky so don't think of it as who 'you' would want to sleep with as much as who would want to sleep with you. If more people would want you based on your looks, charm, wealth, power or whatever, then you have more 'sexual options'.

That is the thing that intersectional Feminism is trying to destroy, and they've made that painfully obvious in this story about a Female Archetype, "Wonder Woman":

The post, which is titled, “When Will Wonder Woman Be a Fat, Femme Woman of Color?” laments the fact that the movie chose to portray the character as she was portrayed in the source material, rather than as an overweight black gay woman (femme is defined as “a queer person who presents and acts in a traditionally feminine manner.”) She claims that had a black actress been cast to play Wonder Woman, “white supremacists” would have emerged to condemn the decision.

White Supremacists? What the hell does white supremacy have to do with it? The answer of course, is nothing. The dreaded 'white supremacist' is a fiction - a boogey man from under the bed. The author's real problem is with the fact that Gal Gadot is smoking hot. At this specific moment in time, few women alive today have the same high volume of 'sexual options' as she does.

The author meanwhile is a Feminist promoting a redefinition of beauty to emphasize black women, which is bad for sexual options. She also promotes gay, which is a liability as well. She's advocating for the body positivity movement which is about seeing 'fat' as more attractive than thin. This author is advocating for a woman who is down at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to desirability, and she wants the standards of what amounts to 'desireable' overturned in the name of Feminism.

No rational human will ever imagine a time when men can be shamed into thinking a fat, black, gay, stupid, and physically unattractive woman will be considered more desirable than Gal Gadot. But this is Feminisms dirty little secret. It's the thing they're after. And until Gal Gadot is kicked to the curb by the world's most desirable men in deference to a stupid, black, Lena Dunham type, Feminism's war on women will rage on. Tell this to the attractive woman in your life. Show her the story. Because if the pathology of Feminism is going to die the death it deserves, it will have to be through female insurrection by people who look more like wonder woman than Lena Dunham. Remind them that it's they who are the real targets of Feminism, and we men are simply collateral damage.

- Repeating History

'Based Stick Man' kinda reminds me of Titus Pullo, one of my all time favorite fictional characters, from the HBO series Rome. The leftists establishment rallies a mob, loses control of it, and Titus Pullo, for his own reasons, accidentally brings down the Republic.

I leave you all to rise the rest of the parallels.

Republics fall. Democracy has a lifespan. We're near the end of it. From that perspective, this piece of historic fiction is actually a potential glimpse into our future. Donald Trump, in spite of his best efforts (and choice of decorating style) is no Julius Caesar. But somebody out there will be.

Republics die of mayhem and disorder. And Washington right now is all mayhem and disorder. Chuck Schumer and the Clinton dynasty created that mayhem from whole cloth. If it spreads beyond the Potomac, then we're one ambitious leader away from the whole thing falling apart.

I'm not seriously predicting this of course. But it's fun to think about.

Friday, June 9, 2017

- A Word On Inter-Sexuality

This has been hanging around in my folder for a few weeks waiting for me to come up with an ending for it. But I'm cleaning up, so I figured I'd post it without:

You know what Intersectionality is right? Intersectionality is the way one victim group borrows the aggrieved status of another victim group to advance it's will to power. Feminists borrow white guilt over Slavery from blacks to bolster their claim that men need to be punished. Blacks meanwhile borrow the 'lived experience' philosophy of Feminism in order to further sideline reason and to validate subjective feelings as 'evidence' that whites need to be punished.

It's an ala carte menu of all the most baseless ideas of academia, being used to advance political motives of the fringe and in the end, to punish the most successful fractional group of Americans, heterosexual white men. It is the thing that transforms those bad ideas from a bunch of individual bad ideas into a kind of religious dogma dedicated to viewing society as intentionally exploitative, and shifting the responsibility for success or failure from the behavior of individuals, to the perceived behavior of groups.

I don't think it's a mistake that the people most dedicated to intersectional grievance culture are those people who for various reasons, are the least desireable to members of the opposite sex. And I think that's telling. Men and women find different things attractive and there is a hierarchy to that which is unavoidable.

Heterosexuals have more sexual options than homosexuals, and conventional homosexuals have more options than transexuals. So that hierarchy applies to both sexes. By order of appeal, it's straight, gay, tranny. Although the emphasis is slightly higher in men than women, both sexes like the physically fit, so that has a hierarchy too, with the physically appealing being much more highly valued than the unhealthy or unattractive. Men prefer thin women while women prefer tall men.

For the breakdown by race, individual mileage varies greatly. But broadly stated for women trying to appeal to the most desirable men, these days the order of appeal is asian women, white women, latin women, black women. for men it's different because women are interested in different things in men. But for them broadly stated it's white men, asian men, latin men, black men.

We can quibble around the edges. Some 'in demand' men simply don't find asian women appealing at all or may prefer the most attractive latin women over white women. Some in demand women may prefer a Latin man over an Asian, or vice versa. These aren't hard and fast rules, just general principles. And are in effect, a restatement of the Heartiste rule that the sexual market is the only market.

This I think defines the need for intersectionality. If you're an unattractive man, say an impoverished, overweight, short black transsexual man with an IQ of 85, you will have few choices for mates, and none among the most 'in demand' women or men. If you're an unattractive woman, say someone like Lena Dunham or one of those kids from Evergreen college a few posts back, you will have few options, and none among the most in demand men and women.

This is the point of Feminism, racism, and explicitly, intersectionality. The point is to overturn enough of society's basic structure to allow that homeless guy sleeping on the traffic island ready access to Shu Qi or (if you prefer) Emily Ratajkowski. And to provide the freak show girls of Anti-fa ready sexual access the top tier of the male sexual market. (Being male and heterosexual, those guys are harder for me to name.)

The biggest issue though is really intelligence. And that's why the left is so rapidly falling apart. The people at the bottom of the sexual demand list are all of lower intelligence. And in the end, I think that will be their inevitably undoing. Stupid is as stupid does. And as their demands to undo more of western culture become even more obvious, people will see that they just don't want to go there.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

- Never Annoy Smart People

They'll make your life a living Hell. From Ace:

Kurt Eichenwald tweeted out a picture of his computer screen to show the anti-semitic messages he was getting.

Here's the thing, though: the screenshot included a tab in his browser.

Now, I have to include a Content Warning here for the foreground image of the anti-semitic crap Eichenwald tweeted out. (Though he was tweeting this out to show how awful his critics were.) But if you look at his tabs, you'll see a tab calling itself "B-Chiku (English, Uncensored, 212 pictures)" or something. I don't know what that means.

Well, I didn't know what that means.

Now I'm hip.

Apparently B-Chiku is hentai tentacle porn -- you know, that odd, much-discussed thing where giant tentacle monsters rape human women (well, it's not always rape, but these are monsters so it's rape a lot of the time, and Japanese porn generally has a rape vibe to it) -- and you can see that (Content Warning!) in the third picture in this tweet, the dirtiest parts redacted.

My girlfriend is American of Taiwanese origins. My daughter is well on her way to being conversational in Mandarin. And since the Chinese truly despise the Japanese, there is much talk in my life lately of how totally weird the Japanese are. Don't get me wrong, I have no beef with the Japs. They're a very polite people, and polite goes a long way with me. But they are freakin weird when it comes to the sack.

Which is to say that I don't understand the rapey tentacle porn thing at all. Rapey, I kinda get. And since several people have told me - including the aforementioned girlfriend and the Derb (who should know) - that I'm having a bit of a yellow fever period in my life, I do find some Japanese women pretty hot. But tentacles? Where does that come from? It's not even really dark, it's just weird.

But I definitely get the 'condescending Vanity Fair writer who isn't nearly as clever as he likes to pretend to be' thing. And Kurt Eichenwald is now suffering for it.

The really fun part of this story, and the only reason I'm bothering to write anything on it at all, is that if you go to the link from Ace's blog, and look at the offending NSFW drawings, there are now hundreds of comments, and they're all from Kurt E., and consist of things like "I'm Kurt Eichenwald, and I approved this message." This guy is now going to be permanently linked to online tentacle porn drawings everywhere on the internet, forever. He will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever live it down. People will be tweeting him pics of Pepe the frog with tentacles until he's living in the old condescending retirement home.

I don't care how weird your tastes are. Your sex life is a matter of complete indifference to me. But if you know you're going to be ridiculed for it, (and if you're Kurt Eichenwald, then apparently you are) at least be smart enough not to include the link in your 'I'm really an intersectional victim too' tweets.

- The Antifa 'Sucker Punch' Tactic

This is interesting. Australian Conservative Pundit Andrew Bolt was having lunch in a Melbourne Restaurant when the local 'Anti-Fa' spotted him and decided to wait outside to bushwhack him as he left. Bolt fought back, which is something the girls of antifa simply never expect:

Antifa does love the sucker punch don't they? It's very brave of them isn't it? If only they had a bike lock on them.

People have been kidding me for years because I expend so much energy on situational awareness. When I leave a place or enter a place I almost always take a few seconds in the transition to check out the room or the street, and get at least a little bit of a handle on what's going on. In my case it probably is paranoia. I'm not exactly a public figure. But the dweebs of Antifa so love the 'creep up from behind and hit him when he's not looking' tactic', that it's sounding less and less crazy.

And the thing about the masks. Antifa thinks this makes them look cool, when all it really does is make them look cowardly. "By Any Means Necessary", so long as no one can recognize us tell our parents. What a bunch of pansy poseurs.

Good for Andrew Bolt.

HT Ace.

-So an Irish Budget Director Walks Into Congress...

While the world hangs on every word of Comey's testimony during the current Senate Circus, I wanted to bring up some positive forces and agents for change that have emerged but have been overshadowed by fake news.
Mick Mulvaney has a name and a deportment of a gentleman boxer. If he didn't crunch numbers, the redness in his face and the passion in his profession would probably put him in the ring as a welterweight boxer. Mick Mulvaney is not a virtue signaling appointment. He represents a class of humanity that is currently vilified for being what he is: White, Irish, Intelligent, Well Spoken, and Willing to Fight Back.
In this vignette is Mick Taking a hay-maker from Disgraced Senator Bernie Sanders. Sanders only knows one style of fighting, where our "Mick" absorbs the ham-handed blows and lands a few solid jabs on the yammering Sanders. Strange yet typical, liberals believe Sanders destroyed the Mick. That would be like saying you won the drinking contest because you vomited more than you consumed.
Strange but typical yet again, the democrats and the ultra-left continue to believe that their emotional appeal is more important than facts and logic. Here we have Rep Barbara Lee get a dose of "reality" coupled with emotion from fightin Mick Mulvaney

It must be racist and sexist of me to provide these examples. According to the Left, guys like Mick are just showing how uncomfortable they are in the presence of these giants of liberal thought.
No ma'am, you are not a doctor:

- The 'Tough" Left

You're probably already laughing. I know I am. This is the student vigilante group who are currently roaming the grounds of Evergreen State, enforcing the rules of Social Justice on the rampant mobs of malefactors who populate the nearly exclusively progressive town. This is the 'tough' left. The courageous left. They are the tallest buildings in Uzbekistan.

Everyone is all up in arms about how they're carrying baseball bats, but I don't care about that. One glance at them will tell you that they might just as well be carrying feather dusters. On their best day they're poseurs who are trying to 'look tough' by carrying a dangerous weapon. But as any soldier (present or former) will tell you, having a weapon in your hand doesn't make you tough. I would no more be afraid of them if they were carrying loaded assault rifles (which of course they would never do).

The problem with being armed is that it anchors you in reality. Use a weapon on someone, even menacing them with one, and you're stepping into the real world where there will be real consequences. And reality is no place for social justice warriors. In the real world, their worldview quickly crumbles into the narcissistic ego gratification that it really is.

There was a great quote on the Overnight Thread at Ace:

It bears repeating: actual justice holds you responsible for the actions you take. “Social justice” holds you responsible for actions taken, without your knowledge or consent, by people you do not know and have never met. It’s guilt by association, and a perversion of true justice.

By necessity, Social Justice Warriors need to avoid getting involved with 'actual justice' at all cost. They must keep their arguments in the informal and moral. Any intersection (grin) with actual Justice means they're going to be in a lot of trouble. You can burn witches all you like on Twitter (as in ... ooohhh Burn!) and no one will arrest you. Start actually 'burning' them, and you'll be spending a long time in a small room being serially raped by a member of the same sex.

As appealing as the latter concept looks to be to this crew, I don't think they'd enjoy the former.

So what would happen I wonder if these brave advocates of social justice found someone like me for instance - a believer in none of their dogma - walking while heterosexually white, or whatever my perceived sin is? How would the consequences of that encounter look? Here's my guess.

First I would serially 'assault them' with my verbal opinions on races and sex. For fun I might refer to them by the names of the "Rocky Horror Picture Show' cast members they most resemble. Then they would try to physically intimidate me with their scary sticks. I would react to that with more colorful insults and a 'threatening posture' like 'raising my arms to fend off any incoming blows'. Eventually, one of them would take that very dangerous next step and actually strike a blow for all the oppressed by hitting me with their bat, probably from behind, which is where I'd be anticipating it.

I would end up with a nasty bruise on my forearm at least, and then rush my rapidly retreating assaulter, take the bat away from them, and now that I'm free to act in my own self defense, would do my very best to bludgeon the one who struck me, if possible concentrating on the legs to immobilize them but it can be tough to hit a fleeing person in the legs so most likely the torso. I'd also go after the black guy if he's still anywhere nearby since he looks the most capable of actually doing me harm. They would scatter of course, and immediately accuse me of unprovoked aggression, and as is the way with our new moral leaders, they'd demand that the patriarchy immediately come to their defense and have me arrested.

When the dust settled, they would go to the emergency room, I would go to the police station, and we'd all wait for the courts to decide that since they showed up with the baseball bats, and I only took one away to defend myself after being struck, they should be the ones who are charged and not me. Being heterosexual and white, or even believing that hetorosexuality and 'whiteness' is a good thing, isn't actually a crime you see. Well... we see. They clearly don't.

But none of this speculation matters because you're laughing. And so am I. No one can possibly believe that this freak show will ever actually assault anyone. Not even a middle aged woman. Not even a frail old man with a walker who is incapable of fighting back, let alone a fit and potentially dangerous looking heterosexual white male like me who is only barely past his prime. Because whatever your motives, inflicting physical violence on someone takes courage. And as we know from our intersectionality lessons, courage is a part of 'toxic masculinity', and has no place in a social justice worldview.

Seriously, kids... don't embarrass yourselves.

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

- Meet The Lion Of London Bridge

Meet Roy Larner Age 47:

47-year-old Roy Larner battled the three machete-wielding jihadis with bare fists and shouted: "Fuck you, I'm Millwall!"

Roy was enjoying a pint in a pub when the attackers ran in with machetes, chanting, "Islam, Islam!" and "This is for Allah!"

He's now been hailed as the Lion of London Bridge, a reference to his football club's nickname.

I can't tell you what a relief it is to me to discover that there are still some men in England.

Roy was knifed eight times by the attackers at the Black & Blue restaurant and bar. He fearlessly shouted back and fought them alone, saving countless lives and allowing others to escape in the process.

Hero Roy told The Sun from hospital: "They had these long knives and started shouting about Allah. Then it was, 'Islam, Islam, Islam'.

"Like an idiot, I shouted back at them. I thought, 'I need to take the piss out of these bastards.' I took a few steps towards them and said, 'Fuck you, I'm Millwall.' So they started attacking me."

He took on three knife wielding men, totally unarmed. Did he get cut? Sure. But knife wounds heal, chicks dig scars, and like I said the other day, these Jihadis aren't Navy Seals. He'll come out of it OK.

In the meantime he saved the lives of multiple women and men who act like women. And by the way, shame on the cowards who left him there to fend off 3 knife wielding psychotics by himself.

It's a big thing to be brave. It's a bigger thing to be brave when you're all alone in a 3 on one fight. All Hail Roy Larner. If he buys his own beer ever again, it will be a shameful day for Britain. And the next time I'm in London, I' going over to the Black And Blue to put my money where my mouth is.

HT Heartiste for the link.

- SJW's and Personal Agency

Pictured above is Social Justice Warrior 'Reality Winner' busted for leaking classified documents from the NSA to a media outlet.

The thing that Social Justice Warriors and Islamic Terrorists have in common, apart from their thoughtless hatred of the west, is that they're losers. That's right, Social Justice Warriors are losers, with a loser's worldview. Rather than take responsibility for their own lives and their own choices, they have instead made everything the fault of someone else. They have, in essence, made themselves into objects who are only ever acted upon by outside forces, instead of agents, who act upon the world around them.

They should have listened to the kid below. The voices in the video below are of our man Jarred Taylor from American Renaissance, and a young man named 'Robert Smith', a young black man with an IQ greater than 140. Mr Smith, it seems, has become a race realist, and acknowledges that the average IQ difference between blacks and whites is to great extent a reflection of genetics.

Why do I bring this back to race? I don't really mean to. It's just that it's an incredibly hot button topic where the Social Justice gang is as resistant to reason as they are on any other. But here is this young black man explaining how empowered it made him feel to not have the black cloud of 'systemic racism' over his head.

When he realized that it was all an illusion, he was relieved to no longer have to worry about it. He felt better knowing that there wasn't an unseen malevolent force hanging over his head that would 'keep him down' no matter what he did, simply because of his skin color. What he's talking about, is the feeling of personal agency. When you take responsibility for your own actions and your own success or failure, you feel better not worse. Even in the face of failure, which we all do occasionally.

The philosophy of Social Justice isn't about being nice to people. It's about blaming others for the circumstances of your life. It's about being an object not an actor. It's about eternal victimhood. But if you reject it, and act upon the world instead of just being acted upon by it, life is better for you in a million ways. Or so says Robert Smith, and I.

- Do I Read This Right?!

Am I making some mistake here? Is the Mayor of London now saying that he's in favor of Islamic Terrorism?!

Sadiq Khan calls for Donald Trump's state visit to be CANCELLED because he is 'against everything we stand for.'

Certainly you could read it that way based on the actual events in London and the Mayor's reaction to them. Though maybe I judge too harshly. After all, the Mayor is obviously not a Conservative and I'm not a Mainstream journalist. And as we know, it's morally repugnant (and deeply racist) to try to hold everyone to an objective standard.

Monday, June 5, 2017

- A Word On Fighting Back

I've met enough Britains to know that the fight can't possibly be out of all of them, but the British press sure does seem to focus on aiming the cameras at only one group - much like they do here.

Check out this 'not safe for work' video. First there is the kid who is complaining for Rebel Media and then there is the guy he's ridiculing. I know which one Britain needs more of.

The other day the GF and I were having a nice chat with some older Italian Tourists in Washington Square Park. She and I have been making the most of the new rule not to punish streetside alcohol consumption in NYC, by taking the dog and a decent bottle of Pinot Noir over to the park on sunny afternoons and discreetly drinking it on a bench. The tourists sat down with us just as I was tossing the remains of the bottle. They were in their 70's and spoke broken english, but otherwise were as pleasant as you could possible imagine, and were great company.

Now I tend to be a little confrontational anyway when poked, and I had to deal with my idiot brother in law this weekend, so I might have had a little pent up anger left. Then there was the wine. So please keep that in mind while you read the rest of this.

But our exceptionally pleasant new Venetian friends had rested up a bit and after getting directions from us, were on their way to their next destination when one of the local crazies - a great huge fat black blob of a man - got up from the bench where he had been screaming at strangers for attention, and started hassling the old folks.

I didn't respond well to this.

I quickly bounced up off my bench, trotted over to this loser, and got up in his face a little. I could see the look of fear on his face as a fit, biggish antagonistic looking white guy came jogging up, so no actual violence was necessary. It almost never is. I gave him a menacing chewing out with my finger in his face and graphic promises of future violence, and he quickly forgot about the tourists, pulled his shirt back down and skulked away to find some other group to hassle. He didn't want trouble. He only wanted to make trouble for others if he could do so unmolested.

If you're thinking that this was hardly a muslim kid with a knife screaming Allah Akbar, that's fair enough. But since it was just this past weekend it's fresh in my mind. And I've got to tell you, I don't think I would ever have the same reaction to a bunch of unarmed policemen telling me to 'duck and cover' as the British populace seemed to in that video. Maybe I'm being foolhardy lately, but it seems to me that if we stop putting up with it, we'll all get to stop putting up with it.

There are literally millions of polite decent people in New York City. We have the crazies and terrorists WAY outnumbered. Granted, in my neighborhood most of the New Yorkers are progressive cowards, but maybe if they see me standing up to the urban BS, some of them will find a little backbone too. Half the trick of getting men to act like men, it seems to me, is to show them what one looks like. And it doesn't take a hero to get up in the face of a rude obnoxious unwashed crazy person who is really only acting the way he is because he knows no one will give him any trouble if he does.

Well I gave him some trouble, though little was required. And if he were a wild eyed maniac with a knife I think I'd have only felt more compelled to violence. I don't know how I'm gonna die, but I'll bet anything that it won't be at the hands of of some lone, homeless, 'off his meds' street flotsam, or some untrained Muslim kid who's holding a weapon and engaging in violence for the very first time in his entire life. These guys aren't Navy Seals.

More than anything else though, I'm just sick to death of ducking and hiding. At this point in my life I'd rather risk getting hurt than act like a woman.

And that's the thing guys. It's a risk. Just a risk. I've been hurt before and survived it. It's not the end of the world. And the NY crazies and the Muslim psychos with knives aren't expecting anyone to fight back. I really think it's the Muslim equivalent of a shit test. They'll keep doing it until we start fighting back. They are nothing but the new bullies of the west. And I won't back down to a bully ever. I don't care how badly he might hurt me. I may be disarmed in NYC, but I'll never be defenseless.

None of this makes me a tough guy. I'm literally never looking for trouble. I'm just an ordinary guy who isn't going to be bullied by anyone.

- The Cowardice of Playing Schrodinger's Politics

While the 2016 election raged, laying asunder many of the past cross-ideological alliances of the political right, I spent a very long time complaining about National Review.

My complaint was about words, and how NR, a leading voice of the right, should deny the left their desire to redefine the words Racist, Misogynist, Xenophobe, and their other tropes. National Review at the time, would publish about a piece a week aiming their intellectual guns to the right and conceding the left their redefinitions while simultaneously saying ‘We aren’t the real Racist, Misogynist Xenophobes, it’s those guys you want. They’re the ones who dream of camps and ovens! We’re the ‘good ones’, you guys should be looking to burn ‘those witches’”.

Well NR has taken its time about it (better late than never), but they’ve finally gotten to the first half of my complaint and recognized that this is all about redefining words to mean whatever the left wants them to mean. The rest, they’re still getting wrong.

The moral underpinnings of the left’s key name calling charges are still conceded by NR to their real opponents – the people that openly claim they want to destroy everything NR says it’s trying to preserve. The rest is quite literally semantics. They say the left redefines these words to ‘cloak reality’, yet they’re still really only willing to argue over the proper color of the cloak. I guess some people are just a little slower at the whole ‘recognizing reality’ game than others.

I’ll give you an example from my own experience.

The first time I heard John Derbyshire describe himself as a racist was about 3 years before his big blowup at NR, and I'll confess, it was a shocking thing for me… that first time. I had known him a while at that point and I simply didn’t believe it. I instantly knew that whatever he meant by that word, it couldn’t possibly be what I, with my unreconstructed leftist programming of the time, thought he meant. But rather than simply fetching some lumber, some rope, and a few gallons of kerosene, I instead decided that there must be something missing from my own understanding, and set about to rectify it.

Eventually it became clear that what he meant when he said that word was not that he wanted to kill or harm black people, or that he was filled with hate for them. The man has no hate in him that I’ve ever been able to find. What he meant was that he did in fact recognize a number of systemic differences between white people and black people, and that by his own definition, that made him closer to a ‘racist’ than an ‘ant-racist.’

I’ve always thought it’s my responsibility to understand what someone means to say to me, rather than it being their responsibility to say it in a way I instantly recognize. And thanks to this believe, instead of me changing my mind about the character of a man I liked and respected, I changed my mind about what he meant when he said the word at issue. Eventually I came to like his much more objective definition better. It's objectivity gives it permanence. It anchors it in the real. There is the truth, then there is our opinions about the truth, and then there is our feelings about the opinions. With his definition I always knew what to expect.

In the reality that NR says the left is trying to cloak, we used to call this ‘learning’. If all 'racist' means is to notice a systemic ‘lack of equality by design’, then yes, John probably was a racist. We’re all different after all, and only someone completely detached from reality couldn’t notice that. But in order to properly see what he meant when he used the word, I needed to detach the objective meaning of the word from my own emotional context for it. I had to let this highly volatile word stand alone in it’s own right and ignore whatever negative feelings it may conjure for me.

Well the left has done the same, except while I threw out the emotional context and kept the objective definition, they threw away the objectivity and kept only the emotional context. Now, to them, Racist means, whatever the hell they want it to mean. So long as their emotions are affected, then whatever you’re saying or doing, or for that matter, whatever they say you’re saying and doing, or that they say you're not saying and not doing, can be evidence of your racism.

NR would rather split the baby. They want to find some middle ground between the subjective emotional context and the objective and observably verifiable reality of the debate about words. For them it’s a kind of Schrodinger’s politics. The alt-attitudes of the new right exists in a box unobserved, being both present and wrong, and not-present and right, until they do the observing. They want to deny the left it’s definition, but still keep enough of the moral repugnancy attached to it to empower them to fire their guns to the right as well if need be.

More and more I’m convinced that this is just cowardice. But reality is catching up on them. The ‘science!’ of the debate is closing in on identifying real differences between the races and sexes and in the process, tearing out the foundations of the moral arguments of the left that NR has gone to so much trouble to defend. It isn’t ‘right’ to treat women like awful men, when they could just as easily be treated differently as spectacular women. It isn’t ‘right’ to pretend there are no differences in intelligence and behavior between black and white. To do so only leads to unfairness to all involved. We on the alt side of things all know this. NR still is stuck on words.

I don’t want to sound as apocalyptic as Vox Day does when this sort of comes up on his blog, but in the end they’ll have to choose. There is no middle ground between objective reality and subjective delusion. While there are lots of ways to be half right, there is no way to be half way wrong, and the SJW's will never let them keep one foot in each world. And since the left has abandoned all of reality in their will to power assault on the dictionary, NR is still technically coming down on their side. Like Vox is always saying, they’re going to come around though. And I suspect it will happen the micro-second after 50.1% of their usual donors do the same. Or maybe all of this is because they can tell that any day now, the mob of their co-defenders of righteous condemnation are about to show up on the corner of 32nd and Lex with their torches and pitchforks aimed at them.

When that happens, I don't think the proud boys will be there to walk Rich Lowry to his car.

Sunday, June 4, 2017

- An Open Letter To Britains

Dear British Citizens,

Your government and the police are not there to protect you, they are there only to keep you from protecting yourselves. What you choose to do about this, is how you'll be remembered.

There really isn't anything else to say about this in my opinion.

Best wishes for your strength,
Tom from RFNJ.

- Alt-Britain

"Boom goes London, Boom Paris. More room for you and more room for me, they all hate us anyhow so let's drop the big one now."

Since the Manchester attack had Hollywood D-Listers swearing allegiance to their cause by showing the severed head of the President, maybe we should finally take Randy Newman's advice. Let's nuke the north coast of Africa. If they want to come to Europe, let em glow in the dark while they do it. < / sarcasm>

London and Paris are already both going boom. And there is little doubt this will all be presented as the fault of Donald Trump, global warming, and his unwillingness to come together in solidarity and tears.

What strikes me as funny though is that the Muslim terrorists somehow think this will help their cause. Right now, in England, a whole lot of men are waking up and telling their Feminist women to shut their holes and let the men take care of it. Former soccer hooligans are running out this morning to get proud boy tattoos. No one, not even the effete 21st century British, can take this kind of behavior forever.

It's perfectly clear to any rational observer that the British Government no longer has any interest in protecting their citizens. So it's time to get rid of the British Government. It's time for Alt-Britain.

Friday, June 2, 2017

- The Coming Race War part: 223,254,123,176

The situation at Evergreen College in Olympia Washington is so deranged and perverse, that it's hard to find a single article that addresses all the lunacy. This one comes about as close as any:

In objecting to what they call racism, students make statements and actions that if performed against minorities would probably be enough to bar the perpetrators from polite company forever. For example, students repeatedly shout “Black power.” What if it were “White power”? Also check out a sampling of the things they scream in this video, compiled by The College Fix, and imagine “blackness” or “black” or any other racial description substituted for “white” and “whiteness.”

— “Whiteness is the most violent f-ckin’ system to ever breathe!”
— “I’m tired of white people talking about what black and brown people need.”
— “These white-ass faculty members need to be holding HIM, and HIM, and ALL these people accountable!”
— “I’m tellin’ you, you’re speakin’ to your ancestor, all right? We been here before you. We built these cities, we had civilization way before you ever had … comin’ out your caves.”

There is a legitimate question about how white people should respond to this, particularly white people in positions of authority. Stupid kids are stupid kids after all. They believe in a lot of stupid things, and it's our job to teach them the facts, and get them to accept reality. Their overt racism and hypocrisy shouldn't really matter at all. But if you think about the possible outcomes, the odds of them occurring declines in direct correlation to their soundness as a response.

Say for instance authorities adopted the perfectly rational view that these kids obviously have no business being in a place of higher learning, and they expelled the participants, and jailed the worst offenders who engaged in violence or intimidation. What would happen next? Would they learn the error of their ways and rehabilitate themselves? Or would they call for, and probably receive, support from the extreme fringes of leftist advocacy, and the result would be more violence, and more demands for the blood of whitey?

That would be tragic, and if it got bad enough it may mean the end of Evergreen, but in effect it's already been ended right? Who in that barely literate crowd is actually getting what anyone would call 'a higher education'? But there would also be the lawsuits, and the race baiting Sharpton-esque characters that gravitate to this scene. It would become a national story, and force a question that most white academics really don't have the stomach for. And in the end, that's probably why they gave in to whatever demands the students had.

But what happens next year when this happens at Harvard, or Princeton. When the demands to surrender to the illiterate mob get so outlandish that they can't be refused or complied with? It's just a matter of time after all.

It should be clear to you that things are getting progressively worse on America's college campuses. In response to the weakness from administrators and leftist state governments, the demands are growing more brazen, and more explicitly racist.

These kids want us to accept them as our masters and to 'memory hole' 5 thousand years of civilization. What do we do when they're demanding that we end all research into the human genome, because it validates the concept of race and confirms the heritability of the components of personality that bode poorly for blacks on average? What do we do when they begin to say that the constitution is a racist document and enforcing it is an overt act of racism? Do we just give up, hand them the keys and go home to wait it out?

The last 50 years of race based policy was nothing but appeasement. And now they're talking about the breathing room that they need. The step after that is mobilizing for violence. Ironically, just like Hitler.

- "Je Suis Kathy Griffin"

Kathy Griffin is holding a press conference to discuss how she was 'bullied' by President Trump and his family. This woman who publicized a photo of herself holding the severed bloody head of a man, is now complaining that the family of the man, whose bloody head she held aloft, is 'bullying' her.

It's no secret that Kathy Griffin isn't exactly a big thinker. She's a horrid tasteless shrew, few can argue it. Even her friends Al Franken and Anderson Cooper, obviously no great fans of Trump, have said she's gone too far. But how have we gotten to a place where she thinks the right reaction to this is to accuse him of 'bullying'?

What I'd like to see is the 4chan guys producing countless images of masked men and women holding the bloody severed head of Kathy Griffin aloft, just like she did Trump. It's all fair game right Kathy? No big deal. You should have no reason to complain about a thing like that right? Then the minute she raises even the tamest objection, the world gets drowned in "Kathy Griffin=Bully" tweets. If someone does one up, send me a link to it. I'll paste it here in place of the RFNJ logo for a few weeks, in solidarity.

There really is no shame at all in Hollywood. I can't wait for the "Je Suis Kathy Griffin" movement, or the 'crazy cat-lady lives matter' movement to catch on. It would be the perfect hypocritical cherry on top of this little bit of liberal truth about their feelings and intentions.

- A Great Zman Piece

While I may have my occasional nit to pick with the Z man, for the most part I think we see things the same way. This piece of his on the lack of introspection and self loathing that drive progressive 'thinking' is a great example:

People in a cult are not sitting around saying to one another, “This is a great cult. I’m really enjoying my time as a cult member.” Similarly, no one sits down one day and says, “I think I want to join a cult.” People in a cult think the beliefs and rules of their cult are perfectly logical and rational. They provide an explanation and framework for understanding the world. People on the outside, however, see the rules and beliefs of a cult as weirdly irrational and maybe even dangerous.

The other thing about people in cults is they join from self-loathing. They hate themselves and seek to swap their hated individual identity with that of the group. It’s why they will savagely defend their group like a mother defending their young. It’s self-defense. The group is them and they are the group. Therefore, any criticism of the group, or the beliefs of the group, is the same as an attack on the member. It is why they consider criticism the same as violence. From their point of view, it is violence, violence against their identity.

It says the same thing I usually say but in a very different language - which makes it useful if you're actually trying to understand what's going on. when I talk about this I usually mention things like ego-defense and decision making. But it's easy to see how all that language is implied in Z's perspective.

Great piece Z. I'll be first in line to get the book.

- Climate Change Groundhog Day

Climate change is the perfect liberal boogie man, and it's back again like Jason from the Friday the 13th movies. It's pervasive, tenuous connected to everything, and therefore justifies making every single moment of every single life on earth political. Even better is that the facts are complex enough so that it's more or less unknowable to the vast majority of ordinary humans.

But it isn't unknowable by guys like me.

I’ll come clean here, I am absolutely one of those people who denies that reducing man’s impact on climate change is the only thing that will save us. It’s nonsense. It’s exactly like that idiotic movie ‘The Day After’ which featured good looking people from Hollywood running as fast as they can from the glaciers and they thundered south on 5th avenue. It takes a slow process and makes it seem fast, critical and scary, when the truth is that we will be able to easily adapt to any changes it may bring.

Upon what do I base my conclusions? I don’t know, maybe the main cause of my unbridled arrogance in this space is my 25 years as a data scientist trying to tease causality and correlation out of big complex data sets, and my actual experience – successful experience – at building models that successfully predict the future with that data… successfully.

When Terrence Mann’s famous hockey stick data was made public I downloaded and analyzed it. Myself. Personally. I didn’t farm it out to the slide rule geeks to tell me what they think, I am that slide rule geek. So I looked at the data, and in 15 minutes I knew it was fake. A lot of other people did the same thing that I did. And when the world's 'climate scientists' learned of our copious rejection of it, the great leaders of the global warming ‘science!’ debate instantly knew what they did wrong, and stopped releasing data to the public.

Explaining how I knew sounds like so much cryptic jargon because data science is hard. You can’t learn it from a class in probability and statistics. You can learn what the tools are from that class, but that isn’t enough to learn all the possible mistakes you can make with them. So let me just tell you the thing I learned that had me marching around the Caxton trading floor 15 minutes after I downloaded the data proclaiming the hockey stick and Terrence Mann both as utter frauds.

The earth’s weather is a closed, mean reverting dynamic system, and Mann’s hockey stick showed a 5+ standard deviation moment. His model predicted a 9+ standard deviation moment.

Even if this were absolutely correct, to extrapolate a 9 standard deviation moment from a 5 standard deviation moment is ridiculous. It’s the kind of mistake a high school freshman wouldn’t make. It’s not only an incorrect assumption, but an assumption which assumes that everyone else is an absolute imbecile. Closed mean reverting systems don’t do that because as the number gets higher, so too does the pressure on the system to revert to the mean. Simply stated, the more it goes up, and even more important, the faster it goes there, the more it wants to go down.

There is a causal basis for this in weather. As temperatures and CO2 rise, plants have a longer growing season, and consume CO2 more rapidly. The facts are complicated in this case because it’s mostly sea dwelling plants that add O2 to the air and land plants that add it to the water, but on a large enough scale that’s neither here nor there. Both do better in average warmer temperatures and higher C02 concentrations on average. And that's the way you have to treat it if you’re talking about a planet wide phenomenon.

So the temps and CO2 rise, more plants grow, and that drives CO2 and temps down and O2 up.

It might be different locally. You could for instance have the temperatures rise so high in the gulf of Mexico, already known for it’s warmer water temperatures, that plant life can no longer survive there or that gives rise to things like red tides which have a negative effect on plant growth. But on a global scale, the falling amount of plant life in the Gulf of Mexico will be more than offset by the rising amount of plant life in the gulf of Alaska.

If you can read between the lines, you begin to see the outlines of 2 errors that inexperienced data scientists often make. Mistake one is extrapolation. Just because something deviates from the mean doesn’t mean it always will, like Mann specifically said it would at the time.

The second is a scaling problem which says that just because a feature of data is true on a small scale doesn’t mean it will be true on a larger scale. Larger scales include many more variables, and all need to be taken into account before you scale from small to large, and back. It’s for this reason that lower average black IQ’s don’t automatically mean that all black men are idiots. You can’t go from the specific to the average, and back. There is no real connection there. (This is arguably, the most common mistake of all liberal thinking.)

But Terrence Mann wasn’t an inexperienced data scientist. He was a serious (cough) academic thinker, with many letters after his name. So how was it possible that he made such catastrophically simple errors in his analysis of the data? It wasn’t logical to assume that he was actually a ‘Chauncey Garner’ like imbecile finding his way through academia spouting wise sounding allegories he never really understood. The only logical conclusion was that he was not an idiot.

And since that was so, he must be lying.

Why would he lie? The answer was elegantly reduced in the classic movie ‘The right stuff’, when the astronauts were arguing with the engineers for a more passenger friendly design of the Mercury capsule – “Do you know what makes this rocket take off? Money! No Bucks, no Buck Rogers!”

Whether Terrence Mann knew he was lying about the hockey stick is unknowable, at least by me. But I know he was lying, because headlines drive funding, and politically motivated funding is what drives the debate around ‘climate science’. His laughable hockey stick is only the worst example. There have been numerous other ‘errors’ which didn’t get the same headlines, but had the same effect.

Then there is the issue around the ‘solutions’ to it, like the Paris Climate accords.

Is the world warming? I don’t know. Probably. It certainly makes sense to me. Is man in part responsible? I don’t know. Probably. It certainly makes sense to me. (no one else does either… all they have is conjecture and notoriously unreliable predictions.)

Should does it then follow that we should do all we can, including shutting down a significant portion of our global economy and putting another portion of it into the hands of a group of people who have demonstrated their willingness to lie in order to gain political influence? No. Absolutely not. We would be stupid to do that. Thankfully, we aren’t as collectively stupid as Terrence Mann and the ‘climate scientist’ seem to think we are.