Thursday, August 17, 2017

- Quick! Destroy This Video

This is interesting. It's some footage of the non-violent protesters peacefully fighting the Nazis, the Klan and the new confederate racist, homophobic, violent alt-right, by beating the daylights out of a couple of mainstream news reporters from The Hill, CBS and a few others.

This is all perfectly OK though because, you know, it's not violence if the Media and the Democrats don't say it's violence. After all, it's not like someone called somebody a fag or something truly violently offensive like that.

Every time I talk to the Derb about any of this stuff he frets. To paraphrase, he says it will take an awful lot before people are willing to face a truth that they don't want to face. Clearly he's right, but this all feels to me like it's a dam bursting at the seams. To the degree that any one of our national institutions embraces social justice, their credibility takes a huge dive proportionally.

And that can't possibly go on forever.

- Yvette Fellarca Charged With Assault

This woman definitely has 'crazy eyes'. She says that it shouldn't be a crime to punch Nazis and to stand up against fascism. How do we know that's what she was doing? She said so. She said plain as day he was a nazi. So that's settled then.

But wait.... maybe there is someone in the bay area who thinks that Nancy Pelosi is a Nazi? I'll bet there is at least one. Should that be good enough for them? Maybe there is someone who thinks it's not only OK to punch Nazi's but to stab and shoot them. that's OK too then I guess huh?

And maybe there is someone who thinks miss crazy eyes Fellarca is a Nazi. So punching and stabbing and shooting her is ok right? So long as it's Nazis, then it's all fair game. Maybe Charles Manson should rethink his plea and claim that he thought his victims were Nazi's all along. Out you go chuck, sorry to inconvenience you. Maybe Nicole Brown Simpson was a closet Nazi. No wait, OJ got off on that one so I guess she didn't have to be.

Thank goodness we have people like Yvette Fellarca to shape the minds of our youth huh.

Where the F*** have all the adults gone? Oh right. They're hiding in their bedroom closet, curled into the fetal position because they're afraid someone is going to call them a Nazi for not being anti-Nazi enough.

- An Intelligence Test

Watch this video. It's safe for work and some think it's a test of intelligence, but you only need to be able to count:

OK, not really. I didn't want to ruin it. It got me the first time I saw it.

Here is a similar thing. How many of you see one group being violent as opposed to two.

Did you see the big black guy with the flamethrower trying to set fire to uncle Floyd there? Or did you only see an evil white supremacist, Nazi, Klan member, trying to inflict racism and hate on an innocent and unsuspecting bystander with his flagpole?

The media, the Democrats and the establishment right, only see one man being violent in the picture. If you see more than that, then you should take a look at what the Alt-Right really thinks, and quit taking your cues from people who can't see the the obvious.

- Siding With the Crocodile

John McCain, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio were very upset about Trump's comments in his presser the other day. I don't want to quote Twitter (I'm just too lazy) but the fair upshot is that the right was representing hatred and bigotry while the left was 'standing up against' hatred and bigotry.

I don't necessarily know that the first statement about the right is true, but I'll accept it for the purpose of argument. It is at the very least true of a large number of the protesters in Charlottesville. But I don't think there any disputing that the Antifa, BAMN, and BLM groups are actually rooting FOR hatred and bigotry as well, they're just advocated the hatred of a different group of people than the right.

The Jewish question seems very prominent here. My position on that question is well known and well documented, but for the sake of the occasional misquote I'll say again that I am expressly pro-jew. Always have been, ever since I was a kid. My father, with whom I have a great many differences and who has never expressed anything but shame at me and my life choices, bragged for decades about how I got into a fight defending one of my school friend who was being given a fair amount of grief for being Jewish.

I have lived and worked surrounded by jews my entire life and though my feelings toward individual men may vary, I bear none of them any antipathy for their jewishness. This is not me saying "I have lots of Jewish friends". It's me saying that a long time ago I made a decision that a tribe of intelligent, peaceful, humorous, thoughtful people is something I would defend rather than despise. Some people resent the jews because, let's be frank, the jews are smarter on average than they are. Well they aren't smarter than me - certainly not on the whole. So I Identify in no way, with that kind of resentment.

With all that said I think I understand the defining difference. Jews don't like being singled out. Nazis and the Klan very much single out the Jews, and that bothers American Jewry. OK. Fair enough. But making that into a binary distinction (describing it as a black and white issue clouds the whole thing) seems short sighted to me. Right now the left advocates hatred of the heterosexual white man. But do jews imagine that if the left manages to crush that obstacle they won't be calling out the Jews next? As a well known alt-right advocate who is now accused of anti-semitism has continually said for the last 25 years, "They look pretty white to me." How long before Antifa, BAMN, Black Lives Matter and the other Marxist organizations of the far left start piling on to that idea?

The three Republicans listed above buy into the 'no moral equivalence' theory because they are embracing the Jewish view of our tiny band of American Nazis. Major guesses as to why seem to be because it's the view held by the Media. This identifies them as weak, shallow, thoughtless, and unprincipled - in other words, Republicans. Unconditional moral surrender to the left is what we've all come to expect from them, and is the reason there is an alt-right in the first place.

But in terms of explicitly ideology, there is a lot more than moral equivalence. The left already makes common cause with Islam, and in case you've been stranded Tom Hanks style on a desert Island for the last 75 years, Muslims don't much care for Jews. I get the appeasement idea but we know it doesn't work over the long term. And there is every chance that the Leftist Crocodile isn't going to be able to choke down 'heterosexual white men' anyway. What will American Jewry do when the very people they tried to feed to the Crocodile to save themsevles slashes it's way bloody and reeking, out from the belly of the great beast?

The right way to handle all this is, of course, talk. Talking is preferable to violence. Let the Alt-Right participate in the conversation. Let the Klan and the Nazi's join the conversation too. Why not? They're idiots and aren't going to convince anyone. Will they offend people? Almost certainly yes. But being offended is a lot better than having your skull bashed in by a baseball bat, and that's where things are headed on it's present course.

Yes, it will mean less outright control for you as the overton window shifts, but how much control do you think you have now? No one is listening to the press, no one trust the government, no one trust our corporations or our other civil institutions. It's all breaking down. Silence leads to violence, and the only way to prevent the violence is to let all ideas, even the murderous idiotic ones, be out on the table. And I'd rather deal with a bunch of offensive chatter than cope with a series of riots or an armed rebellion.

Heterosexual white,(ostensibly) Christian Americans are a fair bunch. We're talking about roughly half of America here - the 60 million who voted for Trump at the very least. They are not Nazis. They're not in the klan. They aren't filled to the brim with hate, hate, hate, hate. But they are not just food for Crocodiles either. And if the media and American Jewry want to come out of this thing whole, they should be choosing their friends more carefully.

I know it's a cliche, but "first they came for the heterosexual white men..."

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

- Triggered

Whatever else you may think about Charles Krauthammer, he's a generally rational clever guy. So I find it kind of curious to see that exchange between him and Laura Ingram on Fox yesterday. Yes, he's anti-Trump, so are lots of people. But he's not the type to try to hold an idea because it's fashionable. He thinks about things. I don't agree with him very often these days, but I always see him thinking.

About 1/2 an hour ago I saw this kid riding a bike down Broadway with a huge flag, and on it was the word NAZI with a ghostbuster red ring and cross over it. "Wow, what a brave and independent thinker" I thought to myself. But then it made me think that he and Charles have something in common. In the whole spectrum of awful and homicidal ideas that are out there, there is something special about Nazi's for Jews.

I think maybe it's shame. I can't imagine what else it is. Yes, of course, the Nazis specifically and expressly tried to kill all the Jews. There is no doubt that there is a special antipathy there. The Communists killed a ton of Jews too, but the didn't specifically and expressly try to kill the jews. Instead they tried to kill all sorts of people, of which the Jews were just one. So I can see how the Nazi's hold some special place in the Jewish heart. But I think it's more than just that. I think it takes more than that to shut down the way your mind works and run only on emotion like this kid and Charles both seem to do.

I'll be honest, I can't really identify with that. The closest thing my people have ever had to that kind of thing was Oliver Cromwell. He was hardly as mechanical about it, but he had no great love of the Catholic Irish. So I have no frame of history from which to assess this seeming abandonment of reason.

But I can imagine the future. If for instance someone in the future was trying to do to me and my family what Hitler did to the jews, then I'd probably be dead quite quickly, but not without taking out a whole bunch of them with me. In the interim my daughter, my sister, and the rest of my family would slip away in the mayhem and smuggle themselves to ... Texas or someplace, I don't know. I'm not claiming I'd have some superhero powers and come away unscathed.

But I can say that I would not go down without a fight. And that's exactly what the vast majority of the Jews in German occupied Europe did. That's a deeply shameful thing for a man. And I can't believe that Jewish men don't know it's shameful. I can't believe they don't feel a little hint of it every time they think about it.

Israelis, in my limited experience, don't have the same reaction to Nazis. Their reaction is more like mine. They think they're idiots, but they don't fear them. They think they're something to be hunted down, and thrown into a cell like a wild predator or rabid dog. They think they're an enemy, and I agree with them on that score. But they don't tremble and quake every time the word is uttered by some 85 IQ goofball with prison tats.

In my neighborhood you see Jewish men with their wives all the time. They're like beaten dogs. And I think that's why they so over react to any mention of the word Nazi. They're all ashamed that they didn't fight back.

Yes of course, Nazis are horrible, I'm not apologizing for them. I'm just finding it interesting the way that otherwise rational and clear headed men who as a rule I like and respect (even if I disagree with them) fall all to pieces every time some dimwit tries to revive that particular bad idea. There are a whole lot of bad ideas out there. And I don't see what makes that one so special that you have to abandon reason every time it's copied.

- Regarding Game Of Thrones

No... the actual TV show "Game OF Thrones". Last week HBO had a serious security breach and an episode ended up out there on the internet in advance of the main screening. (I admit nothing.)

This week, it has happened again. (I continue to deny any inference.)

HBO has a LOT of cash, and is making a mint off this series. I know several people who have subscribed to HBO exclusively for the show, and my crowd is not a big TV watching bunch. With all that at stake, you'd think they'd take just a tad more care with their single and solitary asset.

Liberals aren't good at much. In personality profiles they tend to score very low in conscientiousness. HBO is very liberal. But maybe they ought to consider hiring a conservative or two, in data security at least.

- Affirmative Action: Part 2

In the first piece I wrote on this topic a few posts back, I talked about the grand sweeping social issues concerning Affirmative Action. Well there is very much another side to it.

A good friend of mine is a very successful guy in the Hedge Fund space. He's exceptionally smart, careful, thoughtful, and remarkably diligent and hardworking. He's also an immigrant from India. He read my piece earlier and fired off an email to me, telling me a story which I repeat here with his permission.

A kid from his town, a very much upscale NJ suburb full of very successful people, has a son who has been working incredibly hard. It's no easy trick to be that diligent at 16 or 17 especially for a boy. But the kid is an outlier. A 'real genius' according to my friend, who knows from where he speaks. This is one of those kids. The one kid in a million who does everything right. The kid who 'kills it' everywhere he goes. Test scores and GPA right off the charts. He has the mind, the determination and wherewithal to go absolutely anywhere.

He applied to Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, MIT. They all rejected him. 27,000 total admissions and he wasn't good enough. The kid was decimated. Crushed. And who could blame him. To work all those years so incredibly hard, and hitting every bar he was told to, only to be rejected by EVERYONE left him feeling like an utter failure, not just academically but in life.

Then something strange happened. He got accepted at Cal-Tech, which admits only 250 students per year. That's when the parents saw what was really going on. He had everything he needed to be a success in the Ivy League, except the skin color. Cal-tech is one of the very few schools in the country that doesn't consider race in admissions. Naturally they loved an over-achieving kid like this. Even when the Ivies didn't.

So what's the moral of this story? That's easy. Stanford and the Ivy's are lost. They've fallen down the Social Justice rabbit hole where you can't tell big from small.

The readers of this blog do a lot of hiring. I've openly stated my contempt for the over-indulged brats you get when you hire from Harvard. Well apparently that trend has propagated, and we should all take a lesson from it.

And the lesson we should take is that if you want someone exceptional, don't hire from the Ivy League anymore. They're all just affirmative action placeholders, and legacies who don't do any work anyway. And we all have enough of those kinds of problems.

If my new company is doing as well as I hope next year, and the kid needs an internship, I hope my friend remembers me. I'll hold a place for him that would have otherwise gone to an Ivy Leaguer.

- Utterly Disgusting Talk

So if I understand the typically vapid and hyperventilating Jamelle Bouie correctly, a guy in a street protest with a baseball bat or improvised flamethrower, could be a force for evil in the world or he could be a force for good. It's all a question of who's skull he's intent on bashing in.

And this horrible excuse for human thinks he has the right to bloviate about moral superiority and call others 'obscene'? What an utter farce. I disagree with virtually every word this reprobate writes, but this truly does disgust me. This is the kind of argument you hear from the defense, when the crime is murdering an innocent Korean grocer and burning his business to the ground for the crime of being 'uppity'.

Shame on Slate (yes, even Slate) for giving voice to this kind of moral equivalency. I honestly believe it's a new low, even from a publication that specializes in trolling the very lowest depths of civilized thinking.

- In Praise Of Affirmative Action

Bob Weissberg is one of those guys who in person, it's genuinely impossible not to like. He's brilliant, funny, and definitely an outside of the box thinker. He has such a generally good nature that you can't help yourself.

I on the other hand, am unfortunately easy to dislike, and a great many people do so. Bob mentions a Henny Youngman joke in the piece I'm about to link that gets right to the heart of that. If I tried to make that joke, 9 times of 10 people would think I'm being totally serious.

Where Bob is a jovial, grandfatherly 'friar tuck' like figure, I am more of a steely eyed man of the west. I may not have the good looks for the part, but for my character, I'd blend in much better astride a horse behind Clint Eastwood, my hat tipped low, the heel of my hand on my pistol butt, pondering how long we have before the Indian horde finally catches up with us. (The horse and Indian horde are in this case fictional, there is little room for either in Manhattan. But I am the proud owner of both the pistol, and the hat.) I'm a guy who solves intractable problems, while Bob is a guy who entertains interesting solutions.

I say this to try to convey the spirit of the man, because what he proposes in this piece will probably seem anathema to you. This is what I've come to know as his classic defense of Affirmative Action, as he's been making the same argument in person for a while.

It's his view that affirmative action costs less than trying to find some other way as a culture, to cope with a very large, easily recognizable minority, that by virtue of genetics simply cannot seem to find a way to peacefully compete en masse with the rest of us in the modern world.

He's not making a judgement about right and wrong here. What he's doing is giving his take on the cost benefit analysis. Something, in his view, has to be done to keep 1 person in 7 from tearing the country apart. And from that perspective though horribly unfair on an individual basis, it may be cheaper and therefore better on the whole to simply ship them off to high status positions, however low or poor quality the return on those positions inevitably are.

From a pure mathematical bent, he could be right. It's a tough call. Someone might be able to work through the value of the property damage that comes with the most likely alternative, but how do you quantify the loss of life and injury that would come with it? What price do you put on an overachieving 9 year old asian girl pounded to pulp on a street corner because she was too slow to escape the mob?

So I see his point and respect the argument as made. The only thing that keeps me from accepting it totally is the inherent deception of it. Though in this case I do recognize that if we were honest about this one it would immediately become ineffective. We have to pretend Cornell West is a real thinker, or the status of his position falls to zero, and we lose the sedative effect.

So my discomfort with it is probably a problem with my character, rather than Bobs. I like my problems solved on a more permanent basis so I can move on to other problems. Bob is comfortable with the idea of eternal appeasement because, like he says, the right way to think about it is, "compared to what?"

There are problems which are not solvable. And there is a danger inherent in facing the truth. And when you realize that we have a very large minority group where a tragically large portion lack the base IQ to truly compete in the modern world, the various alternatives begin to look very scary indeed.

My big issue here is that whatever we call it, it's still an appeasement. And the Crocodile is gonna eat someone eventually. So for me the real question is, are we already too far down this road to seriously consider doing anything else? The truth of the science is going to be known. And when it is finally accepted, I wonder if appeasement via affirmative action is going to be enough to keep the cultural consequences at bay.

- Regarding Stone Mountain

The Democrat candidate for Governor in Georgia is demanding that the sculpture that is carved into the face of Stone Mountian be destroyed. That act, I think would result in armed revolt.

I have a special place in my heart for that particular monument for a silly reason. My first girlfriend in College who really captured my heart was from Stone Mountain. I spent a long weekend down there with her and her family many years ago. Years later when my brother war working in Atlanta, we went back and visited the monument. It reminded me of how truly large and majestic this country is that such a grand structure that is so revered, could be totally excluded from my education to that time.

I don't think it's going anywhere. But it would be disastrous for the people of Georgia, through their elected officials, to try. You think Charlottesville was bad? People will be setting up fortified positions round that monument. They'll be rolled over eventually by the forces of the state, but many would be willing to give their lives to defend it. This seems to me to be an act of a movement that is desperate to keep it's relevance.

I think the cultural revolution is about to start winding down.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

- More National Review, Review

I've defended David French because I think he's a man of personal nobility. But he's wrong about the Alt-Right.

I can understand why he feels the way he does. If someone had threatened my daughter like they did to him, even an implied threat, no law or government would protect them. I'm far less constrained by such things than Mr. French. And I think it's a perfectly understandable thing that he's so upset. But that doesn't make him right. He's simply incorrect about what the alt-right is, and who it is.

The alt-right wasn't charlottesville. That was the klan and the nazi-party, the fringe group the alt-right calls the alt-reich. Yes they are like minded in the simplest of ways, if what you can call that thing between any of their ears a mind. But they're the stupidest members of a movement that was made into a fringe movement by the old right. And when a fringe group is out there on the fringe, of course it attracted a few nutballs. While National Review was clinging to their 'anti-racism' and Feminism and aiming their guns to the right, they pushed the Alt-right off to the edge of politics. Now it's back and it's got some messy stuff on it's hull. This is the way it goes.

But the alt-right is more cerebral than the klan. More thoughtful than the Nazis. They aren't interested in violence or driven by hatred. They are driven by the thoughtful good cause that the left, including National Review, has given them. They are people who are tired of being accused of every bit of social malignancy since the dawn of time, when in fact they were the same people who built virtually all of the good. They are tired of being accused of being White Supremacists because they told their kids that they didn't have to be ashamed of their skin color.

The left claims that being white makes you a racist, and that being a heterosexual man makes you a misogynist and rapist. I can't count the number of times I said to someone at National Review that if they didn't agree with that definition then maybe they could propose another. No answer was ever forthcoming, so I (and everyone else in America) can only assume that they were OK with the one we had. The truth is they were probably just afraid of being branded with that brush themselves.

The believed in peace with the left, through unconditional, immediate and ideologically pure surrender. And between them and the rest of the establishment right, and their utterly unwillingness to defend us, the Alt-Right was born.

The Alt-right doesn't surrender, and it doesn't apologize. You call us racists we say "Yeah we're racists go fuck yourself." You call us misogynists we say, "Shut up and cook my dinner bitch." We don't acknowledge the moral superiority of the people who are trying with all their might to destroy us.

As Bzob said in the comments earlier, NR are the people who believe in letting the Social Justice Crocodile eat them last. That's no way to run a country.

David French's adopted daughter is black. I have no doubt that he loves her like his very own, as he should. I believe he's a noble man. And I don't think there is anything wrong with his having adopted a black child who needed a home, on the contrary, I find it very admirable. And if you funcknuts from Charlottesville don't like it, you can suck my lilly white cock. The child's life and future are more important than your idiot principles.

So I can understand why he's upset, but he's making an error. It isn't the Alt-Right he has a problem with, it's the barnacles on the alt-right hull. Hopefully one day he'll eventually step back from his passion and come to see that.

- Trump Treating The Press Like They Deserve

If Trump had just a little more fluency with the same combative style, he'd be a political god. Why can't we have a few more Republicans like him?

Say what you want about him, the man knows how to treat the press the way they deserve.

- National Review's Take

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this whole thing is any different. A crazy person walks into a school or a softball game or a church and start shooting up the place. No one has to denounce them until we find out what their politics are like. If they're conservative then everyone who is the right of Jane Fonda has to denounce the act and its perpetrator, and if they're liberal, well it's just crazy kids, or justifiable passion, or his anger at his poverty and oppression etc, etc.

Why would anyone ever play a game by those rules?

A bad idea is a bad idea. Charlottesville was chock full of bad ideas, and I've said so. The protesters had bad ideas, the counter-protesters had bad ideas, the Mayor had bad ideas and the police had bad ideas. But the only people who's bad ideas need to be denounced are the one group? How's that work. The only people who are judged guilty from thousands of miles away (both ideologically and physically) are the people who the left most despises.

National Review, among the most free market members of the left, are demanding we mothball Southern war monuments and silence and delegitimize millions of people who voted for Trump, as well as Trump himself, all because they fear being tarred with the same brush as those idiots in Charlottesville. Which idots? when has anyone ever demanded that someone denounce a liberal Mayor, a liberal police force, or a liberal mob swinging bats, clubs, and homemade flamethrowers?

It sickens me that they rise to this ridiculous bait. They're so anxious to surrender to the left, that they are throwing up their hands even when no one is demanding it of them.

- New Alt-Lines

The fractionating has begun in earnest. What used to be the alt-right is now becoming the alt-right of Charlottesville fame, and the [yet to be determined] right, which is all the things the Alt-Right was, but without the horrible iconography, brand management and dead girls.

In fairness there was always a difference between the two groups (or ten groups depending) and where the line is drawn has always been a question. I think it's safe to say that for any member of the cogent, thoughtful, IQ above 100 right, the line has always been drawn somewhere before you hit the Swastikas and Klan hoods.

Even Jared Taylor, arguable the most pro-white human in North America and intellectual god-father to the entire movement, has no taste for those people. Jared's version of 'what to do about the blacks' usually involves talking about free association and how church congregations aren't intentionally segregated. He in no way wants to infringe the rights of black Americans, and only wants to be given the same rights as any other group.

But the klan and Nazis are now out, or the rest of us are... again ... depending. Good riddance. But where do we draw the line now? Personally I think it goes between recognizing racial differences that are supported by science, and declaring ourselves inherently superior in all ways. I'll happily sign up for the former, but the latter is a trickier thing.

Are whites superior to blacks? On average, in many ways yes. They are also inferior to them in many others. But IQ goes along way when building a safe and stable modern society, and that, I think, is one of the things white people seem to be better at to me.

That doesn't mean I want camps and ovens for blacks, or for jews obviously. Im not now, nor have I ever been driven or possessed by 'hate'. But I don't want to have to apologize to everyone for my invisible privilege that's really the result of a lifetime of hard work, careful risk management, and prudent living.

The media has it's own line to draw. They want it drawn so that the right can include 'racism and misogyny' as one of their original sins, to be constantly apologized for and forced to suffer political lest they be branded. But in my mind that would make the 'new right' exactly the same as the 'old right' and since the old right was unable to fight those issues on moral grounds, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stay 'a racist' thank you very much. (I'm not really a racist, but I still reject the characterization on a group identity basis, which to the eternally lazy liberal press means I "identify with the KKK'.)

One tiny detail about Charlottesville you probably won't hear. There is footage out there showing the kid who drove into the crowd having his car smacked by Antifa with baseball bats and other clubs just before he stepped on the gas. That would mean his was just a stupid reaction to being attacked, and the whole thing was just a horrible accident that Antifa brought on themselves.

It doesn't make the kid any less stupid, but it does make the truth about the whole mess a little different than the media would present it. And obviously it won't change fallout. Klan and Nazis' bad, cucked defeated old right 'conservatives' maybe not good, but tolerable since they can never manage to do anything. And the alt-right (or what was the alt-right) will become the space in between. Is there a brand manager in the house?

Monday, August 14, 2017

- It's a Quandary To Be Sure

So if you listened to the Peterson video I linked in the last post, you know he said something about the hottest political potato of the western world, group difference in IQ distributions.

I'm with Peterson on this one too, it's not a happy story. What it tells us is that we have roughly 13% of our population who demonstrate a much higher tendency toward violence on average than other groups, who are also easily identifiable, and are incredibly likely to be replaced by technology as it advances through the workforce, and therefore be denied meaningful work on a wholesale basis.

I'll confess, I'm deeply sympathetic to their situation. But our world is a complicated world and if you can't solve complicated problems, you just aren't going to be able to add as much as the people who can.

I've said this before, but can you imagine being one of those people? Can you imagine being a man with an IQ of 85? A man who looks at the world around and him and not only doesn't know how anything works, but also knows it's beyond him to be ever able to figure it out? What's more, he knows everyone else knows it about him and there is no mistaking who he is. There is no 'passing' for smart.

I confess, I'd be pretty pissed off too. And the even larger question of 'what we all do about it' is about as thorny a problem as any civilization has ever had. Unless we're prepared to make them into a warrior caste, sending them hither and yon to kill people and blow things up, I just don't see a way for them to add value like the rest of us. And given the nature of genetics for the vast majority of them that's probably not going to change.

It's wrong to try to export the problem. Some of them have had families in this country for hundreds of years and are as entitled to the role of American, as anyone alive. So how the hell do we fix something like that?

It does make you see why it is they're so resistant to the idea of facing down the science. If the science says you're going to be worth less because you will never be able to contribute on the same scale, maybe the answer of 'killing all the scientists' does sound like a good idea. Certainly burning all the science books would seem like a decent start.

- Peterson's Reaction to James Damore

I know you guys don't want to sit through the whole 2.5 hour Peterson biblical lecture, but this portion of the Q&A where he talks about his interview with James Damore (which had happened earlier that day) is pretty topical. I've skipped to it for you:

- The Charlottesville Commentary

I've read a bunch of stuff, from a bunch of different directions on what happened in Charlottesville, and I don't think there is much to be gained from having done so. In a case where everyone seems to be letting the most idiotic among us choose the direction, all the commentary seems to be a reflection of the biases the author brings to the table.

If you are on the left it's the brave 'peaceful protesters' of Antifa and BLM (who you can see in the last post 'peacefully' making use of an improvised flame thrower) acting in their own self defense against Hitler and his fans. If you read the Alt-Right commentary it's all about how the peaceful idiots of the alt-Reich showed up in defense of southern history (wearing coincidental improvised riot gear and carrying coincidental assault rifles) and were set upon by BLM and Antifa.

If you read the establishment 'cuck' right commentary, it's a reflection of the biases the author showed up with. If they feel injured by the alt-right's online antics they think this was the whole organization, if they don't, they come down a little more even handedly between left and right.

Personally I think the whole thing is a waste of time. The people from this protest on both sides are those whose solitary original idea would die of loneliness if they ever conjured it. But so far they haven't managed. They are only barely people at all in that respect. I actually mentioned over the weekend that this might be a Darwinian thing reasserting its primacy.

They are in thrall to two equally stupid, equally bad sets of ideas, that none of them has the wits to question. Both the right and the left went to this thing with the intention of 'mixing it up' with the other side, and they all got what they deserved. In never occurred to the "Punch A Nazi" movement that sometimes Nazis will punch back, and may be dumb enough to do so with the front bumper of the car they showed up in.

I think few publicly ideas are more disingenuous and hypocritical than the way the left characterizes 'hate' as a motivation. They scream through wild eyes and spittle flect chants that the other side is filled with hate, but never bother to look in the mirror. Self reflection has never been a strong liberal suit. But in this case they were absolutely right, excepting that they still possess all the same hate themselves, and still haven't bothered to examine it.

These are two dangerous stupid movements, filled with dangerous stupid people. But I think Vox Day has it right. The Alt-Reich which were the organizers of Charlottesville, are no more the Alt-right than Anti-fa is the American civil liberties union.

And you aren't going to get that from reading the commentariat because everyone's mind was made up before it all happened.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

- The Dumbest People In America

OK, now that I've said my piece about Charlottesville, let me say a little something about the people there.

Nazi Flags? Klan Hoods? Do you people really think you're going to build a mass movement with symbolism like that? Seriously, who cares what your ideas are. I don't. When you start out from a point like that, you aren't going to go anywhere.

What's more, your starting point is one of MAJOR disadvantage. You aren't talking about truth, or fact. All you're doing is stating your opinion. And your opinion is no more grounded in the real world than the ANTIFA, BLM or BAMN people opposing you. What you are trying to do is unachievable. Even if you were the most brilliant planners alive, with unlimited resources, you couldn't bring the Klan back into fashion or do to America what Hitler did in Germany. It is an unachievable goal under those banners.

But for the sake of argument, let's say it was achievable. Lets imagine an America where the broader population is one charismatic speech away from thinking that taking the vote away from blacks, and deporting everyone else who isn't white (or whatever other nonsense you guys believe) is really out there. Do you really imagine that Klan Hoods and Swastikas would HELP your cause? Of course they wouldn't.

The Klan and Nazi party have unreconcilable image problems. If you were even a little grounded in reality, you would see that. You would start your organization with the same ideas (I guess) but with completely different branding. Going out there with that symbolism is like declaring yourselves captain of the Titanic AFTER it's hit the iceberg. All it does, and I truly do mean ALL it does, is prove that you guys are a bunch of imbeciles. But for the fact that your opposition is a bunch of idiots too, everyone would be standing around laughing at you.

The first time around the Nazis represented stability and 'self determination' to the German people. But that image is forever lost and is NEVER coming back. Now it means a completely different thing, and you idiots are not going to be able to fix it. How do I know that about you? How do I know you're too stupid to rehabilitate the Klan and Nazis? Because you were dumb enough to choose those symbol for yourselves in the first place. If you were the kind of people who could make a change, you'd have chosen something else.

I'm afraid of stupid people in large numbers and I'm not afraid to admit it. And you, militant brothers of the alt-right, are stupid people. Maybe the stupidest in America. But for the fact that there is an Antifa, BLM and BAMN, I'd say it was a certainty. So you should do what stupid people have always done in the past in order to survive. You should find the smartest person who agrees with you, shut your idiot pie holes, put down your beer, and hitch your wagon to theirs.

And that goes for you too Richard Spencer. I hear you're a clever guy but I see no evidence of it. And unless you crawl off to a dark corner long enough to let everyone forget about you, I don't see your image being rehabilitated. You're the next generation of David Duke. The white whipping boy of a media establishment who is looking for a man to make an example of. You're him. There is certainly no avoiding that now. And most of America will now treat every word you say as if it 'must' be wrong because Richard Spencer said it. You might not fully deserve that, but I think it's what you're going to get.

So you can be king of the idiots, living on the fringe and making trouble. Or you can go write a book for a while, stay away from crowds and cameras, and try to gain some kind of intellectual legitimacy. You're rallying all the wrong people and doing your cause far more harm than good.

- Let's Talk About Charlottesville

It's a big mess, with one person dead and a number of people seriously injured. So let's talk about what happened in Charlottesville, and then we can talk about why it happened.

The Alt-Right spans a wide spectrum. And the Unite The Right protests was organized by the people at the extreme end of it. Actual Klan members, actual National Socialists (The American Nazi Party) and the various dribs and drabs of small, comparatively extreme militia groups planned to get together for a peaceful march and rally. They had one the night before that went more or less unopposed and resulted in no serious injuries. They came, they spoke, they left. That was what they were hoping for.

These people are to the Alt-Right what the Social Justice Warriors and Anti-Fa are to the Democrat left. The most passionate, the most vocal, and arguably, the most extreme wing of the group. They are also, in my opinion, the stupidest of it's members just like BAMN and Antifa. They are fine with political violence, or at least have no intention of standing by and 'taking it' without resistance when violence is used against them. It's their belief that the establishment finds their ideas so abhorrent that they will not protect them and their constitutional right to free speech.

That part of their political beliefs turned out to be right.

When they got together Saturday for their rally in a downtown park, they found themselves surrounded on all side by their political opposite number. Anti-fa and black lives matter had gathered at all the entry points to the park, forcing the protesters to run a gauntlet of pepper spray, rocks and bottles in order to join the protest. The police separated the main body of the protest, but did nothing to protect those trying to enter or leave.

When it became clear that this wasn't enough to prevent the rally from taking place, the police attacked the right wing protesters, declared their legal and approved assembly illegal, and ordered them to disperse. So the protesters ran the gauntlet again, receiving injuries and pepper spray for their trouble, and left the park. They obviously weren't happy about it, and the leftist protesters were jubilant at their victory.

That's when the car incident happened - after the protest. The driver of the car with ohio plates drove directly into a number of counter protesters, killing one person and injuring 19 others. He was later arrested and though his name is known, at this time no one knows if he was connected directly with the rally or not, though obviously it's the way to bet.

Had this been a "Black Lives Matter" rally, or even a "F*** Donald Trump" rally, things would have gone very differently. The police would have turned their guns in the other direction and protected the assembly as they should have. But the klan and Nazi party holds deeply unpopular views, and the establishment wasn't interested in letting them speak. And when legal means failed to prevent the rally, they made the choice to hide behind the leftist mob.

I don't care for stupid people, particularly in large groups. This was, in my opinion, two large groups of stupid people with equally noxious political ideas. Your goals don't matter much to me when your method is driving a car into a crowd or throwing rocks and bottles. Stupid people are dangerous, to themselves and others. And this was the worst most stupid members of both the left and the right.

I don't agree with the Klan or the American Nazi party. I agree with them that white people are getting the institutional shaft in this country, but that's about as far as it goes for me. What they want to do about it seems like a remarkably bad idea, and I'm not interested in seeing them empowered. I'd much rather the intelligent, thoughtful, reasoned portion of the alt-right be the ones who drive the discussion forward.

Real Freedom of assembly seems like a good idea to me. Allowing white people to defend themselves and their group as much, or as little, as other fractional groups in the political process seems fair. Right now that isn't the way things are and only white people are supposed to be ashamed of themselves and have to defend themselves for their skin color. To be white and American is to be 'bad' according to popular culture, and that's obviously wrong.

And I won't go so far as to decry violence in all it's forms. Violence as self defense always has, and always will be perfectly OK to me. Did the guy driving the car believe he was protecting himself? It doesn't look like it from the video. The facts will eventually be known. But stupid people make stupid decisions and we shouldn't prevent them from suffering the consequences of those decisions. If this was what it seemed to be, they should lock the guy up, and throw away the key.

And though I don't agree with the Klan, I still firmly believe they should have been given their right to speak. That the Charlottesville Police don't share that view is the reason this all happened. When stupid people are allowed to talk, people stand around and say "Boy, that's really stupid". When stupid people, particularly in large groups, are prevented from talking, you get violence.

The Anti-fa and black lives matter groups, fear a large empowered extreme right, and they are willing to use violence in order to prevent it. They should fear it. They're right to fear it. But they aren't going to be able to prevent it by using pepper spray and homemade flamethrowers. All that does is lower the IQ of the discussion. Instead of 100,000 people of average intelligence wondering what to do about our differences, they're going to get 10,000 people of below average intelligence with their own pepper spray and rocks.

This won't be the last of the violence either unless the right, even the noxious stupid right, is assured of their constitutionally protected rights. De-platforming seems like a good idea to the left, but it's a mistake. Because when people can't talk to settle their differences they find other means. That's what happened in Charlottesville. This wasn't 'chickens coming home to roost' for the alt-right. The establishment explicitly chose violence over talk. And the stupid people in the mobs on the left and right, were happy to give it to them.

Friday, August 11, 2017

- No One Ever Expects...

... the google Inquisition?

I'll be honest, I don't buy it. No one who is cogent and rational actually believes the Social Justice rants. They only tolerate them because they aren't too expensive. At the end of the day the top management at Google (and the Google shareholders) care about market share, profit margin and all the other things that free speech capitalists care about. You can tolerate a little social justice virtue signaling, especially with margins like thiers. But no one is going to cede company control to the overweight blue haired freaks of the SJW movement, because those girls don't know how to accomplish anything. To do so would be to drive the company off the cliff.

Their entire business model requires free speech.

This is the real reason there are so few women in senior management. Because in order to be good at it, you have to think and prioritize like a man. There are women who are capable of doing that. The smartest direct manager I've ever worked for was a woman, as was the very best Hedge Fund President I've known. So there are women who are that capable, in many cases more capable. But they're rare. And none of them are a part of the bloated, whiny, otherkin sexual Social Justice charade. All that stuff is just a cult for losers. And if you are a capable senior manager of a major corporation, you don't have time for loser cults.

- James Damore And The Alt-Right

It's just a matter of time I think. Right now there is someone on the left frantically working to find a way to associate James Damore with the evil, despicable, hateful, Nazi Alt-Right.

But there is a problem with that equation that exposes the logic of a strategy like that. If they associate James Damore with the Alt-Right, then they also associate the Alt-Right with James Damore. Anyone can go read James Damore's 'Manifesto' and see that it's not really the 'hate filled anti-woman misogynistic screed' that the media has been portraying it as. And a great many people are doing that very thing. So if that's the Alt-Right, then maybe the Alt-Right isn't the Hitler worshiping gun toting, psychotic haters of everyone that they think it is.

Which of course, it never was. Yes, there is a tiny fraction of actual racists and anti-semites involved in the Alt-Right. But that has NEVER been where the intellectual leadership has been. They have no dreams of camps and ovens. And at the absolute core of everything they believe are facts about the real world similar to and inclusive of, those presented by James Damore.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if the left simply said, yeah, OK, women are different than men and these are their strengths and weaknesses. Yes, Black average IQ's are lower than white and Asian IQ's. So what do we do now?

The first thing that would happen is a great many of the older intellectual leaders of the alt-right would be rushed to the emergency room for heart palpitations, so the left might want to seriously consider it. Just kidding. What would come of it would be a vigorous debate reflecting all positions, and the best ideas - in my opinion at least the ones that respect individual liberty - are the ones that would win out. No one would reinstitute slavery or ban women from the workplace. No one would reccomend putting black and Latino Americans to death. Contrary to how it's categorized, that's not what the movement is about.

There may be discussion of repatriation, but I expect it would mandatory for illegal immigrants, optional for legal immigrants, and nothing even suggested for everyone else. There may be discussion of segregation, but I suspect the idea that will out on that score is Jared Taylor's idea of reinstituting our right of 'free association', increasing the odds that everyone, both black and white, can live in a setting where they feel most comfortable.

That's the truth under the hood that no one ever seems to want to discuss. The ideas under the alt-right are no more hate-filled and murderous than James Damore's manifesto was. They represent a different but no less reasoned and reasonable position. And the characterizations of them and their ideas in the press have been utter slander.

Yes, there are a bunch of kids on the internet going for shock value, and trying to make liberal's heads explode by saying inflammatory things. But I know a lot of people associated with the Alt-Right, including several who are acknowledged as their 'leaders'. And none of them is interested in the kinds of things they are accused of by the left. All they want is to acknowledge the 'real' problem, so that we can all fix it together.

So maybe not. I don't think James Damore will be associated with the Alt-right after all because the risk to the left is just too great. They would sooner just throw the Feminist SJW arm to the dogs, and carry on with the lies and slanders. It's certainly worked for them up to now.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

- I've Had A Stellar Day

Yesterday we got a decent commitment on our fundraising round from a West Coast firm and today, thanks in no small part to my friend 'The Derb', I had a stellar day. It was success, after success, leading to improvement, and further success. I know tomorrow will never be able to keep up, so I'm just going to enjoy the bliss for an hour or two.

And with that said to describe my current state of mind, I'd like to add one thing. By virtue of their brevity, I think these may be the most satisfying sentences I've ever written:

Here we have a woman trained in Science, refuting Science, by claiming that feelings are a better source of truth than Science, all because the Science says, that women are more likely to say, that feelings are a better source of truth than Science. Feminists can't refute the Manifesto without simultaneously proving it.

After all the lies, pain, grief and injustice inflicted upon us by this ridiculous ideology, we've finally arrived at the cul de Sac at the end of Feminism's one way intelectual street.

I know I've been going on an awful lot about Feminism since the divorce. It's even alienated old readers (anyone remember Dr. Chess?). But it's all been worth because this morning I got to write those. Believe it or not, I finally feel like I might be able to put this particular hammer down.

For a while at least.

- The Party of Science Feelings

This piece on the Google Manifesto from Slate has all the usual tropes. "Science doesn't matter because... feelings!"But I have to confess, I find it a very impressive bit of hypocritical cerebral contortion for another reason.

This must be one of the tricks of modern rhetoric. If you want to refute this ridiculous piece using logic and reason, you have to spend so much time applying definitions to things that you'll be writing for 10,000 words. I just spent the last 30 minutes trying before realizing what a winding road I was set upon, and giving up.

For that reason, I'm relieved for the presence of the comment section, which does piecemeal what I would have done in whole myself. In essence it says that feelings are a poor substitute for objectivity for obtaining 'the truth' because as literally every human knows, your feelings only apply to you. The event which you mourn is likewise cause for celebration by someone else.

And if feelings really do take primacy, what about the feelings of someone like Eva Braun? Why should she be 'oppressed' by having her feelings about a just world be so trampled by the toxic white men who defeated her lover in war?

(As a side note I get an exclusion from the rule if I don't mention her lover's name?)

Slate's typical intellectual game of three card monte isn't flying on this one. Everyone can see where the pea is. You can't be for free speech and demand that the opposition be 'silenced'. And you can't be 'the party of Science' while decrying the conclusions that science leads you to in deference to feelings.

The irony is also hip deep here, and is in my opinion the very best thing about the Google Manifesto.

Here we have a woman trained in Science, refuting Science, by claiming that feelings are a better source of truth than Science, all because the Science says, that women are more likely to say, that feelings are a better source of truth than Science. Feminists can't refute the Manifesto without simultaneously proving it.

After all the lies, pain, grief and injustice inflicted upon us by this ridiculous ideology, we've finally arrived at the cul de Sac at the end of Feminism's one way intelectual street.

- 40 Years Of Solitude Part 341,546,453,455

Apparently Science agrees with RFNJ. Being a leftover woman, is bad for your health:

A second meta-analysis took in 70 studies, representing 3.4 million people from the US, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It found that the effect of isolation, loneliness, and living alone had an effect on the risk of dying younger equal to that of obesity.

“With an increasing aging population, the effect on public health is only anticipated to increase. Indeed, many nations around the world now suggest we are facing a ‘loneliness epidemic,’” Holt-Lunstad said in a press release. The research is forthcoming in the journal American Psychologist. Holt-Lunstad also presented her findings (pdf) to the US Senate Aging Committee in April 2017.

Such “epidemics,” while not confined to rich countries, are linked to prominent features of affluent culture: longer life expectancy, decreasing marriage rates, people having fewer children, more people getting divorced, and more people living alone. In January, UK lawmakers set up a commission to tackle loneliness—inspired by the murder of Jo Cox, a member of parliament who was passionate about the issue—which is now working with a range of charities focused on at-risk groups including the elderly, refugees, young people, and new parents.

The woman who arrives at 40 childless and with nothing to console her but her career, her pocket dog, her yoga mat, and her chablis, is definitely broken. She is a poor candidates for a relationship with a man for a variety of reasons, or some man would already be putting up with her. But the rest of New York's women are broken as well to a man's eyes. And the leftovers aren't all fat, slovenly, blue haired, Zoloft addled messes. They may be a tad overripe to a 30 year old man planning a family, but to someone like me who is already a dad of a teenager, some of them seem quite palatable.

By rights I should cheering for the leftover women because they are willing to debase themselves in remarkable ways for a man like me. (I assure you... you'd be amazed) But the truth is I'm just not that kind of man. I don't revel in the misery of others. Even for someone like Hillary Clinton I wish her nothing but a long and happy retirement at Otisville Federal Correctional Institution. And I bear these poor sad, lonely creatures no ill will whatsoever.

It's my only hope that some of the young girls of today see what Feminism really is, and don't subject themselves to the same kind of limitless torment. The solitude of a mature Feminist may be killer, but for many it's probably a welcome relief.

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

- The Wages Of Feminism As A Leftover

This video came out a couple of days ago on the daily mail, but there was too much going on to get to it.

Here she is, in all her glory. Once Feted 90's singer Sinead O'Connor, melting down in a New Jersey Hotel room, signature shaved head, and grrll Powrrr tats in clear view. Now what man wouldn't want to be tangled up with a woman like that hottie?

If you have trouble sitting through it as I did, let me give you the synopsis. She's upset because she's old, unattractive compared to her youth, childless, alone, mentally ill, and destined to spend a very long time disconnected from the rest of the world because no one wants to put up with her narcissistic shit anymore.

I other words, she's just like hundreds of thousands of other leftover women who live here in New York.

To be clear, I'm not celebrating her misery. I see no need for that. I think her life should be taken as a warning to others. Today's women should avoid at all cost following in Sinead's footsteps. Don't be so utterly self involved. Don't indulge your every ggrrll powrrr whim. Don't get a dozen horrifying tattoos or shave your head for empowerment. And don't reject every man who comes anywhere near you thinking that there will always be someone better just over the horizon.

The very best thing you can do for your own future happiness is get married, think about your husband's happiness at least enough so that you stay married, have kids young, and raise them to see life the same way you do. Stay grounded in the real world as much as you can and don't give men an easy excuse to ignore you, no matter how much you may feel like your victim status justifies it. Because that may be the very thing that happens.

- The James Damore - Jordan Peterson Interview

Here are Professor Peterson's links for convenience. This is awfully big lump to push under the rug, and none of it looks like 'junk science' to me. Someone gives you that argument, feel free to point them here.

Sex differences in personality:

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:

Status and sex: males and females

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above):

high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.”

Personality and political belief

Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism:

Occupations by gender:

- James Damore Speaks

I'd hire the kid.

One of the best developers I've ever had - a guy who still helps me out from time to time - was a guy with 'social anxiety disorder'. He had a MAJOR problem speaking to people, and was extremely uncomfortable speaking to crowds. But he had a good solid math background, and was a spectacular javascript developer who often responded to the question 'Maybe we should have build something to solve that problem?" with the three word response "Something like this?"

This kid seems equally skilled with people. But this is who drives the world now. That's why they have arguably less skilled coders like me who are capable of understanding the high math and complex issues, but are also capable of handling words and people to front for them.

Don't be put off by his lack of screen presence, or discomfort with making his points. He's not a salesman, he's an engineer. This is what an engineer looks like.

My only beef with the whole thing is that I wish Stefan Molyneux would ask a few more questions and spend a little less time on his own dissertations.

- Ignorant And Hateful

I love seeing the free market work. Here's an example.

As a hiring manager, I would be incredibly relieved to receive one of those messages saying that someone didn't want to work with me because the google Manifesto was promoting 'ignorant and hateful' ideas. If ever there was a 'bullet dodged' moment, that would have to be it.

It's a matter of some concern to me. Hiring is tricky thing since I can't legally ask the questions I most want to in the State of NY. What's your IQ? Illegal. Do you typically make decisions based on facts and objective information, or how those facts make you feel? Illegal. What are your feelings on Social Justice? Illegal.

Anyone who has been around a while knows that these questions can be circumvented with a little creativity. Politics (which it's also illegal to ask about) is a good proxy for emotive vs rational decision making. So you ask the candidate to tell you the best thing about the presidential candidate they didn't support, and the worst thing about the one they did. I once had a lawyer in a Jury selection process ask me who the best President in the last 100 years was. A little dodge gets you all you need to know.

But 'ignorant and hateful' is a real tell. It says that the person making the accusation is almost certainly both ignorant, and hateful. And it's the kind of accusation that only relatively low IQ people make. Unless that person was being interviewed for the janitorial staff, you know that they are probably not intellectually suited to a job in an advanced field. 'Das ignorant' is an internet meme for a reason.

It's also pretty striking how fast the air can go out of an intellectual powerhouse company like google. Productivity is not normally distributed. And if just a few key players move on to roles elsewhere, and they aren't replaced with equally productive people, suddenly google becomes yahoo.

Yahoo with its Female chief was equally worried about Feminine priorities for work. But the products they produced were dramatically inferior, their priorities were a shambles, and its fate was a downward trajectory. Was the work-life balance good and the 'diversity' at every level equally 50-50 for the sexes? I don't know about the latter, but I know about the work life balance at a failing company. And there is nothing worse than being the last productive employee of a company that's being managed into the ground by incompetent leadership.

Google can pull out of this. But miss a few estimates, see some falling sales, and the whole thing can be in the crapper before you can say 'Xerox'. That's how the free market works. And if they really prioritize 'social Justice' over productivity, they're going to be out with tomorrow's trash. To believe otherwise, is just ignorant.

- On Sex Differences And Google

Take a stroll through the quant Trading world, and it looks a lot like Google. Overwhelmingly male, over representation of east Asians and Ashkenazi, with a pretty widespread mix of the rest of the tribes of Europe. A smattering of Irish, a smattering of English, some German, some Spanish and Italian maybe one or two non ashkenazi Russians or a south asian. It's a group selected from the outliers of everyone else. Being exceptional is the ticket required for admittance. After 2 decades in that field, I'm on a speaking basis with more people who finished first in their class in College than I am with people who dropped out of school or downgraded their major.

So it's with more than a little irony that when I think of who was the smartest of them all, the very first person who springs to mind is a woman. My immediate supervisor during my time at Tudor, is very possible the smartest human I've ever met. It gets a little tough to say for certain out there in the right tail of the distribution. But after a career spent explaining ideas to people that I knew they wouldn't understand, she's the only one I can think of who always 'got it', every single time. She always knew the next question to ask, and had clear rational ideas about where it would lead. And she wasn't that way with just me, she was that way with everyone. Every one of the geniuses in the department, each with their own exotic specialty and unique view. She was the only person I know who could think through all of their models as well as any of them could.

This I think, is what James Damore was saying. He wasn't saying that women should be kept out of tech or that women are biologically unsuited to working in that environment. He was saying that there is a genetic predisposition of women to seek other paths to success. He was saying that women's preferences lead them down other roads, and that if Google focused on excellence, then the only women they would want to end up with are those who are like my old supervisor. If that means there is only one of them, then that's all the better.

I've mentioned before that after a long career where everyone around me was a genius, I've sort of forgotten how 'dim' average seems in comparison. Well it turns out that though women have IQ's very similar to men on average, out in the far tails, it's a little different. And there are considerably more men with an IQ above 145 (3std) than women. I don't think anyone knows why.

But just because they are rare doesn't mean there are none. And though women obviously shouldn't be discouraged from pursuing careers that require an IQ in that range, if things truly are being handled 'fairly', no one should be surprised when fewer women turn up in them. It's just a matter of numbers.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

- The Google Archipelago

Mr. Peterson you damned Beautiful Bastard!

The facts aren't in yet, but I just reread the Manifesto, and in my new mindset, it reads just like the notes from one of Peterson's lectures. It had everything in it except for a bunch of "obviously's" and a passing mention of pinocchio, Jung and Solzhenitsyn.

According to Peterson's Twitter feed, he spoke to James Damore the author earlier today and will be posting the video later in the week. Even though Damore is lawyered up and speaking to no one in the media, he's willing to speak to Peterson.

I'm betting this kid heard Peterson's lectures, and took his advice to heart. He decided to 'speak the truth and live with the consequences'. That and 'take on the biggest responsibility you can manage' along with 'clean your room' is the sum total of Peterson's advice. But to do it... to stand up to one of the largest most obviously progressive companies in the world, is manly. He's a brave kid and I salute him for his courage. That's what a man looks like ladies.

Peterson meanwhile has been doing his own bit. He put out hundreds of hours of lectures, stood up to the Canadian Government and refused to obey a tyrannical mandatory speech law, and then got on youtube and convinced a bunch of other people to also stand up to the social justice bullies of the left. He's at the bottom of it all I think. And I think that's about to become public.

This whole house of cards is about to come tumbling down I think. And I think Peterson is the one who's very nearly single handedly doing it.

The man is about to become REALLY famous, for all the right reasons.

- Did Jordan Peterson Cause The Google Manifesto?

In the first 5 minutes he discusses having his account for youtube locked by google and returned to him 2 hours later. I was struck originally with how closely the language of the Manifesto sounded like Dr. Peterson's arguments, but I thought I was being a little nuts. Still, it sound to me like the Google Manifesto might have been a Peterson devotee 'cleaning up his room', 'venturing to the underworld', and 'trying to save his father'.

Something to think about anyway.

- The 'Things You Shouldn't Notice' File

The big thing you shouldn't notice in the great Google Manifesto debate is how much the reaction to the publishing of the manifesto endorsed the facts presented in it. The reaction has been predominantly from women, filled to the brim with neuroticism with fear being the primary emotion, and has been totally uninterested in the very mild statistical facts that have been on offer. The expressed concerns have all been for other people rather than things, and emphasized their feelings rather than the 'things' that these opinions might have had an effect on.

But don't worry girls... I promise I didn't notice.


One more thing I didn't notice is how carefully the folks at National Review are being about threading this needle. Clearly they are aware that they themselves were one of the early adopters of the 'fire them the minute they deviate from the orthodoxy' position and have done so on numerous occasions. In their defense, holding a position on politics is their bread and butter, and Google's position (as silly as this sounds in this context) is as an advocate of free speech, and open access to Democratized media. If someone at NR came out in favor of punitive taxes on the rich, dismantling of our national defense, and the diplomatic abandonment of Israel, I could see why NR would get a little bent about it. Google has no such excuse.

But let's not mince words. Even reasonable well thought through positions that weren't liberal enough for NR is the reason they've canned people in the past (not mentioning any names specifically here) and it's a very rare thing for someone to offer 'too liberal' a position for NR.

But don't worry girls, I didn't notice that either.

Monday, August 7, 2017

- The Social Justice Hit's The Fan at Google

Google fired the guy who wrote the Manifesto. And the CEO is flying back from his vacation in Africa to stem the bleeding. But as Vox said earlier today, it's gonna be hard to get off this particular Tiger.

There is no way they come out of this without brand damage. And the Social Justice advocates are going to demand further evidence of commitment, which means silencing opposition. Even if the opposition is the currently held ideas of a legitimate branch of psychological science, supported by the best minds in the world. Imagine a circumstance like Evergreen University, only conducted at a more polite volume and slower pace, with lots of lawyers involved at every step.

- Google's Tarnished Brand

The internal battles at Google wage on, and I can see only two possible outcomes.

1. Google, Facebook and Twitter are regulated at the Federal level mandating 'free speech', and taking the responsibility for content control out of their hands.

2. Google, Facebook, and Twitter so damage their brands as free and open advocates of Democratized Media, that competition springs up around them like weeds.

These are the only two alternatives in a world where one side makes the moral claim that the other side must be 'silenced'. And this is already very much the case.

The google screed' as it's been called, seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable and moderate discussion about the genetic components of personality, and their inevitable outcome. It isn't a 'white supremacist manifesto', it's a reasoned discussion of what any cognitive psychologist will tell you are the current scientific facts on the ground.

Yet the left insists that this view be 'silenced' for moral reasons. It's true, the facts mentioned in the internal google memo will have serious moral consequences. But that doesn't stop them from being facts.

And whatever the outcome, I can't imagine this is a place that the Google team worried about the bottom line, is happy about being in.


There was too much wine involved in dinner last night and it's only just occurred to me now that you guys might not have been as 'on top' of this story as I was. So I thought I'd drop a little explanation in about what the hell I was talking about.

A Harvard Educated employee of Google with a Biology PHD wrote a very modest and soft spoken 'Steven Pinker' style essay on Evolutionary Psychology and posted it on their internal message system. It emphasized the differences between the sexes rather than group IQ difference or race, and made the argument that it might be better to correctly identify the causes of why women don't find themselves rising in Tech in the same proportions as other careers. He pointed to differences in 'lifestyle' choices, and a difference in career preferences which inspire few women to enter tech in the first place. It was not a polemic piece, and simply argued that 'excellence' might be a better criteria to focus on along with gender diversity, instead of gender diversity alone.

Much Hilarity ensued.

The usual suspects now want him fired, and are threatening his life. If I were him I wouldn't take it seriously. When has the left ever done anything violent when there wasn't a mob at their back?

And I've got to say, after banging around the VC world for a few months now, to my Trader's eyes their devotion to 'women in tech' seems like an absolute cult. There are many VC funds across the spectrum of development stages that will ONLY invest in companies with women CEO's, and all the rest would fall all over themselves if a woman carried the pitch deck. Great lengths are being gone to in order to ensure that no women get's left out. It's partly emblematic of the Bay area culture, and partly of the insecure and vain nature of the industry itself.

But Evolutionary Psychology isn't going away. It's too elegant an answer to too many of the questions about why the way we behave the way we do, and it follows all the rules of science that we would expect. The more we learn, the more the theories are reinforced not negated. The current theories may not be 100% correct in every regard and there may be some error around the edges. But to my view this is going to become our generalized understanding of how we got here.

And Women and Minorities are sure to be hardest hit.

But the bay area is no doubt the last place they'll be willing to discuss it. And the man who tried to get google to have a reasoned conversation about it may have risked his job and career to do so. The guys on 4chan say that he's lawyered up, so he won't be fired right away. Google will wait for the drama to calm down, keep him in a closet until then, and push him out quietly later.

But in the meantime the image of google as a company devoted to Social Justice is reinforced in the public mind. And since Social Justice is all about silencing dissent, they make a poor arbiter for deciding which messages can and should be discussed. Either they're a free speech friendly advocate of Democratized Media, or they are advocates of the moral order of Social Justice. They can't be both.

Sunday, August 6, 2017

- More Leftover Adventures

This is interesting in a leftover context:

While the obesity epidemic has long been front-and-center in major cities across the U.S., new research finds that loneliness and social isolation is an even greater public health threat than being overweight.

Since most leftover women (single 'career gals' over age 37) will tend to drink too much and exercise less than their not yet leftover peers, they'll probably get a chance to cope with both.

Watch a 40 year old with no ring sitting on a park bench with her dog. Watch her face when she see's a happy 45 year old couple go by or even worse, a mom and her adorable kids, with handsome husband hovering. If the look on her face is any indication, an early death will be a relief for her. The only thing probably holding her back is the fear that no one will come to the funeral.

Yay Feminism. Go grrrlpwer.

Saturday, August 5, 2017

- Feminist 'Hookup Culture'

So the GF likes to listen to this NPR podcast on her short underground commute, and she was particularly taken by episode 25: Just Sex, which describes hookup culture on College Campuses. She was struck in particular by how this Female, obviously Feminist, obviously Liberal Sociology Professor from Occidental, was saying so many of the same things that her Alt-Rightish BF (your humble author) has been saying to her for months.

I listened to it at her request, and though the facts and circumstances the Feminist Prof describes match my view, the principle causes I see there are obviously different. All the same, I’d recommend the short podcast none the less. It’s worth giving a listen to, for no other reason that to familiarize yourself with how these circumstances are being described by the left. But I’d like to describe a few of the exceptions I take to how the circumstances are characterized.

The Feminist Prof, attributes nothing to basic human nature, and instead see’s ‘privilege’ all over the place. I see no privilege. She says that Asian Women and Black men are seen as ‘exotic’ and rare, but that mostly it’s attractive white men who get the most from hookup culture due to ‘privilege’.

Well that’s not privilege, that’s the cultural hierarchy of sexual attractiveness. White men are most likely to be dominant and successful, so of course women place the highest status upon them. In order (for review’s sake) it White men, Latin/Asian men, black men in that order who are seen as ‘most attractive’ by women. Though that speaks to long term preferences. If it’s explicitly only for ‘short term’ use, then a black man’s physical superiority in … musculature… might hold some appeal but would never be seriously considered over other groups for a longer term relationship.

On the Female attractiveness side for men it’s East Asian/White women, Latin/South Asian Women, Black Women. Since men are less exposed to long term risk when it comes to sex than women, and since women’s viable childbearing years are so much shorter, for the most part short term preference for men is the only preference, and the degree to which this affects longer term partner preferences varies widely.

This isn’t privilege, it’s human nature. And there is a great deal of exception for individuals. A breathtakingly beautiful black woman (there are a small minority out there… think a 22 year old Halle Berry) will have a great deal more options than a white Lena Dunham, and race will be much less relevant. That isn’t a social construct. No one is changing what they find attractive because of cultural conditioning, though Feminists and Social Justice types would greatly prefer otherwise. That’s why Lena Dunham gets so angry when men find a better looking woman more appealing than her.

Another thing that is very much not addressed in the podcast is the causes and creation of hookup culture. Feminism is the obvious source since it tells women to reject their natural longer-term preferences and priorities in exchange for short term preferences like those of men. Promiscuous sex for the purpose of status is the priority, and an unattractive woman who is able to lure an attractive man into a ‘hookup’ wins the Female prize of hookup culture.

So there is the question then. Would you ‘do’ Lena Dunham? Even drunk? Even for just a night, or less? How about in the dark? How about just a hummer near the garbage cans behind the frat house? Feminism sets up the circumstances where you would because it eradicates and social pressure on Lena and the man she ‘gets’ to think about longer term consequences. That is quite literally, the whole point of Feminism. But it does so at the emotional cost to the men and women who would rather think longer term and have more ‘meaningful’ relationships.

So I guess the GF is dead right. This podcast does endorse my view more or less. It makes it clear that this component of Feminism is combat between unattractive women, waged on their more attractive sisters, and it only stops just short of finding the cultural causes. It also endorses the idea that Feminism goes strongly against human nature, and attractive women and unattractive men are the ones who suffer the most. By shifting decision making power to women, attractive women must abandon their longer term advantages over their unattractive peers, and unattractive men are left with no options whatsoever.

My daughter is off to college soon, though I worry less about this for her sake than many parents probably do. As a seventeen year old girl, she has her own issues with the dynamics of relationship politics. But she's remarkably resistant to social pressure, and tends to be a very independent thinker. She is also a very high scorer in terms of overall attractiveness, as both of her parents were. I'm sure she'll have a lot more viable dating options than Lena Dunham has ever had.

And thankfully, her options will be increasing as more men of value reject Feminism completely in deference to a more Jordan Peterson like world view which places an emphasis on a life filled with meaning. I've always placed a higher value on a life with meaning than most of my own peers, and with any luck, my daughter will be most attracted to someone who reminds her of her dad in this way. That's the old trope right? And one which I hope holds true, in spite of the Feminist hookup culture.

Friday, August 4, 2017

- Losing On Principle

The Z Man with an interesting piece on what comes after the continual surrender of the Republican Party:

Of course, what has worked in the past will be used again. “Who are you going to vote for if not the Republicans?” We’re all men of our age and that means we have been trained to respond to that question one way. Old habits are hard to break, but they eventually do get broken. How likely is it that a soured electorate stays home in 2018 and lets the Republicans take a beating? It’s hard to know and there is the fact that Democrat voters are not exactly thrilled with their options either. Still, it is one possible outcome.

There does come a time in each man's life when he gets sick of surrendering. My brother called me today on this. He said he was aghast at the way the Republican Senate changed the rules to avoid potential recess appointments from Trump. I thought that was all just Washington Kabuki. But at this point I'd be VERY open to a party that didn't intend unconditional surrender to the left on principle, and actually put up a fight.

Just imagine what a Republican leader in the congress who fights as hard and dirty as Chuck Schumer could accomplish.

- Adventures With Leftover Women

Life is an adventure when you get to spend the last 40 years of it alone with your cats.

I'm so glad we didn't elected a member of the sisterhood.

Go GrrrrlllPower.

Thursday, August 3, 2017

- Movie Remakes

Some of you may have heard me go off on movie remakes. I'm not generally a fan since they almost always end up worse then the original. Some movies, Breakfast At Tiffany's being my most notable example, can NEVER be remade because we no longer possess the cultural innocence or some other aspect in time that made it work for us.

Then there are the other movies that although their originals were classics, deserve to be remade every few years. This looks like one of them to me.

Like the trailer for the Thor sequel that featured Immigrant Song by Zeppelin, the music makes this trailer.

- The Depth of the S**t

I lose track of my family history in the 12th century, but there isn't a lot of written history for northern Europe that predates that so I guess I shouldn't feel so bad. Henry II took control of the English crown in 1154, and my family's paternal line first appears in Ireland in 1170. There is sound reason to believe that my ancestor was from Penbrokeshire - a marcher region along the Welsh coast, but there are no specific written records.

Though it seems most likely to me that my family had gone to England from Normandy with Steven, Matilda, or Henry I, theoretically my family could have moved there with Henry II, and been off the continent for as little as 16 years. So any relationship to 'England' is vague and tenuous at best. But I still feel a kinship, and enjoy any discussion about early British History.

That's partly why I find myself fascinated in a more modern way by this Twitter dustup between Mary Beard and Nassim Nicholas Taleb that Vox has shoved himself into the middle of. It's about some little piece of propaganda for kids showing Roman Britain as a racially mixed culture. This is silly of course, but I love the history of that period so it held my interest.

Feminism is a shit test. A test for men to see how strongly we can exert our will. But I think it's clear that the train is off the rails. If you read the responses on Twitter, these women really believe they're defending Mary Beard's ridiculous arguments from a position of moral authority. They are defending a pro-rape argument, for the sake of diversity.

A part of me always believed that women knew that their shit tests were... shit. I couldn't imagine that they were so detached from reality, that they honestly believed that they were making sense. The Twitter stream makes it clear that this is really not the case. And I think it's because unlike men, the totality of their experience is filtered through the lens of how they feel right now... this second. They will quite literally violate their every standard and principle for the sake of winning the emotional portion of the argument.

That we let these women hold positions of authority in that light is truly astounding and unbelievably short sighted. When Mary gets her wish and England becomes a muslim nation, I don't doubt for a second that it will be better run than it has been under the diversity mongers. It will be a shame to see it go, but at least they'll get these ridiculous women back in a position where they can do less harm.

- The Zeroth Amendment

If you haven't heard the term, the Zeroth Amendment is a theoretical creation of Steve Sailer, designed to describe the left's core belief that absolutely any one of the 6 and change billion people on the planet have an unrestricted right to come to America regardless of our other laws. It preempts immigration law. It preempts the Constitution and the rights of actual Americans. It even preempts irrepealable laws like supply and demand, which hold sway over our actions whether we like it or not.

After that amazing debate yesterday between Stephen Miller and opposition leader Jim Acosta (wait... what does he do again exactly?) on the floor of the Whitehouse briefing room, I think you're going to be hearing this term a lot.

The Whitehouse briefing room, as I'm sure you know, is the place where our policies are debated and the press decides which laws are enforced and which aren't. I'll bet you thought the congress had something to do with that didn't you? Well you're wrong. You probably have some vague memory from the 70's about a cartoon where "I'm just a Bill" sang his way from one branch of government to the other.

Well those days are behind us now. These days, it's Presidential edicts, press responses, and a bloated bureaucracy which decides based on those opposing arguments, what the 'actual' law of the land says. And though representative Acosta's argument may seem stupid and contradictory to you, his view is currently being treated as if it's been carved into stone tablets by an all powerful deity, instead of the base of the statue of liberty by the parks department.

Stephen Miller rightly ridiculed him for it, and even better, turned his low expectations racism right back on him. It was fun theatre, but for now we should all remember that the zeroth amendment still stands. And will continue to if Chuck Schumer has anything to say about it.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

- Meanwhile In Quincy Mass

I can't find the youtube video for this so I'm linking the Daily mail.

This is our future. A small group of white kids in retreat, white privilege in tow, from a bunch of black kids. Boys will be boys, and this is better than adult violence if you ask me. This isn't a drive by or a knife fight, it's just normal kids by the looks of things.

Why did they do it? I don't think it matters. It's just kids. Better to let them work it out on their own. No one was seriously hurt in the video, and every walked away from it, though one group clearly more shamed than the other.

But let me ask you something. When those white kids grow up to voter age, how many of them do you think will support explicit legal disadvantages for white people? How many will support unrestricted immigration from non-european countries? It won't be that long from now by the looks of it. Maybe 5 years? You think the shame of having this blasted all over the internet will have worn off for them by then? Or do you think those kids view of the world will be shaped by that unprovoked attack, for the rest of their lives?

In the end liberal policies destroy themselves. And this is how. In 4 years they'll all be reading Heartiste, considering which college to apply to, and voting for Trump.

- Random Thoughts

I'm waiting for a callback. It's expected too soon to get started on something else, but is taking too long to stare at the phone so I thought I'd throw out a few things that are on my mind.

First, I can't wait for Saturday because RadioDerb goes back on the air. This is that big post summer vacation Radio Derb that includes commentary from the Amren conference that all the blogs have been talking about. My interest is thoroughly piqued.

Second, why hasn't Apple figured out that they should release an Iphone mini? Something that has the battery life and speed of an iphone, but half the game functionality and half the size? The phones now are too large, and a market niche has clearly developed for grownups who are more interested in being able to work than being able to play games, watch netflix and do every other thing we can think of on a single device.

I'm an apple convert. I love my apple laptop. Great battery life, bulletproof design, and fantastic core operating system (unix). But the thing that I love the most about it is that it's so thin and light. Give me a phone that's as much smaller than your typical smart phone as my laptop is compared to most Windows laptops, and I'd beat a path to their door.

I've started running again. I'm not training for anything in particular, I'm just disinterested in looking my 'actual' age. But running on the street in Manhattan takes on a special significance when you, like me, were the survivor of a serious hit in run in your youth.

So if you're in the village and see a tall lean man running along in spectacularly embarrassing day glow colors, alongside a very cute little Michelle Malkin looking chinese girl who is dressed more normally, that's probably me. I get some very odd looks, many of them from the chinese girl. But I don't want to take any chances on some distracted driver claiming they couldn't see me. And if you knew how long I spent in the hospital my senior year of high school, I think you'd let the fashion choices slide.

I have a broad analogy that's on my mind lately. Traders are like doctors, and investment bankers are more like lawyers. The doctor and trader are interested in finding the truth external to themselves and are rewarded to the degree they get the external world right. They therefore pay attention carefully when you talk to them. They may not agree with you, but they're interested in hearing what you say.

The lawyers and investment bankers don't generally listen at all and just wait their turn to speak. That's because they tend to believe that the truth is whatever they can convince someone else of. So unless you say somehting in particular that touches on their preexisting biases (the truth they're selling today) they're just not that interested.

This occurred to me when a kid, about three years out of business school, implied that it was I (not he) who needed to spend some time learning how economic niches work, when I've spent the bulk of my adult life very successfully doing little else. It's an astounding thing to climb to the top of a very steep competency hierarchy, way out on the bleeding edge of technology and finance, only to be told you don't know what you're doing by someone who thinks the Bush Administration was ancient American history. I guess I'm finally getting old.

I've also figured out that Venture Capital is where you go if you think like an investment banker but are too insecure and vain to make in that world. There are exceptions of course. There are exceptions to everything. And I know several Investment Bankers who are lifelong friends of mine - and are the salt of the earth. But my new rule of thumb for the VC world is that I've never met a more arrogant and two faced bunch of people in my life. They make the worst DB's in the banking world look like modest Franciscan monks.