Tuesday, January 31, 2017

- Bullet Officially Dodged

... actually, it was lots of little bullets. Neil Gorsuch nominated as Trump's SCOTUS pick.

To all my brethren in the Hillary archipelago, I don't think you fully appreciate how close we came to an actual civil war. After all the drama with Obama's aborted supreme court pick, I don't think she would have nominated a centrist jurist, but would have swung for the fences and nominated a hyper liberal jurist to draw in the Sanders base. If she had done so, and that jurist had come down on the side of severe gun restriction, we'd have had a country where the law said that guns must be surrendered, and 100 million of it's citizens would have out and out refused to do so. The end would not have been pretty.

Congratulations to nominee Gorsuch. And nuclear options notwithstanding, congrats to the rest of America as well.

- Another Day, Another Death Threat

Well it's Tuesday, which means it's time for another high profile person to call for the assassination of the sitting President of the United States. Today it's Ted KornBlum, CEO of Magnatone, a musical equipment company. But it's not just Tuesdays. We're on the seventh working day of the Trump Presidency and a sizable chunk of the Entertainment industry has called for him to be killed.

It kind of makes me wonder when the first of the bullet will fly. Most liberals are cowards, of course. But all these people can basically be thought of as imploring their more mentally ill progressive brethren to get out there and shoot the guy. And I wonder what would happen if he were actually killed. I'm not wishing anything of the sort, quite the contrary. But if he were killed and Mike Pence took over, would we see even half of the changes we were promised under Trump?

In that respect, the right may be more at risk than ever. We've never had a "key man" issue on the right, because if there ever were any changes being made, they were all coming from the party who was pushing them gently behind the scenes. But if Trump were to be harmed, then the brakes would go on pretty instantly.

when the dust settles the left may never win another election, but they probably wouldn't have to. The Republicans would step back in as the less ambitious advocates of the generalized morality of the left. #Nevertrumpers would again populate the seats of power, and the Alt-Right would be chased rom the field in a political pincing maneuver.

for this reason, I hope the FBI and the Secret Service are taking all these casually offered threats very seriously, and trying to determine who is and who isn't in the ANTIFA. the Alt Right only endorses violence in self defense, which is the right of every American. But the left are happy to endorse proactive violence. So they are the obvious real threat.

- Who Is The ANTIFA?

So I was curious to see if anyone had identified, arrested, or charged the guy who slugged Richard Spencer down in DC, and caused so much of left leaning America to declare it open season on violence toward the Alt-Right. [Short answer no, but there is a $5,000 reward offered for information.] What followed was a few minutes clicking around the online presence of the ANTIFA - the far left "Anarchist" movement, dedicated to general disruption since the election of Trump, and who are clearly willing to use violence to achieve their goals.

To say that the information is sparse, is no stretch. But there are a few interesting things to find out about their movement in NYC. Like for instance, they have one of their HQ's out on Myrtle ave. in Bushwick, which can be easily identified by the signs in the window, visible on Google Streetview. They also go out of their way to try to identify specific alt-right supporters, with what I would call extremely limited success.

But apart from that, for the most part it seems to me like it's nothing more than the drug addled malcontents of the occupy movement, all dressed in black outfits. Their views seem to be all over the map out at the far tail end of leftist ideology. Veganism, animal rights, paganism, anarcho-marxism, and violence against anyone they believe is a threat. Just another day in the psych ward. On the whole, they don't seem particularly organized or intellectually coherent. I'll be losing no sleep.

But it does make me wonder why the only media piece on them that I could find was from France last year. Not a single US news story getting into ANTIFA or the Black Bloc. This strikes me as strange because they slugged Richard Spencer, to much fanfare by the mainstream. They torched cars, garbage cans, and broke windows all over DC during the inauguration. The 200 or so that were arrested are all being charged with Felony Rioting. A news story in itself.

They knocked out a Christian protester in Portland last week, and one of their members was shot when he assaulted a man at the University of Washington protest of Milo's speech. These are all news worthy events, but not one media piece.

I get that the goal is to make leftists seem like pristine angels interested only in civil disobedience and the noble heirs to the legacy of Martin Luther King. And I even get that you folks in the media "Like" the fact that these guys are violent against people that you don't like. Fine. No one is slugging anyone from the New york Times... yet. But surely the group(s) that is responsible for so much good TV is worth looking at just a little right? Surely there is some junior staffer someplace interested in making some kind of a mark who will stop by in Bushwick and ask around a little right?.

And what's more, I'm sure they'd be happy for the attention. I don't care if it's a puffy NBC lovefest piece hosted by a staffer from the nation. I don't care if they portray them as the last hope of a nation struggling under the burden of 55 million Hitlers. I'd like to know who they are (or at least who they think they are) and what they want (or at least what they think they want).

That's our News Media. Always right on top of things.

- Firearms Breather: Hunt Prep and EDC (possible Derb connection in art?)

About the Art (if you recall one of my past Boar Hunt illustrations was a Roman era mosaic discovered in Tunisia. In that mosaic, the hunters pursued game with dogs and constructed fencing and obstacles "funneling" the game to the "dead end" where a spear or lance would finish the job... Fair Chase Indeed!)
The illustration above is from "the Devonshire Tapestries. Description below: Derb reference in bold.

The tapestries were probably made in Arras, in modern day France – a centre famed for supplying the courts of France and Burgundy with magnificent wall hangings.
They were acquired by the museum in 1957 from the estate of The Dukes of Devonshire, and probably belonged to the Countess of Shrewsbury, known as 'Bess of Hardwick', a celebrated, four-times married noblewoman who had the grand Derbyshire house Hardwick Hall built in the 1590s. The tapestries were hanging at Hardwick in the 19th century.

...Another pig hunt is scheduled for this weekend and I have been busy with some prep work. I prefer my low-budget set-up and am thoroughly satisfied with the ballistic performance of the 7.62x39mm round on the Saiga platform. It's a good "brush gun" and the Hornady Zmax bullets have been true enough on paper. The main complaint with the sporterized AK platform is consistent accuracy.  In boar hunting, especially inside of 70-yards, the hunter will only get one shot and a follow-up shots are usually dictated by the terrain. The Saiga is not a precision instrument. If you want a long-range tack-driver look at something else.
A good friend of mine and hunt organizer has been attending long-range shooting classes. A point of discussion was cleaning the bore of the rifle after range sessions. The instructor, a retired SF Operator, stated that removing the bore buildup will affect accuracy. He advised not to clean your rifle's bore after the range session and held the belief that the fouling is part of the way the rifle finds zero. (Debatable, have at it!).
Same instructor led me in the direction of the Bushnell Red Dot site which I bought for $55 and mounted on a $19 version of the UTG dual detachable rail. Surprisingly, this detachable rail with the red-dot fixed to it still holds zero in between shooting sessions and removing and replacing the hardware! My experience with optics is limited, but I've had enough experiences with scopes going out of whack merely from transport.
Because the last hunts saw me in a ladder stand in the pre-dawn hours, my ability to see game at any distance was greatly diminished. To address low-light to no light, I purchased a $20 green LED flashlight with pressure switch. The light is attached to the side rail and does not interfere with the red-dot or the action of the rifle. The pressure switch can be placed anywhere as log as it doesn't impede your vision or shooting. Pigs can't see green light and having the option improves my odds of connecting. I have place the pressure switch in the fore-end of the rifle where I can activate the light with my thumb. The box says it can throw light out to 200 yards. I was satisfied with the 75-yard test I conducted. My neighbors never contacted me about the strange green lights at the odd hours... so maybe "pigs of all breeds" can't detect green light!
 Finally, my rifle is wrapped in a non-adhesive, reusable camouflage tape. If you've ever seen the movie "Uncommon Valor" my Saiga now resembles one of the surplus rifles that Gene Hackman purchased from the gunrunners!
The range test was good. The LED light did not crap-out from the recoil and the Red-dot held zero.
Excluding the Tapco adjustable stock, I have outfitted my Saiga with all the bells-and-whistles for under $100.
Additional items: Like usual, I will bring the Buck 119 Special for the coup de grace (last two pigs were taken this way). I almost purchased a Cold Steel Italian Dagger since it has all the properties of good pig-sticker, but decided to stick with the Buck. Finally, I will pack either my .357 mag Ruger GP100 revolver or my HK USP 40.
This brings me to EDC and firearms care.
I carry different firearms per the situation. I was recently shooting a  Beretta PX4 storm that had not been cleaned or stripped since purchase (yeah - I know, the stuff they put on the guns for shipping and export are worse than tar!). Unlike the S&W Shield or the USP, the Beretta is finicky and like most Italian products, they are prone to fail if they are not used. After 100 rounds of FMJs, I cycled a few hollow-points. The action failed to lock open on the empty mag. It appeared to be frozen shut. I had hold the slide (cover) with my weak hand and slam open the action with my strong hand - open palm engaging the back strap of the grip with a force similar to throwing a punch! After 5 sessions of punching open the action it was time to field strip. My house smelled like I had bathed in Hoppe's no. 9 solvent. Gunk removal was almost at a microscopic level, so I broke out the Dremel with the buffing attachments. Took about an hour to clean up and re-lube. Good as new!
Yes, its true you can use too much oil on a firearm, but if you assume a big name polymer pistol will endure without routine attention, lets hope you don't experience a failure at a critical moment. If you carry, forget about Glock and H&K torture tests, your EDC weapon will never experience those conditions. Pay attention to your tools; neglect will cause more damage than hard use. The slightest hiccup can be catastrophic. Routine cleaning and servicing will vary per firearm. My GP100 does not perform well after cleaning and oiling. I need only apply the smallest bit of lubricant and wipe off loose particles. My Sig, Beretta and other polymers vary in the amount of oiling and detail. Spend and hour with each of your firearms and note points of internal wear and tear. This will go along way to achieving peace of mind.

- Tucker Carlson Vs. Airport Protester

Here's one of Ikaika's mentioned clips of Tucker Carlson, swatting around a "peaceful" protester from Portland airport. He also shows a little of the footage of a Trump supporter getting clocked by those very same "peaceful" protesters at the end of the piece.

I wish he had asked this idiot if he was present when the guy got KO'd, but I'm sure he would deny it. What a triumph it would have been though to make him answer for his voice or his image on that airport clip.

My bro thinks that sooner or later the idiot leftists are gonna figure out that Tucker is going to walk all over them. I disagree. I think that believing they're smart enough to out argue someone from "Faux News" is one of the central dogmas of liberalism. So there will always be one more fanatic willing to come on and try to spread the faith.

- Looking At The Future

I think about the future a lot. Call it a job related hazard, born from years of trying to predict the market’s future for a living. And I can’t think about the future without examining the worst of all possible cases – a US Federal bankruptcy.

Every single bankruptcy in history, has come down to a battle between debtors and lenders. In the end, whatever other issues of accounting may be involved, the arbitrator has had to make the choice of favoring the people who lent the money, or the people who borrowed. The goal of most honest arbitrators is that both parties walk away unhappy, on the theory that they have both then suffered equally. But the more complicated the settlement, the less likely this is.

I was thinking about this because of the dramatic turn in governance that has been demonstrated by team Trump. Our polarized polity can be thought of as a debtor philosophy versus a creditor philosophy. Or for shorthand, those that believe morality is defined by saving, and those that define their morality by spending.

The biggest holder of US Federal (and state) debt, the lenders, are the US citizenry. It’s in your pension, your 401K, your insurance companies and your banks. Your E-Trade account might not have Treasuries in it, but it won’t matter much to you if the account is frozen because E-Trade does. Social Security is a Federal program and holds a great deal of Treasury debt. But the system is no longer solvent so why they bother is more accounting trick than actual assets.

But the biggest borrower is the US citizenry as well. Our taxes will theoretically pay the entire 19 Trillion in outstanding debt, and the 200 Trillion in debt that our current laws and policies will force the government to take on over the next 20 years. This may change of course, but that's the state of things today. And our culture has no interest in paying higher taxes for less in service - and the current levels are only maintained through constantly increasing the debt.

In an additional bit of irony, the ultimate arbitrator of a US bankruptcy would inevitably be the US government. Only the authority of the US military could possibly force the parties involved to act on the outcomes.

So when I ask the question of who would be favored, the debtor or the creditor, it’s really a question of philosophy and governance - something that is downstream of our culture. What general policy direction will the government choose – one that favors debtors, or one that favors creditors? It depends greatly on what we demand of them. And if you think that points to a straightforward city mouse – country mouse dichotomy, I think you’re wrong there too.

While the cities in America are horribly mismanaged by the Democrats who unilaterally control them, they are also the source (on average) of a much higher proportion of the tax revenue used to theoretically pay the debt. Deep blue states like New Jersey and Connecticut are net payers to the US Federal Government in spite of their “debtor” philosophy of local governance, and states with more rural area like Texas and Kansas are net receivers of Federal spending, in spite of their “creditor” culture.

So who get’s what asset at what time, and who has to learn to live without is an interesting question, with no easy answer. It’s a question that get’s to where our culture is and how well our politicians can read the tea leaves on where our culture is likely to go in the future. As the culture changes, so too changes the likely outcomes.

With that said, I think you can make an argument that public programs like social security and the large public pensions are more likely to be supported at some level, than private pensions and capital investors like Hedge Funds, Banks, and Insurance companies. Overseas investors of course, are all at an even higher risk regardless of their purpose.

The opposing argument is that while there is little the Federal government can do to a private institution demanding payment if that institution also represents a strategic economic facilitator (like a too big to fail bank), they very much can do something about the management of public investment plans like social security or a public pension. And in the case of that bank, whether it seems to be a public or private institution will be a major question of culture more than law when the time comes as well. It's already by no means a clear question.

So who gets what from who? Who has to learn to live with writedowns, and reduced payouts while others are paid more completely? It will come down to juice. And the juice is flowing in Washington pretty rapidly lately. Our culture is on the brink of the biggest change in 50 years, and we may very well see a new political coalition of realists (rather than equalist fantasists) take hold.

Hopefully this question is keeping someone who is more informed than I am awake at night.

- A Quick Question

Hey guys, has any of our intrepid, persistent, and totally totally objective newshounds bothered to check if the anti-Trump protests are growing or shrinking? We haven't heard anything about it, but that could be because it says something that the left doesn't want us to hear. Or maybe they're just waiting for Steve Sailer to figure it out for them. When in doubt blame laziness and stupidity before conspiracy, I always say.

But I think if you ponder the near future as much s I do, it's a highly relevant issues. Shrinking means that they're losing emotional momentum and the odds of the escalating violence becoming large scale reduces. It will be small groups of devoted anti-social psychotics instead of widespread open revolt.

Just wondering if anyone has seen anything. I honestly don't know. Hopefully the Trump Justice department will make this a key focus for themselves.

- A Nation Of Hitlers

This is a really great pickup of Vox’s, from Scott Adam’s website. I’m quoting Adams here but linking Vox since he found it, and his comments deserve hearing:

But lately I get the feeling that Trump’s critics have evolved from expecting Trump to be Hitler to preferring it. Obviously they don’t prefer it in a conscious way. But the alternative to Trump becoming Hitler is that they have to live out the rest of their lives as confirmed morons. No one wants to be a confirmed moron. And certainly not after announcing their Trump opinions in public and demonstrating in the streets. It would be a total embarrassment for the anti-Trumpers to learn that Trump is just trying to do a good job for America. It’s a threat to their egos. A big one.

While I think Adams believes he’s smarter than he really is, I agree with his assessment in this case. The left will find it easier to delude themselves further about Trump’s villainy, than to admit to themselves that they were wrong. The left’s entire worldview is driven from that perspective. And it’s their own insecurity and the need for external validation that pushes them further and further down the rabbit hole of delusion. They dare not admit error, and the longer it goes on, and the more they add layer upon layer to their delusion, the more defended in their psyche it becomes.

They are curing their delusion hangover with hair of the dog. They are “doubling down on their lies” to quote Vox’s spectacular book “Social Justice Warriors Always Lie (which you should buy if you haven’t yet). And the more they lie to themselves, the more the next lie will become necessary, and the more detached that lie will be from reality.

That’s how a Christian counter protester ended up KO’d on the carpet at Portland Airport, with a crowd of leftists standing over his semi-conscious body screaming “That’s what you get Nazi boy!!!” They will not back off because they cannot back off without admitting to themselves that they were wrong all along, and that’s something they can never do.

And in the end, this is why the protests, begged for by Democrat pols, and egged on by Democrat media shills, are bound to end in widespread violence. There are no reasonable voices on the left, urging restraint and moderation. The moderate and restrained Democrats who are out there are probably more afraid of becoming a target of the protests themselves. The only people who are getting any airtime are the ones screaming exactly the message that leftists need to hear:

“You were right all along! It’s Hitler, the Nazis and the Brownshirts all over again! They’re gonna put us all in camps and gas us if we don’t stop them now!”

I’d hate to be head of the Secret Service right now.

Meanwhile back in reality, the leftist mob stands zero chance of success against the full weight and measure of US law enforcement and the National Guard. The broader body politic has nothing to fear here. It’s only those few lawful citizens who are caught in the wake of leftist protest who need to be concerned. Because very soon now, it will be their honest and sincere belief that if you don’t join their rabble, it’s proof you’re a Nazi.

To the leftist mob, we really are about to become a “Nation of Hitlers”. And they’ve convinced themselves that violence is the only answer.

- A Mistake By Central Casting

Chuck Schumer looks very Jewish. I don’t have any problem with Jews as a group, some (actually many) of my best friends … yada, yada, yada. But just because I like many Jews, doesn’t mean I’d want to look like them. And Schumer doesn’t just look like Jewish, he looks like a cartoon character of a Jew. He looks like the villain in a Victorian era play about the exploitation of the workers. He looks like Shylock from the Shakespeare play. He looks like Ebenezer Scrooge.

Now I don’t fault anyone for not having a clear idea of how others see them. I’ve had that very problem all my life, and it’s been the cause of much confusion and annoyance. But you would think that Schumer’s very considerable low cunning that he has relied upon to bring him to the top of the congressional heap over the years, would have steered him away from trying to use lines like this one: The lady in the harbor in the city in which I live holds a wonderful torch. That torch has stood for the greatness of America to all Americans and to the citizens of the world. We will not let this evil order extinguish that great torch.

Inspiring rhetoric is not what America wants from the guy central casting sent over to play the evil banker. It just doesn’t work.

Though I will say this for his statement, it’s appropriately vacuous, and is therefore perfectly suited to leftist sensibilities. It’s all sound and no substance. And since the media digested a steady diet of those empty verbal calories from President Obama for 8 straight years, and I’m pretty sure it’s all they teach in Colleges anymore, I don’t blame Chuck all that much for not realizing that those days are behind us.

Today is the day of actions, results, and consequences. Today is they day we stop caring about intents and start worrying about effects. Today is the day that the government policy is no longer about making people feel better about themselves. But Chuck never got the memo. So he's giving it a whirl all the same.

I’d have expected something more worthy of him. Maybe a comment about persecution or suffering. Jews are usually great at talking up the virtue of suffering. Of course – in order to suffer, you have to lose. And though at this point it’s totally unavoidable, Chuck still doesn’t want to lose.

I guess he’ll save the comments about suffering for the 60 Minutes piece next year about the brave Senator in the wilderness. In it, he’ll be depicted as the last brave holdout, without any real power or support, bravely standing alone and shouting “stop” against Trump’s reform of an unresponsive and self interested government.

Why don’t you stop by Lexington Ave and ask the guys at National Review how well that tactic has worked for them Chuck.

Even Obama knows this role won't work for Chuck, so he's very classily waited a full 10 days before speaking out in favor of the protesters. The same protesters who are out there punching anyone they think is a "Nazi". It used to be we were racists and misogynists, but now that's all been boiled down to Nazi. Stand against the left and you're a Nazi. Turn your back on the protesters and you're gonna get clocked for being a "Nazi". And though it's just his first statement, knowing Obama's ego, he won't be able to avoid taking charge of the resistance.

Obama is very much suited to empty rhetoric. It was his entire governing strategy. And with the left deep in the political wilderness, and without any of the legal power required to be able to stop Trump from fulfilling his campaign promises, they probably believes needs him now more than ever.

But for all that, it might be worth putting up with Obama again just to spare us the pained effort of trying to listen to Chuck Schumer struggling to play the role of Jacques Necker.

Monday, January 30, 2017

- ISIS and Democrats: Perfect Together

ISIS supporters have expressed their feelings on Trump refugee ban, and what a surprise - it's exactly the same position as the Democrats. They might as well be out there protesting at Kennedy airport. In fact, they probably are. Up to now ISIS has claimed that it's sten thousands of fighters into the European Union using the refugee program, so it's not completely crazy to think they've sent at least a few in through ours.

And yet, 100% of the media reports I read all say that we should be operating from a position of weakness. that we should let ISIS fighters come to this country, otherwise they might hate us. Screw that. And screw ISIS. They don't care if we hate them. They hate us all the same whether we are weak compliant supplicants or bold defiant enemies. But only one of those makes us a problem for them, and that's the one I support.

President Trump (who I'm feeling more supportive of every time the guy picks up a pen) is never going to go on an apology tour. He's never going to bow. He's going out there, head held high, as the most powerful man in the world and leader of both the worlds largest employer, and the Commander in Chief of the world's largest Army. I can easily imagine him using that old line, "You know what has two thumbs and doesn't have to get on his knees for anyone? This guy."

And that means you too Mainstream media. You bunch of worthless sacks of cowardly bile. I hope you all contract painful debilitating diseases, and suffer and die of them alone. You are truly despicable people, incapable of acting like men. cowards. Every last one of you is a worthless, rancid coward.

I'd say worse, but I've already peeved off the NSA once today.

- Dear Republican Senators

The left has sworn to Filibuster President Trump's SCOTUS nominee, whoever he is. This puts you in a very awkward position. It means that either you go for the nuclear option so conveniently bequeathed to you by Harry Ried, or you hunker down and know that we will be coming for you as soon as your term is up.

I mean that in the most rhetorical, NSA friendly and explicitly non violent way of course.

- Grabbing The Left By It's Pussy

My bro is exhausted. His numbers from the bone marrow transplant look great so technically he's healthy, but he's being given a fistful of drugs for anti-rejection and immunity enhancement, and his diet is severely restricted to prevent him accidentally acquiring any bacteria through his digestion that his body might not be ready to fight off. The diet is the big thing. He's basically on baby food. Boiled and pureed food only. And since his taste buds were destroyed during the chemo-related mucositis, everything he eats tastes like paste. If he could just get enough calories I'm sure he'd feel better, but overall his travel down this long road is going well.

He hasn't been following the news so I tried to tell him how the Trump administration is going after week one, and I didn't know where to begin. Muslim immigration? Check. The Wall? Check. Regulatory Reform? Check. Gutting the EPA? Check. Obama EO revocation? Check. He came out of his corner and hit so fast and so hard, that the left quite literally doesn't know where to protest. and even on that front, though they are getting increasingly violent, the inaugural protesters are being charged under Felony Rioting, and could end up with 15 years in jail. when we get a pro-life, pro 2A SCOTUS nominee tomorrow (and it looks like we will) it will be hard to remember which campaign promises he hasn't done something about.

It's almost enough to make you think that Hillary wasn't actually elected President after all.

I'm a little disappointed that Congress hasn't moved the Concealed Carry Reciprocity to the front of the line, but then I get to thinking about it and I realize, the guy was inaugurated 10 days ago. This is 10 days worth of Trump - and that's easily worth three months of any other Washington layabout.

Show me a few sullen looking black bloc guys being hustled off to prison to be violated by the boys in cell block B, and I'll be downright giddy.

- Gersh Kuntzman Is Back... as a Psychologist

The man who was driven to a psychotic episode by the horror of firing an AR-15 toward a piece of Paper, Gersh Kuntzman, is back. This time, instead of being an expert if firearms, he's an expert in Psychology, and he has diagnosed President Trump fro a discreet distance:

The fuzzy outlines of President Trump's likely mental illness came into sharper focus this week: in two interviews with major networks, he revealed paranoia and delusion; he quadruple-downed on his fabrication that millions of people voted illegally, which demonstrated he is disconnected from reality itself; his petulant trade war with Mexico reveals that he values self-image even over national interest; his fixation with inaugural crowd size reveals a childish need for attention.

The problem here is that liberals believe that the conclusion must be used to derive supporting data, instead of data being used to generate conclusions. Illegal voting? Studies say yes, studies say no, it's at least an open question worthy of inquiry. Trade War with Mexico? Renegotiating a treat is hardly a "Trade War", I suspect Gersh can't tell the difference sue to his paranoia and delusion. Fixation with inaugural crowd size? OK, this one seems stupid to me. But Trumps logic is sound even if it's in error. He makes the claim that more people road the public transit system during his inauguration than Obama's, and that verifiably true. but since no one who LIVES in DC voted for Trump and 99% of them did vote for Obama, it only makes sense that they would have attended in 2012, and not attended in 2016.

Trump seems pretty clearly wrong on this objectively, but it seems more legitimate error than open defiance of reality. And in the meantime we have laughingstocks like Gersh to remind us that he still thinks it's a big issue too.

This guy (loosely used term) is a joke. An obvious, delusional, partisan hack that is a stellar reflection of how out of touch New Yorkers are, and how deep into hysterical delusion the liberal media is prepared to go.

- More Violence From The Left's "Peaceful Protests"

I clipped this from Vox's blog. It's a mini-riot that took place at Portland airport where Anti-Trump rioters knocked out a Trump supporter then screamed "That's what you get Nazi boy" over his prone body. Over the woohoo's celebrating this man's concussion, you can hear them chanting "peaceful protest". Which is pretty clearly not what they had in mind.

I had a big argument with my daughter this weekend about political violence. I told her my feelings on the subject (I'm against it) and explained that she doesn't have to agree with me. what else can you say to a 16 year old? But I urged her to stay away from any "peaceful political protests" because someone is going to get killed, and I don't want it to be her. By far the best way to avoid being shot is to be somewhere else when the shooting starts, and I think she took my meaning.

With all that said, I'm at the point now where if I see someone with their face covered and dressed in black at a political protest, and they seem threatening to me in any way, I'm going to immediately assume that they will be attacking me the second they get out of my line of site and can blindside me. NYC is gun free, but there are non-lethal self defense options available if you're creative enough.

I intend to be creative.

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

No Hate - No Fear

In the full video available here, a girl who is a member of the pro-Trump protest coins what I believe to be the perfect counter chant. "No Hate, No Fear". It's a direct denial of the psychological projection that the left is trying to desperately to force onto the right - a turn of phrase that I think gets right to the issue with the leftist protests. Great little bit of communication that - I'm not at all surprised the person who came up with it is a woman.

That is the point here with the left I think. They're a hysterical woman arguing with a man. They don't want actual solutions or cogent points, they want to see that the fear and hatred that they feel is also being felt by people on the right. And they'll keep escalating until they get that emotional response.

In a domestic argument which hasn't yet gotten violent is to let the woman see your emotional participation in the discussion by screaming at her. It usually cows them, and get's them listening again. But we're way past that with the left. Since they're already openly violent, I think the goal at this point is to find a way to keep the violence and injuries to a minimum.

I think it's also interesting that the way the left has always trampled the old right before, was demanding that they adhere to a standard of discussion that the left never had any intention of adhering to itself. They'd say " keep things as a civil discussion of the issues with no name calling or insults, and then scream "racist/misogynist" the second they heard somehting they couldn't counter. And now we see the same thing in protest form.

The chant "Peaceful Protest" fully expecting the right to adhere to that standard, and then blindside them the minute their backs are turned. I'm actually beginning to think that those black bloc kids could use a good firm beating.

- Re: The Quebec Mosque Shooting

The narrative of the mainstream media is that white heterosexual men are the most dangerous murderers/rapists alive and anyone who isn't a white heterosexual man is a "victim" of their oppression and rapiness. According to several accounts the shooters screamed "Allah aqbar" while spraying the crowd with bullets, but until the suspects are identified I don't think that means anything. I could easily see it as something that someone would scream as irony.

You don't have a lot of Mosques being shot up. not nearly enough to satiate the media appetite for anti-muslim violence anyway. Most of the "Hate crimes" against Muslims that are reported in the media, usually turn out to be fake. Since there isn't enough of an actual supply of hate for the left they find they have to invent some on their own.

I could see how this might be different though, especially since the names haven't been released. Why hold back on that if it fits the narrative that everyone is looking for so fervently?

Here's the thing on my mind though. White men are civilized, well mannered, industrious, and careful. But they aren't going to just lie back and take from the media forever. Vilify a group long enough and pretty soon they lose their desire to avoid vilification. If you're going to be burned in the media for a sin you never commit, why not commit the sin anyway?

Progressives are literally begging white men to organize and get violent. Every single day there are examples in the media where white heterosexual men are unfairly demonized, and as the political violence from progressives begins to increase, the political violence visited on progressives is certain to follow. Pretty soon the nightmare of liberals is going to come to pass I think.

And so there is no misunderstanding, I think that would be a stupid idea. I think anyone of any color or political stripe has the right to defend themselves, but hurting or killing people for their political beliefs strikes me as idiotic. There are better ways to address differences of opinion. And I sincerely hope the liberal media machine gets it's head out of it's rectum and allows the alt-right to join the discussion, so that we explore a few of the more peaceful ones.

- Well I'm Convinced...

I met Peter Dinklage of Tyrion Lannister fame, when I was in college. I had a friend who went to his high school, and we met very briefly in a parking lot on the way to an off campus party. The whole thing was a little fuzzy the next day, let alone 30 years in the past. But he's a pretty memorable guy.

As I recall though he was OK. And because he was, I was always pleased when his career got struck by lightning and he stepped into the most interesting and compelling role ever written for a dwarf. Can you imagine? I don't think anyone could ever be more type-cast than a guy who is less than 5 feet tall. He was great in The Station Agent" and "In Bruges", but Tyrion has made him one of the most recognizable faces on the planet. Good for him I say. Especially since he has always had the good sense to keep his politics to himself.

The doofus pictured above, Simon Helberg, had a similar bout of luck when someone came up with the idea for a bunch of nerdy physicist working at Cal-Tech, and called it the Big Bang Theory. How could a tiny little dweeb like him ever hope to work in any other role? He's too short to be a side kick, too unattractive to be a leading man, and too much of a pansy to be a villain. He might have had some kind of career dressed up as an animal in children's shows or something, but until Big Bang, that was really his limit.

So naturally, when I think of whose advice I should be taking on matters of national security, the very first person I think of is an insecure and effeminate little actor who would never be known for anything except for the fact that he had some of the best casting luck in the history of Hollywood. I always enjoy how he tries to 'butch it up' by being unshaven and tough looking, but never manages to pull it off. If he were to threaten someone in a bar or something, 99% of the men in America would laugh in his face.

I'll bet anything he has a Harley in his garage that he's afraid to ride.

I've said quite a bit about the Feminization of men, and this guy is the perfect example. Back in the day, before the normalization of homosexuality, we would have called this guy a fag. That was probably unfair since he certainly can't help the size he was born. And it was probably unfair to most homosexuals as well, since few of them are this effeminate. But he doesn't have to act like such a complete 'bottom' does he?

The people in Hollywood seem to think that they're making a brave statement by advocating a position that 100% of the people they know believe in. But seeing this little pansy and his beard (I mean the woman) advocating for refugees, only convince me that banning them is precisely the right thing to do. when he says refugees welcome, he means "but nowhere near me", and I think we all know what she means when she says "Let them in". She could probably use a man in her life so...fair enough.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

- Dear Mainstream Media, We Need To Talk

The political violence is going to escalate. It’s just human nature.

Richard Spencer got punched in the head and the liberal twitter all screamed: “Hooray!” A Nazi got punched. It’s as American as apple pie! Punching a Nazi is just fine!!! Let’s all set it to music and make something fun out of it!!!” Journalists everywhere immediately came out in favor of more violence, all to keep the ideas of people like Richard Spencer from ever being heard.

Of course, the fact that Richard Spencer isn’t actually a Nazi is glossed over just a bit in the leftist euphoria over finally sticking it to “the man”. And as we know, Richard Spencer and people who think just like him control the press, the major media, the academy, the education infrastructure, the civil service, and virtually every outlet for information in modern American political discourse, so of course it’s a great act of rebellion to punch someone like that. Hooray equalism!!!

It’s strikes me as particularly hypocritical, even for the left, to be perfectly willing to normalize open violence in order to prevent perfectly mild mannered Richard Spencer’s ideas from being ‘normalized’, on the unsupported premise that he’s an advocate of violence. OK. Fine. There have always been thoughtless people out there more comfortable with a punch than a discussion. No avoiding it really. But there are consequences to position like that.

One consequence which was connected indirectly, is that a black bloc protester got shot at the University of Washington. During a loud and raucous protest that was sliding over into violence, he assaulted someone who looked to him like a good victim – an over 30 year old Asian Trump supporter – and for his trouble the Asian man shot him. I know there is some nonsense about the guy being afraid of the protester’s tattoo in the press, but that’s all ex-post lawyer nonsense designed to sway the court of public opinion. He was there as a Trump supporter and knew exactly who he was shooting.

So now we have people defending themselves from minor assault by bringing about major assault. And I will guarantee that right now, in some dark corner someplace, the most radical of the black bloc idiots are ignoring their leaders and calling their like minded friends aside and saying that they need to “gun up” for the next protest in their own righteous self defense. “We have no choice man! We gotta! You think the Nazis are gonna hold back? Didn’t you see Captain America?”

Some time after he convinces his most idiotic brethren, some counter protest will show up someplace, someone will get nervous, and multiple shots will get fired, probably in both directions. It’s just a question of probability and repetition. And after that, the next time a black bloc protest shows up anywhere, the police and National Guard, who will only be there to keep the peace, will be nervous too. And then there’s no stopping it.

The "Nazis" (previously known in the press as law abiding, well intentioned , and civic minded white people who disagree with the progressive vision) will be doing the same thing. Not the smart or thoughtful ones, but as we know not everyone is smart and thoughtful. And with the recent rise of black bloc tactics at political protests, they would at least have more reasonable cause. I can fight off or run from any one man, maybe even 2 or 3. But I know there is nothing I can do about an organized group of several dozen if they intend to do me harm because I disagree with them. So what choice does a progressive heretic have today?

For a long time now we on the right have wondered whether the leadership on the left are cynically manipulating their rank and file or if they’re delusional true believers. I think it’s a mix of both myself. But the nice thing about seeing them as cynics is that if it’s true, they are not particularly pious in the religion of the left. They are far less likely to urge their supporters to violence for the sake of preventing the imaginary fourth Reich. If the left is ever going to fight an actual hot war, it will have to be a holy war. A war to defend their vision of themselves, as provided by their civic religion. Nothing else will give them the courage to risk violence.

And that means that to everyone involved, it will all subjectively seem like ‘self defense’. And the journalists, who are just about as devoted to the left as the black bloc protesters they’re covering, will continue to fan the flames until people start specifically shooting at them.

But none of this has to happen. This war could be fought in the war of ideas. Let Richard Spencer and the other talkers of the alt-right have their say. Invite him to college campuses. Put him on TV. Invite Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow or John Derbyshire on the live Sunday talk shows. Agree to live interviews with Mike Cernovich or Vox Day. If nothing else it will give you the chance to ridicule them. If their ideas really are as awful as you think then they will die like the John Birch society and the Klan, which only really exist in the imagination of the SPLC.

And if their ideas actually do make sense, then what’s the harm in hearing them? If you really believe that the civic religion of progressivism is the future, then why not let it be tested? Only the weakest ideas can’t survive being challenged. And talking, which by the way is all that Richard Spencer ever wanted to do, is a lot better than what is going to come of all of this.

- Making Good Manners Great Again

The pushback has started. The left found a Federal judge who was happy to put a stop in place on some portions of the travel ban EO. I would expect the Trial lawyers have been making a list and checking it twice, trying to find out who can be counted on to resist the Whitehouse. But going exclusively on their behavior, this White house doesn't seem the type of guys who will just lay down and take it if they believe the outcome is right for America.

For me the best thing about the Trump travel ban is the protests. It used to be that every few days there would be another protest forming up at Washington Square park or Union Square, and marching either up or down University place to the other location. This makes it very convenient for the protesters but very inconvenient for me. Now the losers need to schlep out to Kennedy airport (a $50 dollar cab ride each way) to join the Resistance.

I'm sure with just a little careful planning team Trump can find some excuse to fill the Protesters with a desire to go rhyme and chant nonsense outside the NYTimes building (instead of working on the inside). This would be the ultimate it using the enemy's tactics against them as far as I'm concerned. Or maybe the real "Injustice" can be occurring out at the end of a train line in Riverhead NY, or someplace else far away from me. One other suggestion would be to declare the phrase "hey hey, ho ho" hate speech. Just sayin.

My last post got a bump from the guys at Ace in the "Over Night Thread" - thanks dude. But it's filled me with a desire to expound just a little more on the idea of free association.

In my mind racism (in the all encompassing way that leftist use the term) doesn't actually exist. White Americans don't hate blacks, they hate their behavior. And behavior can be changed. Tom Sowell very clearly documented that until the civil rights act was passed, blacks were discarding their social ills (unemployment, criminality, unwed parenthood, lack of education) at a rate faster than whites. [The Economics and Politics of Race - T. Sowell] You would expect this because at that point blacks still had more of it to discard. But when the voting rights act was passed the improvement that had been accelerating for decades came to an abrupt halt.

That was the moment when much went wrong in our culture, but it coincides with the arrival of the "bigotry of low expectations" that Tip O'Neill kept going on about. And when it arrived, the behavior of black America took a turn for the worse. Eventually it arrived at the Black Lies Matter movement. A radical political movement explicitly dedicated to the overthrow of the power structure, that is based entirely on fiction. In terms of cause and effect, it is exactly the same as if the Star Wars Fan base all got together and demanded that the Federal government spend Trillions on a Death Star defense system. This is not a group that is acting responsibly.

But the upshot here is that behavior is fully within our power to change. And I believe that if blacks were held to the same standard as everyone else, then that behavior would change. Completely free association would be likely to influence that process.

In the normal scale of public interactions, I don't care if you hate me so long as you're polite to me. I think most white people feel that way. Your feelings are your problem, and should in most cases be kept to yourself. And because that's so I think it would be very unusual for blacks to be excluded as customers from any private business, so long as the specific people were practicing good manners. And none of this would happen in a bubble. Those institutions that allowed blacks who qualified objectively (rather than giving preference to those who don't for disparate impact reasons) would be considered 'better' in a moral sense than those that exclude everyone. They would get good press, or at least no credible bad press. There is no good reason to exclude Tom Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson or Barak Obama from your Diner counter. There never was. I think few would do so.

But by allowing free association and removing the force of law, it would empower the business owners to to help influence the behavior of all the Michael Browns and Trayvon Martins who could very much use it.

Saturday, January 28, 2017

- Silencing The Opposition

Once you get away from the blood lines of family, the line between us and them is always a tough one to define. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t there someplace.

Milo says “white identity politics” isn’t the right place, and I can see why a half Jewish gay man with a Greek family name might feel that way. It strikes me as no terribly political heresy that he would be uncomfortable with a world where, as gay man who enjoys the private company of black men, he might not be allowed to engage in the kind of activities he’s become accustomed to. I bear him no ill will for his feelings on the topic.

But “white identity politics” covers a lot of ground. I’m sure there is a great deal of the things described by that journalistic shorthand that Milo would have no problem with.

For example, there is black advocacy, Latin advocacy, Muslim advocacy, woman advocacy, gay advocacy and every single imaginable type of advocacy group for every single splinter of American society with only one solitary exception. I see absolutely no reason white heterosexual men should not be allowed to form advocacy groups, and I’m certain Milo would agree.

I would also argue that all Americans of every group should be entitled under our laws regarding free association, to exclude from their company anyone they desire, and for any reason they desire it.

Black groups should be entitled to exclude whites and vice versa. Businesses should be allowed to do the same if they’re willing to pay the price for it. If a black owned business wants to exclude whites and cater to just 11% of the population with their business, I believe that is their right. White groups and businesses should be allowed to do the same.

The only exception to this rule should be government, which should be required to provide the same service to all citizens regardless of what groups they belong to. But government should not be required to provide equal service to non-citizens. They didn’t legally buy it; they shouldn’t get to use it. If you want to go crazy and offer government service to legal residents, I’ll probably quibble on which services, but I’m open to discussion on it.

“White Identity Politics” shouldn’t be required to bring about these perfectly reasonable and lawful changes. But in a society where the people responsible for the overwhelming majority of the creativity, organization, and industriousness that built the modern world are universally vilified for their contributions and treated as pariahs, I think it’s necessary.

So who does “white identity politics” include? Does it include Jews? Does it include Catholics? Does it include Asians, Turks or Russians? Does it include gays or light skinned Latinos? My world would. But I think it should be left to society to naturally form up in groups and decide for themselves. The more restrictive the group - a group that includes only Anglo-Saxon, or only Aryans for example – will by definition be smaller and less influential than a more inclusive group. So I’m not so worried about it. How and where they draw the line between “us” and “them” is of no real consequence to me.

Unlike Graucho Marx, I would never want to belong to a group that wouldn’t have me as a member. And I think Milo is just saying the same thing.

Nature is the tide, and the tide can’t be held back. People WILL form groups of their own free will, either legally or illegally. And illegal groups will be harder for civil society to control. Preventing white heterosexuals from legally forming groups now that they’ve become aware of their need for them as an identity group, will only result in militias and the klan – all formed under ground.

This can either be settled with talk and politics or with violence. Talk is better. And if you exclude this one group from the talk, then you open the door to them acting outside the law. And you don’t want a group this careful, industrious, creative and organized going down that road. Out of self preservation, the enemies of white identity politics should be doing all they can to encourage it.

The eventual alternative will be a radicalized movement uninterested in politics. And that will lead to blood, which no rational person wants.

- This Week On Radio Derb

It's been a really big week this past week, and our man Derb is in rare form. You probably don't need me to tell you this of course, but I strongly suggest that you don't miss this week's podcast. Cogent and unique ideas, lucidly offered. Just what we've all come to expect.

Friday, January 27, 2017

- Believing We Might Have A Chance Again

I've been writing this blog for nearly a decade. Over 3500 post, well over 5 million words. Virtually all of them with spelling and punctuation errors. And that's been the least of my amateurish problems. Every day I say to myself "I've done enough of this, there just isn't anything new left to say." But then something in the news will catch my eye, and I'm slapping away at the keys, and forgetting to capitalize sentences.

Of all the pieces I've ever written, my personal favorite is this one, about America's vanishing tendency toward "self Reliance". I've written much better stuff, but this one always read to me like it was the closest I've come to my actual mental voice:

The Maori are the main aboriginal ethnic group of New Zealand, and they arrived there somewhere prior to 1500. I personally found it telling that the very first thing they did when they landed on the beach was to hunt one of the more defenseless local birds to extinction.

The New Zealand Moa was a huge flightless bird which apart from being relatively slow and easy to catch was also apparently pretty tasty. In fact, they were so perfectly evolved as a human food source that the only way nature could have improved upon them, would have been to instill in them an admittedly unlikely desire to build their nests directly in Maori cooking pots. A few birds managed to hang on precipitously until the 1700’s but according to the Discovery Channel, they met their final natural end in 1773.

This is the point where your typical lefty would get all amped up about the evils of man and how nature should be allowed to progress on it’s own without human ‘interference’. Nonsense. I mean… a few thousand Maori tribesmen with stone tools and grass skirts are hardly the same thing as releasing dioxin into the primary water supply. What exactly about their arrival and interaction with the local fauna was ‘unnatural’? The fact of the matter is, man is the planet’s most successful predator for a very good reason. And sure as the sunrise, he was bound to find his way to wherever the prey is so fat, slow, and delicious.

That was October, 2010. Just about the time that the Social Justice and "Occupy" crowd, emboldened by Obama's election and flush with new funding from George Zoros, began to explain to the rest of us what we would all be expected to believe going forward. Since then, and right up until last spring when Trump began to move into the lead, it's just been one long trip, further and further down the intellectual rabbit hole of the leftist id.

And then came Trump.

We're only a week into his Presidency so I don't want to have too much faith in him when he's still very much unproven. But at the very least, he's unlike any President we've had in the last half century. He's making all the right enemies, and angering all the right people. The press is in such a constant state of uproar that I can't keep up. But most of all I feel like we're no longer falling down the rabbit hole. Facts and evidence mean something again, and feelings and opinions are irrelevant or at least closer to it. Trump wants results, results, results. And that lets the rest of us, who were worried about results all along, feel like we can trust the system again to maybe stay out of our way.

I went for drinks last night with an old, old friend. A guy who I knew from my days at Moore Capital in the late 90's - a lifetime ago in the finance world. Two other guys we both knew joined us, and while we were there, one of them got a call from a co-worker who was a consultant I had hired while at Moore, and who worked for me there for about a year. Great guys all of them. Wanna know what we talked about? Completely uninitiated by me, two of them tried to convince me and my old friend that the Alt-Right aren't a bunch of crazies after all. I kid you not.

I know Trumps only just left the starting line, but it already feels like a kind of renewal to me. Like he's trying to bring America back from the brink. That and the huge upswell of interest in the "hate-facts" of the alt-right, and it's nearly enough to make a guy believe again. My brother is doing better, my daughter is doing well, and I find I'm hopeful.

Then I learn that on top of everything else, scientists now want to bring the Moa back from extinction.

I know it was all just one big allegory about how out of touch with reality academia was becoming. But damned if it doesn't want to make you believe.

- ...Or... Maybe Not

OK, this is hard to watch.

In the video below, Gavin McInnes, seems to have gone out and found the dumbest guy he could, in order to have him debate issue of race with Jared Taylor. This is what a big part of the modern left looks like. Jared is an extremely intelligent man with a encyclopedic knowledge of the genetic and sociological research regarding race, and has been thinking about it and talking about it for decades. This other guy is ... I'm not sure what he is. But he makes all the intellectual mistakes that are endemic on the left.

He doesn't know the difference between an anecdote and a generality. He is completely ignorant of statistics. He dismisses honest intellectual inquiry and the conclusions it suggest as nothing more than lies, simply because they don't conform to his feelings on the issue, and he is as historically illiterate as just about anyone I've ever met.

But his big one - the big intellectual mistake he makes - is that when Jared says that Asians and white are on average, more intelligent than blacks, he immediately assumes that Jared is actually saying that Whites are "superior" to blacks. Jared is saying nothing of the kind. In order to be superior, you need to discussing a specific activity and Jared recognizes that in some endeavors Blacks are obviously 'superior' to whites.

It's the same thing with "White Supremacy". The supremacy is always implied by the critic, and never claimed by the advocate of a race realistic view. Just because you recognize difference in behavior that conform to race, doesn't automatically mean you're a "White Supremacist". We should be doing all we can to take this stupid little bit of media brainwashing away from the critics of our view. And no one does that better, or certainly no one does it with more good cheer, than Jared Taylor.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

- There Is Room For Lefties In The Alt-Right

I can feel minds changing around me as I read this.

Most of the people who read this probably won't take it any further. But some of them will go on to seek out the Derbyshire's, Taylors, and Brimelow's of the movement and see that it isn't craziness. They'll learn that the horror they "recoil" from isn't a horror at all, it's just an acceptance of reality for good or ill. And they'll realize that the real thinkers of the alt-right aren't monsters.

Are they racists? Not if you use the description of the Mainstream media for the word "racist". They aren't hateful or oppressive. They're just looking to make this all work out best for everyone, including blacks, Muslims and Latinos - who they universally agree are all entitled to live in the culture that they themselves define. They are just unwilling to let them define this one.

The people that are reacting badly to that piece though are missing something. I read one comment that said that European dominance of global culture is very 18th century, and it's day is past. But that person mistakes passivity with weakness. The Alt-Right has a deep and thoughtful philosophical base beneath it, unlike the equalist philosophy. They have thousands of years of history standing as proof of it's correct assumptions. "The world is as it is because we made it that way." They say. "And now you are trying to use our magnanimity to take it from us by force, but no more."

I'm convinced that eventually, even hardcore lefties will come to realize that if we're talking about a culture of only white people, dominated by historically European ethics, and historically European social constraints regarding shame and honor, then all their silly third way social welfare dreams will work just fine. I'll still disagree with them, but it will be possible to at least have a civil discussion about it. But at that point we'll be arguing about the direction of the tribe, not over it's potential dissolution. Those are discussions I'm prepared to have.

- The Election As Trading Places

What happened to Democrats on election day was identical in some respects to a market crash. They believed their political ideas were great assets, destined to be the cornerstones of a future America. And a great many Americans went along with them on the upswing, much like in a market bubble. They don’t think about politics much so they wanted to see where they would lead us. They wanted the virtue on the cheap that comes from the sound bite style platitudes of Democrat messaging.

On election day they uttered a collective “Bullshit” and “sold” on the Democrat principles. But taking a view that is making them look increasingly detached from reality, the Democrats are still acting like it never happened.

Team Clinton is still standing there like Randolph and Mortimer Duke at the end of Trading places. Trump and Steve Bannon, as Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd respectively, are exchanging their 1 dollar bet, while Hillary and Bill are screaming to “Turn those machines back on!!! Get those voters back in here!!!” and Anthony Wiener is being mutely shipped off to Africa, to be sodomized by an overly affectionate Gorilla. It's the end for them. In Wiener's case the back end.

This can’t go on of course. Politics doesn’t mark to market every day like Wall street, but it has to be ‘marked to reality’ sometime. If they ever want to win an election again, they will need to stop seeing what they want to and start seeing the actual truth. It’s inescapable. And the truth is that their basis for their entire worldview is a lie.

Democrat believe that how you describe a thing, changes the thing itself. The messaging and the words you choose, make it into something different than what it really is. Like all lawyers, they think the voters are the jury and the truth is whatever you can convince the jury to believe. But the voters aren’t the jury. They’re the market. And markets don’t believe falsehoods forever.

In the market, there is the truth, and the story you tell about the truth. If you tell a convincing story people will believe it for a while. Particularly if it’s a story about the future, which no one can ever see with full clarity. But as the future becomes the present, and reality begins to deviate from your imaginary story, people begin to doubt it and you.

That’s happened now to the Democrat worldview. And everyone knows it but the Democrats.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

- The Best Of The Internet

From Ace. The best descriptor I've read of the Alt-Right Political Mindset:

Donald Trump isn't the bully; he only insults and abuses people in power who have attacked him. They're the fucking bullies. The left, with their smears, their witch hunts, their slanders, their insults and their weaponizing of the federal bureaucracy.

There aren't any rules anymore because the left only applies them one way. And in doing so, they've left what once was a civil compact between the two parties in smoldering ruins.

I have no personal investment in Donald Trump. He is a tool to punish the left and roll back their ill-gotten gains, no more and no less. If he succeeds even partially in those two things, then I'll consider his election a win.

Further, I no longer have any investment in any particular political values, save one: The rules created by the left will be applied to the left as equally and punitively as they have applied them to the right. And when they beg for mercy, I'll begin to reconsider. Or maybe not. Because fuck these people.

This new philosophy has freed me of more emotional angst that I can describe. Literally nothing the left says or does matters to me anymore. I don't care about their tantrums. I don't care about their accusations. I don't care if they say Trump is lying. I don't care if Trump is lying.

They created this Frankenstein. They own it. I am free of all obligation. I will never play defense again. I will attack, attack, attack, attack using their own tactics against them until they learn their lesson.

Read the rest at the link. And then send it to someone else. Send it to everyone else.

- When Welfare Works

Welfare, that is … a government funded program designed to alleviate temporary hardship for women and those families where the household head is a woman, is a really great and workable idea, so long as the people accepting it are ashamed of doing so.

We were talking about this over dinner tonight. Think about it. How many east Asians do you imagine are on welfare? Your first instinct is to probably say zero, but there are 300 million people in this country so there has to be a few. But how many do you think are making their living off of it? With 300 million people there are probably a few of them too, but not nearly enough to make the whole system unworkable.

In fact, welfare probably works for white people too if we can simply bring back that sense of shame to the Ozark folks who have learned to abuse the system in the same way that blacks and Latinos have. Which is to say that not all liberal ideas would necessarily be bad ideas. Or at least they wouldn't be so bad as to be totally unpalatable. The only issue is that they only work if they are only for "us".

I’m not proposing legislation or anything here. I’m just tossing it out there.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

- Modern Transexualism Explained By Loretta

It's a shame that most comics don't have the courage to really be funny anymore. Ali Wong talking about Feminism is the only exception I can think of.

- Milo Protest: Shooting Update

Turns out the victim was a protester (natch) and the shooter was an armed, if somewhat squishy Trump supporter looking to attend the event.

The man who told police he shot and wounded another man during a violent demonstration over the appearance of Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of Washington sent a social-media message to the Breitbart News editor just an hour before the shooting.

“Hey Milo,” the 29-year-old former UW student posted to Yiannopoulos’ Facebook page at 7:24 p.m. “im outside in line to your UW event.

“I got sucker punched (he was a bit limp wristed) and someone jacked my #MAGA hat,” he said, referring to the ubiquitous red and white “Make America Great Again” caps worn by supporters of President Trump.

“Anyway for me to get a replacement signed by you?” the man asked

In his defense, most of his political squishyness is coming from statements by his lawyer, who is doing all he can to keep his client out of jail (and off of the pyre) as a potential murderer and racist. The fact that he is non-white seems to be keeping the mainstream media off his scent, and away from the "White Supremacist shoots upstanding youth at peaceful protest" headlines.

So who was the victim?

Several sources have identified the victim as Josh Dukes, 34, a Seattle computer-security engineer and a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) General Defense Committee, which describes itself as an “anti-racist and anti-fascist organization.”

Which means he was one of those black clad assholes who had all that fun breaking windows, burning cars, assaulting conservatives, and setting little girls hair on fire at the Inaugural riot. The word is he'll recover, but I doubt his next protest will include the same level of violent vigor.

One detail that was clearly wasted on the reporter but shouldn't be wasted on you was the injured rioters career choice. He's a "Computer Security Engineer". An anarchist who belongs to a neo-marxist rioting organization and tried to shut down free speech, is working somewhere in the Seattle area as a "computer Security Engineer", which in more common parlance is known as a computer hacker.

Data and communications security is a HUUUUGE field these days, so it makes sense that some of the people working in it shouldn't be. But I hope his future employers remember to check this guys past Facebook and twitter accounts before they add him to their "security" team. Former bank robbers are rarely hired to guard banks. And if a candidate doesn't believe in private property or western civilization, configuring your corporate firewall might not be the role you'd like to fill.

Those that have hired him in the past should probably contact an additional security consultancy (a reputable one) and make sure he hasn't done anything... ideological to them.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

- Slate's Argument: "Then... Blah!"

"Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake." I've read that this was incorrectly attributed to Napolean someplace, but whoever said it, it's an axiom you can't help think of when you read this amazing piece from Slate:

New York Times columnist David Brooks, who is to genuine intellectual inquiry as Flintstones vitamins are to the polio vaccine, filed a column Tuesday about the weekend's spectacularly well-attended anti-Trump women's marches. And there must have been some sort of mistake at Times HQ, because they put his column in the newspaper even though it belongs at the bottom of a well.

Really. How compelling. What exactly did Mr. Brooks say that got the author (with a male name, but naturally I'm dubious) so incredibly fired up? Here David Brooks is quoted:

In the first place, this movement focuses on the wrong issues. Of course, many marchers came with broad anti-Trump agendas, but they were marching under the conventional structure in which the central issues were clear. As The Washington Post reported, they were “reproductive rights, equal pay, affordable health care, action on climate change.”

These are all important matters, and they tend to be voting issues for many upper-middle-class voters in university towns and coastal cities. But this is 2017. Ethnic populism is rising around the world. The crucial problems today concern the way technology and globalization are decimating jobs and tearing the social fabric; the way migration is redefining nation-states; the way the post-World War II order is increasingly being rejected as a means to keep the peace.

But the author (of non-specific gender) has a reaction that sets new heights in literary pricelessness:

If you can't understand how a protest against Donald Trump's presidency and for affordable health care, action on climate change, and the protection of Roe v. Wade (which has been threatened by the unprecedented refusal to confirm Merrick Garland) is not "engaging" with "globalization," "capitalism," and "adherence to the Constitution," then ... bleh.

Bleh indeed! Ok Mr/Ms/Xs Liberal. Your lucid and colorful onomatopoeia almost has me persuaded. If only we had some higher authority that could offer its endorsement of your view:

Finally, Brooks writes that the "central challenge" of the progressive movement shouldn't be to "celebrate difference" or seek social justice for the disadvantaged (which he sees more or less as large-scale efforts to give everyone their own preschool-style special snowflake sticker) but to "rebind a functioning polity and to modernize a binding American idea"—a slogan that is sure to resonate with everyday heartland Americans. Brooks concludes astoundingly—in a column that, to reiterate, denigrates the idea of affordable health care as the silly hobby of foo-foo rosé-quaffers—that the ideal model for a lasting anti-Trump political movement is in fact presented by Hamilton. The Broadway musical that costs one jillion dollars to see.

What's that? Both a reference to Liberals all time favorite broadway musical and a complaint about it's ticket prices all in a single sentence? OK! you got me. Sign me up. Just tell me where to report for my white guilt classes, and to pick up the appropriate list of gender identifiers to use when addressing people as I decry my white privilege.

This is someone who, in theory, writes for a living, and believes every word of the Liberal dogma. And even he/se/xe/fse can't express it any more clearly than saying "Blah". What's worse, Slate, which has access to publish virtually every word that liberals write, decided that this was more than argument enough, and published it anyway.

As I said the other day, easy times make soft men. And if this is what we're facing for opposition, times are going to be getting awfully easy for us. But if I ever get this soft, I hope someone puts me out of my misery.

- For Lefties, Fire Trump's Love

Trump Protesters set a girl's hair on fire:

Luckily no one was hurt. Kind of ironic though that the left is really buring people that they think are heretics now.

Like the Xirl with the bullhorn screamed, this is what Democracy looks like.

- The "Breakup" Of The Alt-Right

So I’ve been looking into some of the Alt-Right intramural fighting. The press that isn’t ignoring the Alt-Right (which is basically just the neo-con opinion press) is getting a bit of a buzz going about it. So I thought it might help to offer a view from outside the specific argument.

The thing about the Alt-Right is that it’s more or less leaderless. This is by design not accident. As soon as you have a leader, then all the press has to do to delegitimize it is make the leader look bad, and the movement looks bad by association. You can find a lot more influential voices in the alt-right who say they absolutely are NOT the leader than who act like they aspire to be. They all know exactly what the press has in store for them.

The mainstream press may have a low cunning, but they aren’t really that smart. But making people they disagree with look bad is a kind of vocation for them. They’ll re-splice video, edit quotes, and change your words until you really do seem to be either an idiot, a monster or both. It’s the process they’ve used to keep the old right on its heels for decades. With a very few exceptions, the Alt-Right isn’t interested in that.

The press is only too happy to have someone step up and try thought because it serves their interest. That’s how Richard Spencer ended up “famous” for that Hitler salute nonsense. Getting some positive press would certainly be a great way to build the movement, and the press uses that as the bait. But they’ll NEVER allow an honest discussion of the alt-right’s ideas because those ideas represent such heretical thinking to them. They quite literally "Can't be considered" by the liberal mind.

But back to the intramurals. The two principles in the (main) argument are Richard Spencer (of Hitler Salute fame) and Mike Cernovich (involved at some level in Gamergate), both of whom have up to now been highly visible spokesmen for their individual portions of the alt-right. Both have tried their hand at grabbing media attention for themselves (with expected results) and building their own individual “brand”. The way I think of it is that they each have built up their own organization and fan base, and are now looking to have their organization subsume the rest of the alt-right.

The two guys have disagreements when it comes to ideas too. This will be horribly over-simplifying so both of them might be angry at me for this characterization, but what they look like they’re doing to me is following two separate paths to leadership ideologically. Spencer is more interested in intellectual and philosophical consistency - a kind of ideological purity model, while Cernovich seems to be arguing for more of a least common denominator ideology.

Both have their defensible positions and if you’re that curious you can read their writing yourself. But the weaknesses of their approaches are both pretty visible to me. Spencer’s problem is the more apparent. Since he’s interested in having an ideologically and philosophically consistent position, he’s going to tend to draw supporters from the fringes. The more extreme the supporter the more they’re interested in ideological purity. The Libertarian party has been having this problem for ages.

Cernovich’s position is actually the more politically viable and marketable, since he’s talking less about white nationalism and more about simple nationalism. That’s what he’s identified as the least common political denominator. But he’s come under considerable criticism from the aforementioned fringe, and so far his one really big brush with major media is that he’s the guy who said that the Alt-Right is dead. This makes him popular with the mainstream as leader of a movement who’s eulogy he’s just uttered. And a hostile opponent of it’s most devoted and vocal supporters.

For my part, I think both guys are just a little too early. Thanks to the left’s focus on silencing debate and Trump’s election, there is remarkable momentum in the idea of uttering liberal heresy lately, so I can see how they might have made the mistake. But I think Spencer (apart form the horrible branding problem he has now) doesn’t have the numbers yet, and with the current makeup of the Alt-Right’s supporters, Cernovich misread the tea leaves about where to draw the line.

Both will still be around. Both will see their positions evolve as they try to bridge the gap between the right and the possible. That’s politics.

So what about the movement? Is the Alt-Right really dead? Don’t be silly – you should know better than to believe the press. The only place the Alt-right is finished (or even shrinking) is in the fantasies of NBC executives and Democrat operatives. The movement is growing because it’s based on facts, and facts are inescapable. As they become more widely discussed their truth becomes clear and obvious. And every time someone learns one, the danger of being burned as a witch reduces and someone else goes and learns the facts.

To date, I think the most influential people on the Alt-Right haven’t been the ideologues with aspirations of leading a political party, but the low key writers and video-bloggers behind the scenes who are discussing those facts. They are, in part, the people who I tend to call attention to on this blog. The Derb, Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and a few others. Even people like Mark Steyn, Heather MacDonald and Tucker Carlson, who all say they have nothing to do with the Alt-right, are discussing the same facts so they're actually helping the movement. These are the people that represent the core of the thinking for the Alt-Right.

None are particularly the bomb throwing types. To my knowledge none have far reaching political aspirations beyond maybe a local school board seat or something, and none want to be identified as leaders. And for now I think it should stay that way. The Alt-Right will have to have a leader eventually I think. But until the media’s overwhelming liberal bias is eliminated, I don’t think it’s going to be possible. People can’t support a position that they never learn about, and right now the media will do all it can to prevent those ideas from being discussed.

Some might argue that the alt-right will simply stay online and grow from there. OK. I can’t negate the possibility. But the Alt-Right needs to convert liberal apostates to have the numbers necessary for a peaceful transition to power, and in the end I think that means the media. Youtube might dent it a little, but liberals don’t really like to read.

Trump is not part of the Alt-Right but I think he might prove very helpful to them in that regard. He can begin the process of showing America just how ridiculous and awful their fourth estate really is. Every victory for him over the media is a victory for the American people and I believe eventually, for the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right is supported by science and would love nothing better than a free and open debate of its views. If Trump shatters the media then maybe that will be possible one day.

But that day is not today. And until then it’s an amorphous movement. It’s leaderless and party-less. There are no meetings, no organization and no structure. You want to be part of the alt-right? Go ahead. Declare yourself a member. That’s literally all there is. It might do you well to attend some of the talks held by the intellectual factions like Amren, the NPI or some of the others. There you can meet like minded folk and discuss the direction you’d like to see things go in. But for now it’s a purely intellectual endeavor rather than an explicitly political one.

For a while I attended a monthly private dinner meeting in NYC with a few of the names I’ve mentioned here, run by a conservative Academic who is a friend. I thought of that as an alt-right meeting since the topics discussed were all heretical and consistent with the kind of topics the alt-right focuses on. But it was held in secret and treated as an intellectual endeavor only. Politics were discussed, but no platform was ever presented. Everyone left with their own ideas about where to go.

The writers above occasionally talked and wrote about it of course, and a few of the other public names involved might be mentioned. You'll see Gavin McInnes talking about dinner with the Derb or vice versa. But most of the people were simply business people, and their names were never repeated. The risk to them was too great. They were all people like me who were unafraid of being called a witch in person, and are able to make an influential argument in small groups, but have no interest in notoriety.

And for now, I think the risk still outweigh the benefits overall where the mainstream and neocon press is concerned. The buzz around the infighting tells me I’m probably right. I don’t think it will always be this way but for now, I think the press will have to wait. Let the guys like Tucker Carlson and Trump do the heavy lifting of making the media look bad. And when they have been meaningfully reformed or replaced – when it reaches the point where you can say a ‘hate fact’ on TV and have your opinion actually listened to - then it will be time to seek the spotlight for those inclined to do so.

- Fascists Threaten Woman For Breaking Glass Ceiling

Oh wait. With all the psychological projection being tossed around I'm getting confused. Maybe I've gotten my narrative wrong in the title:

President Trump’s adviser Kellyanne Conway is getting Secret Service protection after receiving suspicious “white substances” at her home, she revealed in a TV interview.

The White House counselor — Trump’s most visible adviser — is being protected by the same agency tasked with his security after receiving the threats, Conway told Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

Oh right... I get it. Love Trumps Hate... but... But Trump Hate Trumps Love, and ... Oh jeez... how do you keep any of this straight these days? Let me try again. Hate Trumps Trump Love, but Trump Hate Trumps Love, and Love Trumps Hate? Does that sound right? Is there a shrink around? Let me ask psychology today:

For people with a larger amygdala, these messages have a disproportional impact in arousing fear. Fear, once activated, tends to hijack our higher order cortical functioning, the rational, thinking part of our brain. Therefore, by stoking the fear center, many Americans reverted to Maslow’s second level on the hierarchy. In a heightened state of fear, people don’t care about shattering glass ceilings, civil rights, climate change or even ‘love thy neighbor.’ They care about their immediate need for safety and security. They will revert to their basic animal instinct to survive and will, in effect, chew off their own arm (or vote against their own true self-interest) to do so.

OK, I get it now. Because these liberals are terrified of the monster under their bed with a can of Zyklon B, it's perfectly OK to threaten, assault and and even murder - so long as the person you are threatening is someone who scares you. Is that it?

So it's really, Fear (irrational or otherwise) Trump Love. Got it. I'll try and keep it straight for next time.

And at least we now know why Liberals are all saying such idiotic things that are directly contradictory to their core arguments.

Monday, January 23, 2017

- How To Make More (American) Babies

I fully support this solution. I don't care that it was German.

- The Talk (Non Fired Version)

In a way John Derbyshire has done more for the Alt-Right than anyone else, just by getting fired. There is no event in recent political history that so galvanized the thinkers and writers of the Alt-Right, than his unjust termination by National Review. People who barely know him are REALLY angry about this, I've seen it. If I go to an event and tell people he's a friend of mine, people get a fire in their eyes discussing it.

I'm sorry I'm only now coming up on this, but this is another RamZPaul version of that talk (featuring his own son) which is worth watching.

- One For The Commute

RamZPaul on the Dark Enlightenment. It's worth watching in spite of his campy comedy.

- Speaking Of Jared Taylor

I knocked that last post out pretty quickly and rereading it, I find it comes across a little hard on Jared. I like Jared. No one knows more about the issue of immigration or has spent more time discussing it. What's more, he's done it with more courage than almost everyone. All I'm saying is that it's time for the message to be modified slightly. It's time to go back, in my opinion, to once again return to the core arguments. My issue is with his presentation only not his content. And his presentation is only what it is because he's been out there in the wilderness for so long. But I'm quite certain he'll clean up pretty good now that it's all coming back inside.

Here's a clip below when he went on Donahue to discuss it. It's actually very enlightening because virtually all the things he's talking about have since come to pass, and we no longer believe the nonsense offered by Mr. Donahue and his audience about how immigrants come here because they love us. Now we know better.

If that were really so, then there is no reason for us to continue offering any social services to illegal immigrants. Pull the plug. Give them emergency medical care only, and deport them the minute they're healed. If we did that, we wouldn't need to deport anyone. All our recent immigrants would self-deport, and the problem would be solved.

Anyway, here is that Donahue Video where Jared toughs it out with the deep thinkers of the left. You really have to admire the pair on him.

- It's Time To Encourage Leftist Apostacy

The left has really lost it's mind - even for the left. Their leaders are elderly and in the wilderness. Their rank and file are setting fires, getting thrown off airplanes, and shooting each other. This is not politics as usual.

President Trump is watching them driven before him, and listening to the lamentation of their women. The media is still fighting him the best they can, but team Trump has mentioned plans to 'rotate' access in the press room, so that's obviously going to change too.

"But Tom" I hear you say, "This is all political talk. You don't like writing about politics anymore."

That's very true oh faithful reader. Here's why I mention it.

Easy times make weak men, which make hard times, which makes strong men. For the right, it looks (on the surface anyway) like in spite of chuck Schumer's lonely and pathetic attempts to hold back the tide, this is going to be an easy time. We'll get judges, regulatory rollback, tax reform, immigration enforcement, gun rights. The only debate is the order of their arrival. We're going to get all the things we hope for. And that will make us weak, just like the left is now.

Trump is bound to disappoint. It's inevitable. And if he disappoints enough then we're going to get another Obama. Maybe someone like Corey Booker. And when we do, it will be the liberals who go door to door looking for the first born son of every conservative household to slaughter to their gods. Trump reform could be washed away just as quickly as Obama 'hope and change'.

And the only way this will ever be any different is if we win the war of ideas. Trump may be many things. But he will never, ever, be a big 'ideas' President.

I've been out here on the far right for a long time. And I've listened to men I greatly respect draw support from the fringes. Wanna hear a lucid and literate guy draw support from the fringe? Listen to one of Jarred Taylor's speeches at the Amren conference. He's no firebrand, and he's not the evil demon that the left portrays him as. But he's accustomed to getting his support from outside the mainstream.

The language and messaging required to draw support from the middle is different than that. It should be more basic. Simpler. It should stick to obvious and comparatively inoffensive truths. Truths that can't inevitably be reconciled with the progressive narrative. It should focus on the underlying fabric of the entire idea set with the goal of inching people away from the left. And to do that, it should be framed in a manner that most people who don't care much about politics are accustomed to hearing.

In my view dialectic questions would be the best format. For example:

If we really are a multi-cultural society that means people behave differently. So what's wrong with recognizing that blacks and whites think, feel, and behave very differently on a variety of subjects?

If they do behave differently, then what's wrong with saying that some small aspect of that behavior, like the propensity of young black men to commit crime at rates far above other groups - above black women, above older black men, and above other groups in general - isn't bad for both their broader community and themselves?

A progression of question along these lines makes the discussion much more palatable to the center. Much more so than saying 'blacks commit more crime than whites" which is true, but just doesn't go down well in many circles.

What we need to do to give the Trump changes legs, is to change the minds of the liberals who right now, are busy watching their religion collapse after the eviction of their high priest. And the only goal we should have in that discussion, is persuading them to open their eyes to the true nature of things, and get them to recognize that the truth was never something they ever really needed to be afraid of.

I desperately hope that the ideas of the Alt-Right that are based on facts, become a part of a broader mainstream right. But to convince people of them we need to stop focusing on shock value and start focusing on incrementalism. The slow and methodical persuasion of the majority of America. The left will never be more angry, more disheartened, or more hopeless than they are right now. That's the time to try to win converts by reminding them that they never had to be afraid of us.