Free men are not equal, equal men are not free.

Monday, July 31, 2017

A Little Bit of Jeffro

Since Jeffro often posts odd thoughts to Google+ and not just to his own (less and less frequently posted) blog or the Castalia House blog, so odd bits of wisdom often slip in that don't show up elsewhere.

That's fine, but one thing came up that should be seen by other people, so...

Jeffro, after looking back at the last month of his working on fitness:
* My fitness philosophy: get your butt to the gym... three days a week... for 45 minute workouts... even if it's just to sit on the curb to smoke a cigarette during that time. Just do that much and everything else will take care of itself.

* There a lot of noise to sift through on this topic, a lot of well meaning people will steer you towards injury so take responsibility for everything, go slow, and pay attention to your body. My first instinct was to do three sets of ten as hard as I could stand it. I am certain that would have eventually wrecked me had I stuck to it. I dialed back to 2 sets of twenty set at right where I could handle it... and that kept me on the weight machines without noticeable risk (for the moment.) I tried changing it up to 2 sets of twenty, 1 set of 10, 1 set of 3... increasing the weights each time. But for my frame, my age, and my level of unfitness, this "get in there and max out" mentality just doesn't seem to be an option.

* The idea that I am "training" as opposed to "dieting" is a significant reframe. For one... dieting is for women and for womanly reasons. Training is inherently more comprehensive and more visionary. An entirely different tone overtakes the conversation when you open with "no thank you, I'm training" than when you say "no thank you, I'm on a diet." The former person is going after something. The latter... he was put under time out because he couldn't behave.

* My mental models of what is happening and why develop as I continue. Eating right is part of the workout. Resting is part of the workout. Taking time to go to the doctor is part of the workout. Brainstorming about fitness with people is part of the workout.

* One month of working out has had enough noticable impact on my appearance that continuing the habit is a no-brainer. I am not beach body ready, but having a more defined physique makes me look better in a t-shirt. No, there are plenty of athletic guys that I will never catch up to. But when I see lanky guys slouching on the bus, that defeated posture, that vibe that the give off of having let themselves go...? It's a stark contrast. I give off a much more active vibe. I feel better. I go out more, talk to more people, do more things. It's like... I'm in some kind of arena that these other guys won't touch. No one will tell them what they're missing out on and how easy it would be for them to have it.

* That said... I know why I didn't do this earlier. Injuries put an end to every fitness kick I've gone on previously. I went further and did more this time than any time previously, but I still needed solid direction and sound medical support in order to maintain this round. So you've got a gym membership, you're looking at buying a new bike, you're paying for red meat and spending time cooking, and then you want to throw doctor's bills into the mix, too...? The much vaunted "humility" that so many people want to lay at my door would exert itself strenuously against this. "Look, focusing on appearance is vanity." "Why go to the gym when I could just dig a few post holes?" "Oh, look... I'm not worth the expense. Here... you all take this slice of the budget and go do that other thing instead."

* What is the mindset at the root of that? Well that's where it gets scary, because I see it now for what it is. It is this reflexive tendency to insist on sitting in the back of the bus. To let everyone else go ahead of me, not out of a sense of chivalry but out of some kind of shame. It's a weird attempt to make a virtue of sitting out of the game of life rather than jumping into it and making a play. That's why success at fitness now makes me so angry. It's just not that hard. The payoffs are immediate and fun and energizing. But the thing that was holding me back for decades...? It was something in my head. Nice sounding lies. I don't know who to blame for it, really. But I absolutely hate it. The waste makes me furious.

* And yes, when I think of all the young guys struggling with any sort of strain of depression... it does make me angry that they will be handed some kind of drugs without ever being told to go invest in themselves. Such a disaster. Such a waste. 
Among other things, I think the focus on "training" vs "dieting" is, shile seemingly small and subtle, trivial even, nevertheless profound.

One is working toward something, the other is denying yourself. It goes hand in hand with what Jordan Peterson has said about establishing a narrative or purpose that makes the suffering worthwhile.

On a smaller note, our successors are getting red-pilled:
My son got a report on this from someone that was there. Kid says Trump said the media would lie about he was going to say. He comes back home, checks the news and... boom. Kid's mind is blown. Everything Trump said came true. This event red pilled a lot of young kids who were (for the Left) the worst group of people that could possibly be red pilled. This will bear fruit. A good chunk of these kids know that "Fake News" is absolutely an accurate characterization of the media.
Related to this:

Friday, July 28, 2017

No Spoilers?

Bradford Walker discusses using spoilers as a method to avoid wasting time on crap.
In many cases, the summaries are sufficiently thorough that I can discuss the work in question with people who've consumed it and not miss a beat. (This is a reliable tell regarding the work in question, and often of its fandom.) Letting others talk has done far more to tell me that I was right to go with the spoiler and skip it than to convince me otherwise. Using spoilers as a screen allows me to avoid most of the crap.

At first I was surprised by the title, but realized that dammit, I do the same thing, almost.

I don't go out of my way to find spoilers unless the trailers and marketing have social justice/message fic "tells", but I certainly don't go out of my way to avoid them. Good movies, stories, and shows bear rereading or watching (say, The Usual Suspects) even after you know the "surprise" twist. "Twists" in social justice crap almost always involve exactly what one would think even if the exact method or lines of dialog are open to different verbiage.

As Walker implied, the works in question aren't really that imaginative, and the stories and themes are far more repetitive than anything Ms Grundy or the church ladies would impose.

The most egregious example being an episode of L&O:SJW (more commonly known as the longest running fantasy series "SVU") where on seeing the trailer I predicted a) this would be the one time a guy was falsely accused of rape (because he's black), they wouldn't punish the women, and the old white guy who was his manager / whatever would somehow turn out to be the bad guy. How did I know? Repeat after me... because if there's a straight white guy he's somehow responsible for everything, and if it looks like there's a black bad guy, he's not.

But I'd argue that Dune, while Excellent, is overrated, and I'd instead put Mote in Gods Eye (I know, I know, YMMV)

Girl Friday

Time for the weekend.

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Based Shatner

William Shatner of Star Trek fame has, in addition to his work on Star Trek, his Star Trek work after the show, his other TV shows, one of the most memorable Twilight Zone characters, and a few reasonably OK Sci Fi novels, has also shown a willingness to stand up to PC nonsense that other cast members notably have not.

So recently he’s punched back against the idiots ruining the already smoking wreckage of Star Wars.
Yes, he punched back at Chuck Wendig. That's not the only SJW doing work for Star Wars that's punched at Shatner, and Shatner--showing that he knows the Internet better than younger folks young enough to be his grandchildren--reveals that he's based by his response. (Oh, and apparently he knows the Three Laws of SJWs by heart also.)
I’m buying shares in popcorn.

Wednesday, July 26, 2017


Peter Grant has published two pieces the auto industry, and the issues it's likely to see in the near future.

From "Proof the US Auto Industry is in Serious Trouble":
We've already seen how the US auto industry (and Europe's, too, for that matter) is threatened by a tidal wave of vehicles coming off lease over the next few years, as well as technological obsolescence.  Used car prices are predicted to drop by as much as 50% over the next few years, which will undoubtedly force new car prices to decrease as well - otherwise few will be willing to pay them, since the new-to-used differential will be so great. 
There's another reason why vehicle prices are going to have to drop.  It looks as if many of us are struggling to afford them at any cost.
He then follows that up with more evidence - including pictures of used car inventory parked in overflow lots like airport runways, etc.

I can speak first hand to some of this as my three cars now are as follows: a 98, a 2000, and a 2008. In large part because the two older ones still work and so why replace them, and well...

Had a 2002 car with 140k miles that got sandwiched in an accident. No worries, found a used 2000 of the same basice body style and less miles for less than the insurance company paid me. Then the previous 2000 car, a fairly nice luxury model of german make cleared 200k miles and finally, finally, a couple years back, gave up the ghost so hard on the transmission that it would literally cost more to fix the car than the blue book value to purchase it - if one could be found.

Unlike the previous totaled car, no such luck. Also, still recovering from the double whammy of clients closing their doors after the 2008 collapse, and kids medical bills, didn't have cash on hand for something we could trust. So went for a reliable Japanese make from the late 2000's, and will be getting the loan for that cleared within the next year as I've overpaid it every month.

In the meantime, I've observed:
  • Better gas mileage from V6 cars from the mid 90's than modern, "efficient" four cylinders. A lot of the blame here is on weight - all of the extra airbags and safety equipment - despite the better efficiency and horsepower for the engine size.
  • Used car prices go up, and new car prices go up far, far faster. Thanks to cash for clunkers killing the available pool the prices have been driven up on anything remotely reliable. Even if I wanted a new car vice a recent model used, it will be a while before I see the point in spending that kind of money for the latest gadgets. 
  • Used car places - especially the more reputable, new-dealer style ones like Carmax -  are selling cars like hotcakes, with financing, because poeple don't want to have a clunker, but end up in debt for 4-5 years on a car that is often out of warranty, and needs repairs on systems, no matter how reliable the brand, before it's even paid off.
  • Frankly, the market for $2-4000 vehicles is at best a crapshoot, with poor maintenance, falling off body parts, failed accessories, etc. being the norm.
  • While we're on failed accessories - one other reason I hate new cars. Sure, the gadgets are cool, and so are power locks, but I've tolerated one flaky door lock on the 200k car that finally died for it's last few years (hey, got 15 out of it), and seen power windows, locks, radios, climate controls, and other electronics and motor-related things go out on cars. The more parts or complexity you add, the more things there are to go wrong. Thank god consistency of manufacture has kept the failure rate fairly low.
  • Repairs have gotten hideously expensive. The V6 I specifically drove was a friend's Intrepid from the mid/late 90's. Comfortable, adequate power, handled well, and better mileage than many early 2000's economy cars. That said, Chrysler learned the wrong lesson from its then -merger with Daimler-Benz. One of the two cooling fans went out. They were no longer manufactured as separate fans but a combined unit, and the cheapest I could find for a replacement fan set was $500. By comparison, a '92 Saturn cost me all of $150 parts and labor to replace the fan.
  • Stupid design choices. I'm specifically looking at Dodge and Chevy here. I've climbed into smaller Kia's that felt less claustrophobic, and Dodge's have developed a knack for placing sharp angles right where my knees rest.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Be Afraid. aka The Children Are the Future

The elft is going nuts over the boy scouts, 40k strong, cheering the president on at the national jamboree:
Trump could barely make it through his prepared speech as it was regularly interrupted by shouts from the audience. One scout yelling “I love you” to the president sent the crowd into the aforementioned chant. Trump applauded their efforts and asked, “Did President Obama ever come to a Jamboree?” 
The crowd jeered loudly and Trump promised to come back again.
They're terrified. That's 40 thousand kids, many of whom will grow up not being leftists and good little progs. Some hilights of the speech below:

As an aside, remember when "the children are the future" (teach them well, etc..) - odd, in retrospect, from a crowd that uniformly seems to believe that children are an inconvenience, and that hedonism, feminism, and promoting gay and hedonistic lifestyles, all without kids, is the order of the day.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Dunkirk, and Other Things

First, saw Dunkirk on Friday, because Nolan. Not much to add to the commentary I'll link to, but it is an excellent movie. Nolan not only explores his fascinationwith time and playing with it, but immerses us in a tight, visceral story of men trying to survive, and if not drawing victory from the jaws of defeat, then salvation and hope from the jaws of utter annihilation.

I'm becoming convinced between the Batman movies, Interstellar, and Dunkirk, that, while Nolan has certainly avoided signaling "I'm not a liberal" (hey, look at the people in his movies and some of them are still welcome on Colbert to promote his stuff), he nevertheless unabashedly stands for western civilization and its virtues.

Castalia house discusses it, as well as the Chicago Boys. Daddy Warpig also discusses it (and why, sadly, Valerian is best avoided) in the latest geek gab (below):

Long and the short for Valerian is don't.

Castalia's also discusses Office Space.

Walker discusses how Harmony Gold is being a bunch of greedy dicks:
The time for a Robotech feature-film was, oh, 1989. Not 2017, 2018, or whatever. Harmony Gold tried thrice to keep this ball rolling: Robotech: The Movie (where the Megazone 23 stuff got added), Robotech II: The Sentinels (it could've been good), and Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles (failed pilot). The problem is always the same: the original fanbase found the original series and transfered fandom loyalties to them, so they didn't care about the new stuff.

The music of the original series is superior. The stories of the original series are superior. The sequels for the one original series that actually took off, globally, are far superior. The only reason that the current tabletop RPG has any fans is due to the ease of using the product line as a defacto TRPG for those original series; the new stuff gets used only as fodder for those really into Genesis Climber MOSPEADA. (Or as fodder for RIFTS.)

In short, there's no "there" there anymore. No one who's come into anime since the boom of the 1990s will give a shit about this live-action adaptation. No one overseas will care either, so there's no market for it. This isn't a film project; this is a tax write-off that allows some folks to collect a check and discharge a contract. We just get a film as collateral damage.
I liked the Mospeada segment, but Southern Cross was, frankly, forgettable. Megazone 23 was nifty though, both parts 1 and 2.

Last, but not least, the Didact discusses gym etiquitte and the people you may meet there, with video.
To be as fair as possible, just about every serious lifter started out as one of those clowns in the beginning. That, in and of itself, is fine. We all started out somewhere, we all made mistakes. We learned from them, adapted, and overcame. That is how things should be in the gym.

For those gym newbies who are just starting out and honestly do want to improve and gain strength and mass and power, I have nothing but sympathy and respect.

However, that respect is contingent upon your attempts to improve your form, your lifts, and your general approach to fitness. Continue making the same stupid mistakes with regard to form and etiquette, or continue to disobey the Commandments of the Lord of Iron, and do not be surprised if the rest of us simply respond with scorn and derision.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Hammers and Sickles

Standing behind a banner with a hammer and sickle is no better nor any different than standing behind a banner with the swastika.
- Jordan Peterson
The other day I was walking through a parking lot near a client's office when I stumbled into an older car that caught my eye (because I have one, so of course I noticed it) and as I walked past, I saw a familiar logo stickered onto the dashboard.

Turns out this southeastern state does indeedy have an Antifa organization.

So I started doing some digging. Soon enough I dug up the respective facebook page and a few other associated sites, and what was rapidly obvious from teh social media presence was that roughly half of the members displayed a hammer and sickle in their profile name or image.

Yeah, I know, if it weren't so fucked up that a bunch of communists dare to lecture others on their moral failings given the blood on communism's hands, it would be funny to see people so ignorant or arrogant. I'm sure they believe they'll get it right. This time. Really.

Just in time for this, Sargon takes a look at an attempt to enlist blue collar working class people into the communist cause (and how they lie about being from all ideologies including conservative and libertarian).

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

One Soul at a Time

The Didact writes on how taking the red pill has saved souls and lives, and may yet save civilization.
Perhaps the most severe consequence of "taking the red pill", or "waking up", or whatever you prefer to call it, is that you usually undergoes a deep personal crisis in which just about every core belief that you have ever held comes into question.

I've written about this before; as with everything else in life, choices have consequences, and the consequences can be deeply unpleasant at first.

You will lose friends. You will alienate family members. You will antagonise your colleagues and coworkers. You will find that your patience for the stupid shit that everyone around you says and does goes straight out the window. You will realise that women are, fundamentally, seekers of resources and security, and this will colour your views of them from that day forward.

You will start to see the massive con job that has been perpetuated for decades at your own expense. You will realise that everything that you were taught about how society is supposed to work is simply wrong.

You will realise that school didn't teach you very much of value. You will find that your university-stamped diploma is almost surely worth less than the paper it was printed on. Most of you will begin to comprehend that the long, slow, grinding climb up the corporate ladder will destroy your soul, and that you are nothing much more than a number and a warm body sitting in a seat to the bean-counters upstairs.
I know it was painful to me. There are aspects I'm still taking in, and my largest regret was not finding it sooner, taking it sooner.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

I first heard about this despicable practice when the author Dean Koontz detailed it in Dark Rivers of the Heart. Peter Grant on asset forfeiture:
The whole problem with civil asset forfeiture is that it requires the citizen to prove a negative - i.e. to prove that the asset(s) in question are not the result of criminal activity.  Trouble is, in courts of law, the normal standard is that the prosecution has to prove its claims.  It's not up to the defendant to disprove them - rather, the defendant has only to show that the prosecution's claims are impossible, or untrue, or unprovable due to alternative explanations of fact.  The prosecution can't simply claim, "You're a thief/murderer/whatever", and expect the defendant to prove them wrong.  However, that's precisely the logic behind civil asset forfeiture.  The State makes the claim, and then - without having to prove it - proceeds to confiscate the asset(s) that it alleges were financed through the claimed illegal activity.  Their owner must then prove that the State is wrong before he or she can reclaim the asset(s) - at his or her expense.  Many can't afford that expense. 
This is immoral on a fundamental level.  

Monday, July 17, 2017

Surviving a Single Mom

Excellent article at Men of the West.
My mother began a pattern of expelling and eliminating people from her life. In this she had form with her own family. Friends, co-workers, neighbors, it didn’t matter who it was. Eventually they would all do something to “betray her” and then they were cast out of her life, never to be spoken of again except to belittle and humiliate them. 
Looking back I am convinced that she had equal parts bipolar disorder and chronic narcissism. The nadair for me occurred when I was 11, when my parents were still together. I was being badly bullied at school and my parents had not provided me with the skills to deal with the situation. Somehow my mother found out and all hell broke loose. She marched into the school the next day, a private Catholic boys school, and she set it on fire in a figuritative sense. The school went into blind panic mode while I watched on helplessly as my world crumbled around me. Back at home she was triumphant at how brilliant she had been, at how she had “given them what for”. She would extol her brilliance in this matter for years to come.
You don't even need as rabid a single mom as this example to have a complete high-anxiety mess on the verge of BPD or NPD.

Friday, July 14, 2017

Taking Joy in Petty Hurts

There is a lot of material to mine regarding the reactions on the left to the latest "Muh Russia" kerfluffle. Feel free to take a look at what Stefan Molyneux, and Scott Adams, among others have had to say.

What I want to talk about is something else. Stefan alludes to it. It's something I've seen when looking at the latest Colbert episodes to gauge the mood and talking points (dishonest, one-sided, hypocritical, etc. as always). It's something I've seen in others around (I've mentioned that I'm in a pretty blue area of an otherwise red state).

I wouldn't call it joy.


There's something small and petty about it.

Think to the scene in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe where Aslan was killed.

They didn't just kill him. They tried to humilate him. They tormented him in small and petty ways while taking joy and pleasure in the downfall. They went out of their way to add to the pain. It was nothing new to human nature of course - as the same aspect of humanity has been observed since at least biblical days.

The left of course believe Trump is evil and incompetent, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary (I'm amazed they can still keep that movie running in parallel but then they buy into socialism. Homeschool or die). So perhaps they take it as deserved schadenfreude, but, especially in the case of Colbert, it's not just joy that something embarassing happened to Trump or his associates, he's piling on, getting in a few kicks for good measure. The more I watch the more convinced I am that he's a small, petty, snake, and not simply a dishonest hack.

It's not enough that someone failed - or is perceived to fail.

No, he's gotta give them a little extra push when they're already falling.

And I realize that there are people I considered at least friendly acquaintances that lap this shit up. And laugh.

He's not funny.

No, it's not just the politics. That snortable chocolate stuff? he made fun of that. No, it's not the fact he made fun of it (or tried) - if there was ever a product or its promoter destined to be mocked, that was it - it's that the jokes were painful, predictable, exactly the same kind of crap he says about politics.

He had a font of endless humor handed to him on a silver platter, and pulled the equivalent of striking out in tee ball.

He's a small man, and nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is.

Was it Right?

Vox Day commented on a recent Darkstream that one should always be willing to use the uncivilized tactics of a leftist or SJW against them. This is of course straight out of game theory - tit for tat. Something that I've discussed in the past fits into the Christian version of the golden rule, that you can take how other people treat you as a sign of what they consider acceptable behavior, and that if you tolerate abuse and being taken advantage of, that is what you declare as acceptable.

Stefan Molyneux recently released a video on Pinochet and Chile. As usual, it's excellent. I'd forgotten that his takeover was nearly unique in that the parliament literally voted to have him take over to put down Allende and teh communists that had run the country into the ground.

One of the points that ends up being covered, of course, are the abuses byPinochet of human rights - secret arrests and helicopter rides, and the question is brought up as to whether or not it was right. Stefan of course brings up that while it was wrong to do these things, the stark difference between the body counts of any socialist takeover, and that of Pinochet, especially when combined with the knowledge that the communists were planning on killing far more, and the praise that the left has for mass murderers like Che and Castro, are stunning.

I'd like to present a different view.

Like Stefan, I agree that it is wrong to murder someone in cold blood.

But was it cold blood?

Let's leave aside the relative body counts. I 'm not going to argue how much better only killing 2000 people is than 200,000, or two million, or 20 million.

Communism, marxism, socialism, progressivism, are evil, are all death cults. Post modernism is their offspring and completes the process of killing the mind and the soul.

It's been noted that post-modernists only care about power and value nothing else. It's been noted that leftists only care about rights when they can use them against others, as they value no such thing in and of itself. The Weather underground in all seriousness discussed having to put a quarter of teh US population in death camps, and communist governments regularly kill off their own people in "peacetime" to the tune of doube digits.

I'd argue that simply being a marxist, a progressive, a socialist, marks you as either a well meaning but ignorant believer of platitudes, or a broken person perfectly happy to excuse a hundred million or more "broken eggs."

The die hard ones are, of course, always revolutionaries, trying to colonize and subvert everything they can.

So when you end up having to go to de-facto war to throw out communist revolutionaries who are perfectly happy to rob banks, kill politicians, beat and intimidate and even butcher their neighbors, and have no concern for your rights, all for their cause, then they've declared the same rules apply to them.

If they don't like it, tough.

No, it's not a step taken lightly, but one must remember reprisals exist in the laws of war for a reason. Not all choices are between good and bad, but between which is the greater evil, and if one will allow petty tyrants to slaughter and oppress them and their loved ones.

And yes, one should take steps that you don't catch the innocent and "disappear" them as well.

Pinochet was at war with people who'd already made clear their disdain for niceties as human rights, no matter what the converged media, academia, and news here say.

The hard choice, the ugly choice, may have very well been the only moral choice.

Girl Friday

Another Friday, another posting. Have a good weekend guys.

Thursday, July 13, 2017

On Lawfare

The Zman has an excellent post on lawfare and how it breaks society.
That’s the other aspect of lawfare. It is uncivilized. Into the Middle Ages, tribes in Europe still practiced the wergeld. This was the price put upon a man’s life based on his rank. If a rich man killed a poor man, by accident or on purpose, he could pay the victims family in gold for the value of his life. You can see how this can quickly get out of hand. Not only would rich people feel free to kill inconvenient poor people, they would be tempted to kill their families too. No family to pay, means to no wergeld to pay.

That’s what we have with lawfare. Instead of the law determining if a crime has been committed and then determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, the process is about determining the price of this woman’s honor, as it were. In the future, the courts may be forced to post prices for posting revenge porn so that angry ex-boyfriends know in advance the risk of hitting send. At the same time, young women will now know what they can get for agreeing to be filmed having sex with that guy they picked up at the bar.
Go read the whole thing.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

A Reminder - SJW's Lie

A bit on Cobert caught my attention for so egregiously slamming Trump, and Mika and Joe being on, and the level of "but I was only just", "but they were only just", and recasting what has happened - say, regarding judge Curiel, was astounding.

I could go on and on, but I won't.

But a reminder - they lie.

A smaller example. This is less for the "oh boy they lie, grr....." but to show you how totally and brazenly they'd lie, and because the videos by Peterson, like damn near everything of his, are well worth watching.

A week or two back I stupidly got stuck in a small flame back and forth over something that was a total tangent to the main point of the article. I'd mentioned that Jordan Peterson had illustrated why the philosophy of the left inevitably lead to the kind of violence the OP posted about, and a commenter started going on "enough about Peterson", "He's a troll", "he never read the law", "it doesn't mean what he says it means," and so forth.

While I allowed myself to get sucked into the tangent argument, compleat with the bullshit line that just because supporters misinterpret the law doesn't mean the law will be enforced like that, I figured he was lying. Even simply based on his later, shorter statements, having looked at the bill C-16 myself, and the law it modified, it was obvious he was spot on.

Having only seen Peterson's later, shorter, statements, I simply had no idea how completely this person had lied, though.

Here's the video that got Peterson in trouble. There's one immediately following it chronologically that goes into the re-education camp, er, "sensitivity training" that part of the campus administration was being mandated to take, as well, that I'm skipping over.

You have to wait a bit before he gets started, but he reads through and parses not only the law in detail, but then applies it to the existing law it modifies and reads that, and then applies it in accordance to how similar laws have already been applied. He spends nearly an hour going over the law and it's impact bit by little bit.

The social justice contingent among the students reply accordingly.

And then, as predicted, the University responds:


He has read the law despite blatant lies that he "obviously has done no such thing", and parsed it in detail.

He applied the law in accordance with current cultural trends, and predicted the reply he actually got. It's worth noting that, as even Peterson remarks, the reaction by the university and students is possibly the strongest affirmation of how utterly correct he was that you could get.

The reply he got wasn't simply by some "ignorant supporters" but by the college administration, almost assuredly after consulting with their legal department.

The proof is there for anyone to see, but they won't see it, and if they can see it, they will not admit it.

In the end, here was his reply.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

The Servile State

Over at the Zblog, the Z man has a few thoughts on what happens when you combine the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism.
The result is that the business is forced to hire people it may not wish to hire, but the state also dictates to labor how and when they can sell their labor. Put another way, the poor are forced to serve the rich, but the rich are forced to be generous to the poor, looking out for their welfare. It is a social contract enforced at the barrel of a gun. It has the inequality of capitalism and the lack of political liberty inherent in socialism. The Servile State is the worst elements of both economic systems.

Belloc could not see what was coming in the post-war era and he certainly had no idea what was coming with the technological revolution and the explosion of neo-liberal globalism. He was prescient, however, with regards to how English economic systems would evolve over time. Look around at the modern world and you see the world he described as the inevitable result of “reformed capitalism.” Today, employers hire whole teams of people who makes sure the rich and powerful follow the rules.

What’s been missing in the technological age is the other half of the equation. As the West de-industrialized, the enforcement of labor laws have fallen away. Masses of helot labor brought over from Asia into Silicon Valley, for example, worked under agreements they struck with the business owners. Tech companies love open borders as it gives them a loophole to avoid some of the constraints of the Servile State. The same is true at the unskilled end, where companies rely upon masses of labor from Latin America.
Go read the whole thing.

Monday, July 10, 2017

A Little Covfefe Downrange (For Fun and Profit)

I first saw this over at Peter Grant's blog.

Now, other than being cool, If true (the article I found at the Daily Caller leads me to believe it likely is and not a photoshop) I think this is actually pretty important.

First, I'm a little surprised, given the state of sensitivity training over 15 years ago when I got out, that some sensitivity commisar hasn't stomped out the morale of some serviceman over this.

Second, it shows a love for the president. Why? Because this isn't just a cool word he said, but a flub. A serviceman is willing to take a president's typo and use it as a rallying call. They're willing to accept his mistakes that show him to be human.

Finally, can anyone out there imagine people stenciling a catchphrase of President Obama on their tanks?

Update: Someone pointed out that it's feasible someone would use "hope and change" for a similar decoration, but no-one in their right mind would interpret that as anythiing but mockery. As in "Sir, we hope to change our targets into many small, fast-moving pieces..."

Thursday, July 6, 2017

It's Just Business, Man (Projection)

One thing that finally caught my interest from the Sargon video I posted about the other day.

Right at 4:25 you get:
"But, all the nice cutesy ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school, you're just like, that's adorable. That's adorable. This is a business.
Hoe many times in any given movie or show episode it the bad guy a businessman? How often have you heard the line uttered by said businessman: "It's nothing personal, it's just business."

We know SJW's - and to a lesser extend, libs - project, but how often do you it so clearly shown? They think businessmen stole everything, that "ethics" have no place in business, so of course they write such characters, and of course they cannot be trusted to tell the truth (SJW's always lie).

Update: I wrote this last night to post this morning, but apparently the thought has been in other people's minds as well. In discussing why you never hire SJW's one user suggested, in reply to a possible 4th law that SJW's always need meds:
I prefer "SJWs always steal."

Why do they think that businesses are just big bags of money waiting to be redistributed?

Because that's how they handle other people's money.

One thing I've seen SJWs do at various enterprises, for-profit and nonprofit, is divert money to remodeling their offices, leasing cars ("for official business," which includes their personal business), conducting "offsite team building events" at expensive resorts, et cetera.

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

More Fireworks! aka CNN Dun Fucked Up

While Stefan gives his usual excellent overview, in this instance I think Sargon of Akkad gives just enough needed backstory. Oh, and Razorfist displays his usual vulgar eleoquence.

(Update - it's unsure at this time whther the person who created the original GIF was a minor or not. Some rumors indicate yes, but there exists reason to believe this is not the case. This in no way makes it better because we either have CNN ruining the life of a minor before he even graduates, or, since the altrnative is very possibly a middle aged guy with a family, destroying the career of an adult with a family to support.)

(Update 2 - The Didact made a nice post on this too, with a handy graphic pointing to a handful of CNN Advertisers)

Frankly, other than discovering a vast, depthless well of shadenfreude I hadn't previously been aware of, I can't add much to the conversation. I'm in awe, the degree to which they managed to score an own goal. I don't think "Leeeeeeerooooooy Jenkins!" begins to cover it.

A couple fun memes and gif's were found though, and I've added a couple myself, though I suspect mine aren't up to the same degree of quality.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Happy 4th!

No, no deep essays on the nature of freedom, or kvetching about how our country seems to be balkanizing.

Just a sincere wish that everyone who reads this is able to spend some time with friends and family, and enjoy themselves and the day.

Insanity is in the Mirror

Brad Walker has a nice compilation of reactions from Vox Day, Sargon of Akkad, and a few observations himself on the total media freakout over Trumps wrestling tweet.

For that matter, Scott Adams covered it in his periscope. TLDR: It's embarassing and juvenile, but effective, and - entirely coinceidentally, of course - exactly the right bit of persuasion to make the media shriek and look like idiots while getting a laugh from his supporters. He also describes it as Trump handing the media the rope, and the instructions on how to hang themselves, then watching them proceed to do so.

I'm going to leave aside the easy targets for "projection" though - all the calls for violence on the left that were dismissed as "just art".

Instead, Pelosi appears to be losing her mind/getting dementia. This is not the first case of her losing context in front of a crowd.

But the left, and the media, of course is harping about how Trump is insane, and unfit for office.

Yet we're still, especially in academia, seeing an utter and ongoing collapse in common sense. A Stanford professor prattles on about how calling your homework easy is microagression in yet another case of "I can't meet that standard so it's a criticism of me, it's all about meeeee".

But Trump is insane.

Perhaps it's less projection than they are so far from wisdom they think it's insanity?

On another note, Today's Dilbert cartoon is fun.

Monday, July 3, 2017

DIlbert, and "Toppers" (and Braggarts)

Peter Grant shows off a recent Dilbert Cartoon at his blog, about "toppers." I used to call them one-upsmen. Everything they had was bigger, better, etc., ad nauseum. The worst example I could think of you couldn't mention your car, your boat, your fishing rod, your computer, etc.without him going on and on about how much more awesome of one he had. Always back home, never where we could see it.

He didn't make it through a second run underway without being transferred off.

John Wick Chapter 2. Again

I know, I know, he can be slow to get around to a movie, but the Didact finally saw John Wick 2 and despite having his mind blown, enough of it survived to write about it.
There isn't a single wasted moment in it. There is not one scene that does not bristle with energy and is not stylishly shot. There is not one action sequence that is anything less than jaw-dropping.

About the only flaw that I can find in the movie is that maybe the characters are not particularly well developed or interesting- but that is because, one way or another, they are all going to get killed to death by the walking incarnation of the boogey man himself, John Wick.

Speaking of the titular character- I don't know how Keanu Reeves has managed this late-stage career change, but whatever voodoo hoodoo he do, it's bloody well working.

Long gone are the days when you could think of Keanu Reeves as the stoner chucklehead from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Gone, too, are the days when you could think of him as just another good-looking square-jawed Hollywood action hero from Speed.
I'll also note I find the title - "Chapter 2" of interest. While it could simply be a stylish way to designate the sequel without using a cheesy title ("Die Harder") or just the number, there's a theory going around places like Geek Gab, and from the structure of the two films, I give it credence, that there is an overarching story here. The second certainly sets up not only a future sequel but - giving enough of a climax to close out the movie - puts the pieces in play to finish an arguably ongoing story that ties neatly into the first.

Also, as the Didcat points out, there's an excellent writeup at Return of Kings. There are few films I consider "perfect" or nearly so, where everything fits, even the twists, where the acting just works, and the characters, editing, what is show on screen is done with absolutely minimum waste of time and a maximum of information, regardless of whether it pushes the boundaries of cinema or not. One for me is the Usual Suspects. One that looks like it may plant itself there is the recent Baby Driver. the first John Wick is also one.