Thursday, October 31, 2013

Pfizer, The Dignity of Age

"The dignity of age... the wisdom of experience... the pleasures of reflection - these are but a few of the blessings that come with the passing of the years."

A simple and elegant ad about the wonders of Pfizer's miracle drugs from when Americans were not afraid of growing up and growing older. This ad explains how those golden years have grown in number due to Pfizer. Drugs for physical and mental ailments, but so that even in old age, you can take on the mighty Redwoods. They stand strong forever and so can you. Gauging the crowd at a senior apartment complex or seeing the empty visiting rooms at nursing homes, old age does not happen with much dignity anymore. What percent of the elderly over 80 have a quality of life you'd want? How many of those miserably still alive are alive due to the miracle drugs of Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Merck? Remove the drugs and how long do they last? My grandmother lived as a shell for the last year or so, and once the daily maintenance medication was removed for her myriad of ailments, she lasted one week. They lost a good customer there.

The economist and conspiracy theorist in me will say Big Pharma created many drugs as a wealth transfer from the incredibly wealthy, aging GI Generation to their pockets rather than their families. It's more likely the compounding of the best intentions. With the best intentions, medicines were created. With the best intentions, they were sold to wealthy customers. With the best intentions, we covered more through Medicare so it was not just rich old people who enjoyed the benefits and pharma firms received more income (not quite "covered" as states claw back for some meds). With the best intentions, families put parents through the wringer. To cite the Pfizer tagline, these months or years are not dignified, wisdom is rarely put to use and there is limited pleasure in reflection - none in the minds of those afflicted with dementia and Alzheimers.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Deviant vs. Normal

The Internet is a sick place. Your here, at this demented place, reading when you could be elsewhere reading wonderful old books, researching the intricacies of anything or checking out the copious amounts of pornography that make up 30% of all Internet traffic. Anything and everything is available. It reflects the world we live in and sadly acts as an echo chamber for the deviant screw ups populating our modern society. I said a bad word: deviant. There is no such thing as deviant. Everything is normal, and we should tolerate and approve all types. Relativism applies to all walks of life. Or does it? It's an accepting world, but how are oddities framed? The media in our negative society will invert anything they want to in order to push their narrative.

I don't understand foot fetish people. Feet are generally ugly. I'm a hater who doesn't understand them. A male foot fetishist wrote for YourTango to explain that foot fetish folks are normal, not deviant, and people giggle about them as the media usually reports on a man caught for getting a closer peek at women's feet. Not really. The last major public mention of foot fetishism involved Rex Ryan and was repeatedly called a safe, loving practice between a married couple. Psychology Today calls cuckolding kinky and a fetish, but not deviant. Cuckolds like that their wives sleep with other men, which in normal people's world is usually grounds for ending a relationship, even a marriage. If it's rare per Psychology Today, isn't it deviating from the norm? BDSM has hit the mainstream with the publishing of 50 Shades of Grey, and trusty YourTango is there with an article on it from a lady who likes it rough. She not only loves it, but BDSM makes sex better than the normal routine. While more intense and enjoyed by fewer people, it is not deviant. She never questions if she is sick or underlying psychological causes, instead she writes, "I am giving him some part of myself I've never given anyone before. Even if he doesn't know that, I do, and it makes it feel special". It's about adrenaline and even cool with her feminism. I won't waste time discussing homosexuality, as any television show will explain how awesomely normal it is and somehow even better than fuddy duddy monogamous heterosexual love. 

Google "men like young women". Over 766,000,000 hits return. Let's review page one of Google's returns. A cute Asian lady type writes at YourTango that it's a mid-life crisis, that a man wants another child, or that he'll think a woman his age is like his ex-wife. Another YourTango writer says that it's not the stereotypes for why older men like younger women; it's the connection. Young lasses are all about making a connection, which is what older men want. Ask Men says dating younger women will end badly because it is for all the wrong reasons. A HuffPo essay says men wanting younger women is a myth due to some thing she did for a speed dating thing. Anecdotal PROOF is that her husband is 2 year younger than her, but guys said they want a younger babe because older gals are too set in their ways. A Yahoo article by a divorced woman says she married a man 12 years older, but it didn't work out and she cites Hugo Schwyzer as saying it hurts everybody. Hold on, she cited a known fraud and pathological liar. At least she quotes a Psychology Today writer who says it is natural and about biology. A black guy, turning 29 again, types that he doesn't trust them or can handle them. Jezebel says it is about an aging man's desire to feel he's still got it. Notice any missing reason for this phenomenon? Hmmm, what is it? We'll get to that. Besides the black guy's blog post, all the authors are women. I guess asking a man to explain why he'd date a younger woman is not on the YourTango editors' list for appropriate male writing subjects but explaining his normal, benign foot fetishism is.

All these articles avoid biological attraction and the spark of lust. They all are coming up with wonderful psychological and socially constructed reasons why older men want younger women. Some specifically harp on middle aged men, while others will mention any age gap as "odd". It's all unnatural in the eyes of these writers. There is something wrong with them, and they are deviating from the norms of these authors. Some imply dating much younger women might even be perverted. I did not deliberately look for YourTango articles, but it is a popular relationships site. Readign these links, that site pushes a message to accept the oddballs and never questions their deviance or the psychological problems underlying the fetish. It saves that for men dating younger women. Even while discussing the incredibly natural attraction that older men feel for younger women (and vice versa), the writers never come out and say it is for purely physical reasons. It is for physical reasons because youth and beauty are a natural pair.

Let me use a short visual comparison. Here's Christie Brinkley in 1979.

Why did I pick that one? Jesus Christ, I remember that Sports Illustrated in my Grampa's shed, but in reality, it's because she was 25. Here she is with her magnificent aging and nicely done plastic surgery...

She is gorgeous, yet every man is going to pick 25 year old Brinkley over 59 year old Brinkley. She was also the absolute peak for hot blond in the '80s. That's why she's Chevy Chase's fantasy interloper in National Lampoon's Vacation. If her fantastic aging still cannot hold a candle to what she was at 25, how will any average American woman compare to a gal 10-15 years their junior? She won't. That is why she is reading those "Why Do Older Men Date Younger Women" articles. Men don't read them because they know why. Men are physically attracted to younger women. Always have been, always will be. We are constantly told how much more mature women are compared to men, which is why they seek older partners. Note that none of the page one search results focus on the small age differential that commonly happens, focusing instead on wide age gaps. A slightly odler male with a younger female is normal and why insurance companies use "average male age minus 3" to estimate average spouse age of a risk pool, but this natural attraction is written about as if it were a deviant condition.

Go to Dalrock for the numbers, but older men do not read those articles because the numbers favor them. They are too busy dating if they are alive. The media does not want the truth out there. The media needs to slip the rationalization hamster food into every relationship article. What is worse is that they have stretched their night is day game into the most natural and oldest of realms. Accept the broken loonies as perfectly normal and curse those straight men just looking for a hot young thing. Financially or sexually, those old straight men are always ruining your life.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Hidden History: The Hard Hat Riot

"No one supported Vietnam." The lies Boomer teachers told me. No one they knew because as teachers in the '90s, they were college students in the '60s and not serving. That sliver of vocal hooligans and lawbreakers run academia and public education so the general impression is that no one supported Vietnam. Even this academic paper cites the "power of elite discourse" that shaped opinions on Vietnam, which we can only measure by an oddly phrased Gallup poll question (was Vietnam a mistake?). There was Nixon's Silent Majority, which supported him in a landslide in 1972, but those were just old fogies who reacted to the '68 love explosion. Not quite. There was a rambunctious and heartily supported expression of pro-Nixon, "America: Love It or Leave It" spirit known as the Hard Hat Riots.

The Hard Hat Riot was just a couple hundred blue collar, union guys beating the crap out of long haired, hippie students protesting the Kent State Shootings. If you do not recall, Kent State was when standard '60s protesters finally received push back, and the martyrdom machine was turned to 11. The rioters beat up on hippie students and yelled at the "red mayor", Republican Mayor Lindsay. Something weird happened in the next few weeks. The blue collar toughs both pro-Nixon and anti-Lindsay turned out to the tune of 150,000. Even then, the Times was eager to mark down any turnout for unapproved expressiosn of popular feelings. That parade was organized in two weeks tops. Looking at a list of anti-war protests of that era, 150,000 working men and suits walking down the streets of New York City with supporters dropping confetti and ripped paper from windows onto them in support is a pretty marvelous, expression of the people.

These unions toughs were the blue collar whites that had secured the FDR, New Deal lefties to power and were about to be dumped for the favored groups of the New Left. In 1968, the battle between the Democrats was in the streets, but in 1972, the battle of the Democrats was on the convention floor. The violent mess in the streets and on the television screens at the Chicago convention became extraordinarily long platform debates and coalition building for McGovern in Miami in 1972. These men were the bad whites who would become Reagan Democrats in the 1980s. The Reagan Revolution and solid South switch was nothing new. The Port Huron SDS manifesto explicitly stated that the Dixiecrats were linked to the GOP on the national ticket. The Nixon-W era was just that crew slowly getting all under the "R" label.

It was the wrong people though. Junior high schools are not going to waste time mentioning a pro-Vietnam parade, let alone protesters that had jobs and were not '60s enlightened free spirits. They have to enable the beloved Boomer myths about Vietnam. Schoolchildren still learn that the Tet Offensive was the defeat instead of a military victory trumped by the strategic, political defeat as the media weapon hardened public opinion to ending the war and getting out. Every clumsy attempt by jihadis to Youtube their stupidity and barbarism was invented by the Viet Cong and the American media. Whether the VC or union guys organizing a peaceful protest of 150,000, the media shapes the events and the history. Those Hard Hat rioters are not as numerous as they once were, and more and more resemble the other side far too much for our leftist authorities to spotlight. Unions always support liberal policies. No one liked Vietnam.

Monday, October 28, 2013

Austrian Economics, FIRE and America

Bubbles, bubbles everywhere and even the president is against them. Like everything else he says, it is opposite of his administration's policies. We have ZIRP pushing the cost of money down, the government acting as the backer of the home mortgage market as well as the lender of subprime auto and subprime college loans, and a media telling everyone to get back into the game and buy buy buy. It's a world fo credit now, not money, which is why so many of the fools liek Krugman are off in their analysis. If they are telling you to buy, it's already too late. You are the late receiver. You are the late adopter. Wealth flows back to early receivers and asset holders. That is the key to our bubble economy. Credit must always be expanding for economic growth in our FIRE economy.

Credit has been a part of the American economy for over a century but study of how credit would interact in the economy lagged. Murray Rothbard wrote on the evils of credit as monetary expansion would always favor early receivers. Not based on savings but on credit creation, monetary expansion favors those connected to the credit creators. Rothbard explained how this credit expansion and inflation ends up as a redistribution of money from late receivers to early receivers. Hyman Minsky explained it a bit better. Early receivers are hedge borrowers who receive credit first and can make principal and interest payment due to their income or other investment cash flow. Middle receivers are speculative borrowers who receive credit later and can make interest payment but need asset inflation to help refinance their loans. Late receivers are Ponzi borrowers who get credit last, join the asset inflation at the end and cannot make principal or interest payments and only hope to get some form of asset inflation to reap rewards. Oftentimes, late receivers are borrowing and joining the game just to play catch up due to widespread inflation.

Our policymakers find a way to marry the credit expansion to tax policy. Easy money in the '80s was timed with a reduction in top income tax rates, a reduction in the capital gains tax rate, mortgage interest being deductible, depreciation changes and this all made companies more optimistic about opportunities going forward. The '80s witnessed a stock market, residential real estate and commercial real estate bubble, but most importantly it was a corporate debt bubble. The lending to corporations fueled takeover leveraged buyouts, mergers and defensive management buy outs. These all goosed the stock market. A lot of early leveraged buyouts paid handsomely and were winners. Lenders made money, stock holders received a premium, bankers earned fees, and governments received their cut through taxation. As the momentum built, more capital was allocated to leveraged buy outs, the borrowers were of worse quality, valuations rose, and the party ended in tears. It also ended with cash holders and early receivers making the most money to later buy up bubble inflated assets after the crash.

An example from our recent American past is Southland Corp. Southland (operated 7-11 stores) spent $275 million (borrowed throughout the '80s) building up property in Dallas that in 1990 they sold for $24 million to an investment firm (the firm included a Bass billionaire). That was in December 1990 after the credit bubble had popped for junk debt. In December of 1987 with massive investor incentives, Southland could float a multibillion dollar junk bond issue for its own leveraged buyout at roughly 15%. Note that GoldmanSachs, at the time headed up by Robert Rubin, had lent hundreds of millions to Southland for this operation, which they were repaid for handsomely, and then underwrote the junk debt on this final piece. In 1990, a Japanese firm spent $430 million for a controlling interest, and the Bass purchase of 144 acres of downtown Dallas for 10% of what Southland spent building it up was part of the financial restructuring. Minsky and FIRE bubble features were that Southland received easy corporate borrowing for first acquisitions and commercial real estate investing, then in the later stages of the leveraged buyout bubble, they were fearful of a takeover and overborrowed to defend their firm, and the moment sales did not fulfill dreams, they went through a prepackaged bankruptcy. Wall Street received fees, interest, a slice of the capital gains throughout the process. At the end, a billionaire with cash on hand was there to scoop up a $275 investment for $24 million.

This started with corporations and slowly moved to larger realms, affecting more Americans. The FIRE economy just needs to find a new asset, and it will direct lending towards that asset class. America's FIRE economy marries the Minsky-Rothbard early-middle-late receiver model to asset inflation models. Original asset holders and early receivers will benefit from that first inflation, and by the time it gets to you, late receiver, the easy gains have been made. This is why the stock bubble chart looks like the real estate chart. Original asset holders get credit, buy stocks/homes on the cheap, bidding prices up or acquiring assets to monetize (think rentals or land development), middle receivers buy from them or purchase less primo assets within that class, pushing prices up even higher. Middle receivers can make money from stocks or homes. The momentum of rising asset prices cushions lending standards, expanding credit to late receivers who buy at the end, paying off middle receivers and early receivers who held out. 

The '90s was a stock market bubble with real estate benefiting slightly as well. Stocks rose through the early '90s, but you didn't know or had limited means to participate. The media was perplexed in the early '90s why the market moved but the jobs were not growing in synch. NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, wider adoption of defined contribution vs. defined benefit retirement plans, reductions in the capital gains tax rate and easy money combined to give us the stock market bubble (often called the NASDAQ bubble). When did you or your parents get the stock buying bug? Was it when Etrade ran Super Bowl ads? That was at the top. All stock transactions have a buyer and a seller, and if you bought in the '99-'00 blow off phase, who do you think sold to you? Who bought it back from those late buyers when they sold during the crash? Thought so.

The housing boom of the '00s technically was a continuation of the '90s home boom as the '00s stock market echo boom followed the '90s crash. It needed easy money and help from the government. Credit scores and down payment requirements limit initial funds to good standing developers and wealthier borrowers. As the assets are bid up, others with worse credit scores and means seek loans. The CRA was renewed under Clinton and a major factor to Democrat support for the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (repealing Glass-Steagall), and as Steve Sailer pointed out, Bush was instrumental in destroying down payment requirements and barriers to minorities for home ownership. The CRA did reduce lending standards, which helped pull in the late receivers. By the time home loans were being pushed to minority buyers of lower income with little documentation and no down payments, the end of the bubble was in sight. If those policies were enacted to help people who couldn't meet already reduced lendign standards, then that enabled the recruiting of Ponzi borrowers. The blow off top in housing prices happened when the money hit the masses, paying off the original landowners and early receivers. They reaped the asset inflation gains.

Those dead economists described the world we live in before it came into being. Today's American economy needs credit to expand to increase marginal consumption as we do not save anymore. We need to buy on credit to employ the next citizen because our entire political focus is on economic maximization. Our elites want to get paid, and our politicians want to be re-elected. Finance, insurance and real estate have provided ever growing units to GDP, more jobs, and best of all for both left and right, it does not pollute. Asset inflation rewards the original asset holders and early receivers. Even if one never sells, the asset inflation can rationalize lending against that asset. The Frankenstein economy moves on as lenders collect their interest on asset backed lending and originators collect fees. The wealth of the 1% is tied to the very assets that have inflated since the birth of the FIRE economy. In the same time, median wages have been stagnant. Currently the rich are flipping million dollar homes to one another while nearly 50 million receive food stamps. Who donates to politicians or sets up PACs? Not median wage earners, and this is why the system will not change from within. The FIRE economy is a great name because, aside from the men feeding and tending the flames, it burns all in its path.

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Even in the Best Places to Live

It is easy to point out the barbaric behavior of the underclass because they do it at astronomical rates compared to others. Carmel, Indiana has an average median household income of 121,000. About 2/3 of households are married couples with only 6% of households led by single moms. About 2% of the population lives below the poverty line. The homes are beautiful, and I looked at homes there but was turned off by a lot of the new construction, soulless neighborhoods (.13 acre lots, no trees). The high home prices keep out the riff-raff. It has a good mix of business, artistic and residential interests. The city has good schools, and the kids are good kids.  It is a safe community of 80,000. It was Money Magazine's #1 best place to live in 2012.

Carmel's high school is also dealing with some new problems. It also uses a breathalyzer on students prior to admission to high school football games. Prescription pills are the drug of choice. School dances have devolved into Dionysian rituals with the required breathalyzers and just recently, all lights are left on at all times. The lights are left on because at school dances too many students were getting their freak on and performing sex acts on the dance floor in the dimmed lighting. Chaperones are armed with heavy flashlights to beat away students who attempt to block them off from breaking up sex acts. Money and technology can mask the social decline for only so long.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Female Obesity Explanation in One Graph

There might be no silver bullet to solving the obesity epidemic but eat less and move more seems like a good start. Genetic change? No, it's been one generation. Environmental factor? Maybe we can research for effects. Greater use of genetically modified crops? I can buy it, but give me research. Lack of shaming? Yes, fat acceptance doesn't help. Eating more take out and prepared meals rather than home cooking? Sure. Modern convenience? Wait, yeah that sounds odd but it might be a big part of it.

Double the steps, double the calories burned? Hmmmm.

Check out the chart. The test subject roughly doubled her steps, spent 5 more hours active and burned 650 more calories. That's a Big Mac. Must be why they used butter in every recipe. The high energy density was needed. If just 100 extra calories per day can lead to 10 extra pounds a year, a massive burn of 650 calories and doubling steps must do wonders for a woman's figure. Buried in the article is that (UK figures) 33% of homes had washing machines and only 15% had a fridge in 1952. Clothes were hand washed (the washboard in washboard abs). Food had to be procured and prepared. Homes were cleaned because there was a sense of pride with attempting to be approved by one's betters, not just buying flashy consumer goods. Fridges, washing machines, and other electronic equipment does the hard work. Sitting at a desk 8 hours is no comparison to '50s housework.

It comes down to effort. People who watch 4.5 hours of TV a day have the time to be active and cook a 30 minute Rachel Ray balanced meal. A majority of people do not want to do that. If hard bodies and ripped men and women reflect the hard work performed by the few and proud, then soft, bloated bodies reflect the lazy, technology enabled lifestyles of the masses.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Will the Saudis End the Petrodollar

If the news is making it known that the Saudis are extremely angry at the Obama administration, the anger has been brewing for months if not years. Prince Bandar and Prince Turki al-Faisal both voiced displeasure with Obama and company with mentions of Syria, Palestine, harumph harumph. The Saudis discuss cutting ties or a major shift but never quite define what they would do. This comes a couple of months after the Saudis supposedly offered the Russians a sweetheart deal for stepping back from Assad. This month has capped a summer of Chinese deals meant to circumvent the dollar, open the yuan to the international world and statements disapproving of the dollar and USG. Tie it all together, and the Saudis could end the petrodollar with a willing partner in China.

The Middle East is a rough place of sand, treachery and few, if any, good guys. If the US is cuddling up to Iran, why would we bother pissing off the local tough guy (Israel) and the rich kids (KSA + Qatar)? For years now, the rumor has been that the Saudis have given the Israelis the greenlight to use their airspace if they bomb Iran out of mutual interest in stopping Iran's nuclear program. Does the American foreign policy establishment believe it can restart the "Twin Pillars" policy of the Shah's era? This is a far different time. The Islamic civil war is going on, so a shared leadership of a region where a bathtub sized gulf separates the two big boys of opposing Islamic sides is not doable. The US is in far worse financial shape and far more dependent on external debt holders and financing. The Saudis are a giant in oil exports and in the US dollar system. Losing the KSA would signal to other oil members of the dollar system to look elsewhere and reject the petrodollar system.

Before considering why a Chinese-KSA alignment could work, why would the KSA be angry now? This goes into the Red Empire-Blue Empire divide, and the Bush family has a long history of cultivating the Red Empire client known as the KSA. Oil, patriarchs, wealth, weapons, interests align. Blue Empire has not aligned well with the KSA. The Blue Empire supports the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt at every turn whether stopping Egyptian arms deals, plane deliveries or using the media organs to support the MB's legitimacy. The Blue Empire put the brakes on any airstrike when Bush was in office despite KSA pleading. Side note: the Blue Empire said the US should go after Iran instead of Iraq, but once Iraq was toppled, switched to "No bombing Iran". The Blue Empire is warming up to Iran whom the KSA has not just a religious opposition to but a decades long rivalry that oil companies and previous presidents had to manage. Blue didn't bomb Syria and has lost focus, but that feels more like a last gasp of Americans saying no. No, the Saudis are disgusted with the gum chewing, Blackberry checking geek. Why else would they have gone up to Russia to solicit Putin's assistance? Not a good run for flattering the rich sheiks that we rely on because of our thirst for gasoline.

If the KSA wants to truly get America's attention, they need not fire a single shot but let the Chinese pay for their oil in yuan. The Chinese import nearly as much oil from the KSA as America. The Chinese and KSA have a major refinery deal in place. A whopping 54% of all KSA oil exports are to Asia, so a nation like India may get in on the non-dollar payment act. India pays for Iranian oil in gold already. Even if no other Asian nations join the movement, China's imports are 1.3+/- million barrels per day from the KSA. China needs the oil as it is a manufacturing power, has a growing car market and has a growing military. China has plenty of problems, but they are accumulating gold continuously similar to the KSA. China's navy has limitations but what an incentive to develop a military it would be if the duty was to be the protector of the KSA? China offers military protection, sells weapons to the KSA to suppress any insurrections, gets all the oil it needs and gashes its economic rival in one move? The multiple agreements between the US and KSA would be hard to disengage from quickly. The KSA can maintain all its agreements with the US but just accept yuan from China for oil and still inflict major damage. That kind of shock can be leverage for the US to behave as the KSA wants once more.

One major drawback is that because both China and the KSA own so many USTs, they would be hurt by a drop in the dollar. True, unless they both protection for their investments from the fine boys on Wall Street. They could buy CDS on their own holdings in preparation for an announcement. If the dollar is dinged by their actions, where does liquidity go because it could benefit other KSA-Chinese holdings. The damage to the US would be an intangible value as well. Anyone doubting the Chinese supporting the KSA when they also support the Iranians fails to see that the Chinese support any dictator or regime as long as they keep the natural resources flowing. Sudan is Sunni Muslim. Iran is Shia Muslim. Both send oil to China. That is all that matters. China's String of Pearls policy and client building in Africa do not need to skip over the Arabian peninsula.

This is amateur analysis, but there is no such thing as allies only interests. America has been flip-flopping on who to support in the Middle East today in the name of democracy and in South America and sub-Sahara Africa during the Cold War to contain communist expansion. How much do American interests align now with the KSA compared to decades of old? America the multikulti, irreligious nation with a service economy resembles little of white, Christian, manufacturing powerhouse nation that struck agreements with the House of Saud. The Chinese and Saudis have economic interests and strengths that align now but the most important may provoke them to become bedfellows. Neither China nor Saudi Arabia are democracies in our era of missionary democracy and both are major holders of a currency with a terminal illness.

Neo-Feudalism: Carlyle Group to Buy Trailer Parks

In the FED's ZIRP world, where does someone go to earn a steady return? ZIRP has pushed safe bond yields down to generational lows, the equity markets have been bid up, and even traditional real estate has seen a flood of cash buyers buying to rent for measly returns compared to yesteryear. The 1% have to look for alternative investments. They have to bid on assets they formerly would've turned down. The private equity firm the Carlyle Group is moving in a bold new direction and buying trailer parks.

The Carlyle Group will invest in trailer parks because they offer stable returns due to their high occupancy rates and their steady monthly lot fees. The sick genius of it all is in the quote from another trailer park owner,
"Our customers have no alternative shot at home ownership, nor do they normally even have the credit scores and quality to seek anything better. They never leave the park they are in, and the revenues are unbelievably stable as a result". 
The 1% are repeating a mistake they made with subprime, but now with the rental market. They bought good mortgages, then not as good, then awful mortgages and 2nd and 3rd liens. In the post-crash ZIRP era, they have moved from good rental quality REITs to buying homes directly and renting them to buying tons of foreclosed homes in dodgier areas and trying to build their own REIT to buying trailer parks. Yields get squashed, and they just move down in quality to chase the same yield. God forbid anyone put their money to productive uses. Besides being hooked up with the Bush family, the Carlyle Group has Arab money and is a heavy donor to our political system. The Carlyle Group also is the majority owner of Booz Allen Hamilton, which spies on all of us for our safety.

In short, a private equity firm that is a top contributor to our political machine, reaping huge returns for their owners (including foreign billionaires) in a time where everyone not a millionaire's income is slipping suddenly is buying trailer parks full of the poor because they have nowhere else to go and will not leave. These same poor people are most likely voters who will in turn vote for more government, which the Carlyle Group has a hand in controlling and administering. The poor are not expected to move or go anywhere, but as long as they pay their lot fees and vote for more military spending, all is well. In days of yore, this was called feudalism, but we call it progress. The vote is the watered down 21st century feudal oath.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Theory on Gay Imprinting + Homophobia

Cosigned. As I alluded in yesterday's post on molding gays for voting, the causes of homosexuality are politically constrained to fit the progressive agenda and narrative. It's biological -> innate -> a class or group, not a lifestyle -> dangle carrots for support -> captured voting bloc for the vanguard of never-ending leftward drifting progressives. To even allow discussion of other causes leaves the door open to destroy the "it's innate" argument, which then opens a can of worms that leads down the line listed above this sentence. Protect the narrative because the progressive ends justify any means.

My theory on homosexuality is that while it is not normal, it is in nature therefore a natural phenomenon. One would not call sociopaths a normal phenomenon, yet they make up 4% of the global population, which is roughly the same number as homosexuals (calm down, I'm not saying gays are sociopaths just comparing similar numbers). My theory is the buffet theory that some homosexuals are genetic, some become gay due to pre-natal hormone levels, some choose to be gay, some go gay when they could live straight if in a less permissive culture (I've met Bible belt closet cases), and some people are molested and become gay due to imprinting in youth. Same sex molestation acts as an imprinting event, and the broader folk wisdom of that connection explains homophobia.

Looking for the sexual abuse and gay link to my last post, I could find studies showing gay men were molested by men at far higher rates than straights, but the studies were decades old. The studies were also only cited on Christian or conservative websites. This is a form of soft cathedral censorship. Soft censorship plinkos that information so that it is only available at "evil oppressive" sites or if you found the 20-30 year old academic journal. Just imagine a SWPL reacting to a study showing gay men report being molested at rates 3-5x straight men, "Oh yeah that study >use airquotes + make a smarmy face when saying study< is only found on evil evangelical sites. Reputable sites don't have that info, man".

The other link I used cited how a recent study on number of gays molested was the first to even ask if it was a causal factor. Why might academia spend decades with limited studies on self reported molestation rates of gays vs. straight and NEVER consider asking about cause? The danger is in what they might find. In yesterday's post, I quoted a TIME article from '79, and I did not use a quote that mentioned reluctance to study the origins of homosexuality. Fear fo what it might say about straights was the reason given, but ahem, that sounds like cover for fear of what it might say about gays. If some studies show 25% of gay men self-reporting that they were sexually abused as children and same sex molestation could be linked as a cause for some, there might be a need for some soul searching in the gay male community (besides astronomic HIV infction rate soul searching).

There are studies that discuss the male mind and imprinting with mate selection to the point where men choose partners that resemble mom. Men who also report their first masturbation experience in the presence of another guy also turn out to be gay at higher rates. Is it so hard to connect some dots and estimate that if an teenage boy or pre-teen is sexual active with an older man that he may be "imprinted" and turn out to be gay? I'm not saying all gays were molested, just that same sex molestation might mess with the wiring in the mind that causes arousal and attraction. Yes, being gay is who you love, but also who you want to have sex with. Something is not normal to want sex with a member of the same gender due to reproduction and the fact that 97% of the population is attracted to the opposite sex.

This is a huge unspoken element to academia as professors will ponder root causes and rattle off the most ridiculous things for what everyday people can see with their own eyes. Academics writing on porn spout theories that porn consumers seek what they were afraid of as kids or what they associate with conflict, danger or pain, leaving out the fact that they are lumping in fetishists with casual porn viewers because NO ONE can be called deviant. If academics can state that people develop fetishes through trauma or fear associations as a child, then why won't any academic say men sexually abused in a fearful or tense situation might develop a sexual arousal trigger with the same situation when they are older? Wait, it might reveal a dirty thing about gays. Thoughtcrime, no tenure for you! Psychology Today dismisses a link in one sentence as conventional wisdom (haha, proles), so I believe in the link more, doubly since they gave this fool a platform. How can Psychology Today dismiss any link if no one has investigated causality per Dr. Throckmorton prior to the study he cited????

Might this also explain why there are more gay men than gay women? Gay men outnumber gay women by 2-3x. What if the number of same sex molestations are lower for women-girls compared to men-boys? One factoid here says 5% of all girls molested are by molested women. Does someone have those numbers? I lazily looked on Google but so many links are about harm done to women. From the other studies cited in the link from yesterday's post, it seemed that gay men reported being molested at higher rates than gay women. Maybe it's not making a solid straight into a solid gay, but what if the leaners get molested and it messes with them? Get to know enough gays, buy them a few beers Cosmos, and the stories come out. Correlation is not caustion, but wipe out the same sex molestation differential between gay men and gay women in some studies and suddenly the total gay male number gets closer to the gay female number.

As cited in the link at the start, the concept of homophobia might be an evolutionary adaptation to parents wanting to have future generations. I kind of agree with that, but I'm not a science nerd who only thinks in science terms. I'm a history nerd, a 21st century American and a parent. I doubt a high percentage of people think like geeks now or even in days of olde and considered evolutionary and reproduction strategies in their spare time. Aversion to homosexuals is a worldwide idea with varying degrees of avoidance, so this crosses cultural boundaries and different levels of civilization.

Let's take the science nerd hat off. Some people think purely in terms of safety for their kid. I also do not think that those 1950s videos warning about gay pedophiles were entirely devoid of fact even if overdone. Even in prison culture, child molesters are the bottom rung that prisoners beat up and despise. In the back of straight minds (prisoner or parent), even if molestation only causes a percentage of gays to become gay, they are thinking, "You are strange. You are different. I know what happened to you. I know that you guys do this more than straight guys. I do not want my kid to end up like you. You will not do that to my child". People helicopter parent to make sure their average C student child maximizes their grades, so the parental protector instinct would activate if they even sniffed a connection between molestation and becoming gay.

As stated in the introduction above, I believe same sex molestation causes some men to become homosexuals, and a consequence of this is the worldwide and eons long gut feeling modern pundits call homophobia. Go ahead and doubt me, but make sure you film the facial expression of a SWPL when you ask them if your gay friend can watch their son for the night.

Question: Did the Inductivist blog operator die?

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Molding Gays for Votes

"I was born this way!" shouts Lady Gaga in her 2011 release, celebrating people just loving themselves with a big >wink wink< to gays. Why are gays now so... gay? When did gays stop being people who happen to be gay and start wrapping their entire identity around their homosexuality? My three dimensional gay cousin and I laugh at these "look at me, I'm gay! Lemme post 50 Faceborg messages about my gayness!" gays. As someone who lived through 1980s and 1990s cathedral propaganda (educational wing), I was always told that gays are regular people who just fall in love and have sex with people of the same gender. It seems less true now than twenty five years ago. If public opinion can be molded to magically support gay marriage within a 17 year timespan, then that same force can be used to mold gays into a heavily Democrat voting victim coalition group.

Gays and their friends in the media have conditioned the American public to think gays are born gay and gays are in high numbers. Heritability is a mixed bag with being gay, there is semi-black listed gay germ theory, and the concept that same-sex molestation could be a cause (a, not the) is hip-checked at every attempt by academics (I support it as a cause for some). The last link mentions the fact that the study on possible causality was the first to do so despite study after study showing that gays were moleted as children at higher rates than straights (gay men 3-5x in some studies). God forbid someone ask an uncomfortable question in academia. The Gallup graph to the right reveals the massive change in thought in one generation. Another article reveals the possible motives behind molding the basic idea of gayness.

In the January 8th, 1979 edition of TIME, John Leo wrote an article titled "Homosexuality: Tolerance vs. Approval". That title sounds like it could be written in 2004, not now as you must tolerate and approve or be called a bigot. Had Leo written it today, he'd be burned at the stake or blacklisted from writing in any magazine or newspaper again except to apologize. Leo states that America is confused because there is a rising tide of tolerance for gays in '79, but the voters just don't want to give them protection and explicitly coded rights and laws. Leo still frames it like a good cathedralite as he says America has much to be ashamed about in its treatment of gays, but this is after noting no one enforces sodomy laws anymore. Leo calls for tolerance but no protection. He did not understand the power of the lobby that he did describe as militant.

It is amazign to see how much conventional wisdom has changed and what changed it. Leo writes that academics and "most researchers think that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is learned behavior". Besides religious and moral reasons to be intolerant, Leo cited the liberal reason which was that homosexuality was a sickness. Leo writes that "evidence to date casts doubt on the theory that homosexuality is biologically based". Gay activists were hard to hit the American Psychiatric Association throughout the '70s, causing the great compromise that homosexuality could not be a disorder "per se" but a sexual orientation disturbance. Both sides win, and what is interesting is how homosexuals did it:
gay rights movement demanded that the APA remove the "sick" label from homosexuality, the association was in no mood to disagree. First, the homosexual lobby had demonstrated in the words of one Freudian "that there is a large ambulatory populations of homosexuals out there that do not need psychiatric help". And Second, the lobbyists argued with heavy effect, that the "sick" label is the linchpin of society's oppression of homosexuals

The APA compromised not due to science or its members beliefs but due to lobbyists citing oppression. The same oppression that does not enforce sodomy laws. Leo mocks the compromise and cites shrinks belief that homosexuals have underlying problems. He cites that an APA "informal poll of 2500 psychiatrists showed that a majority believed that homosexuals are sick". Care to wager if just 10% of shrinks would admit that publicly today? Universities did a great job of training the next generation of psychiatrists to be enlightened. The shrinks of 1979 did not view gays as born that way but as taught that way, altered or even just 'off'. Leo would go on to note the changes of hoping for acceptance to requiring approval, writing a prophetic line about hiring gay teachers as a stepping stone to parental fears of laws that "may require that homosexuality and heterosexuality be discussed in sex education classes as equally desirable choices".

Woven in this TIME article is the fact that Americans did not view them as a group to receive protection. Leo doubts that they are a class or bloc to protect like blacks or women with affirmative action type legal codes. The public would not protect a lifestyle. That is at the heart of changing the perception from a choice or even an unintended consequence of child rearing, molestation, hormones and what not into a biological and genetic predetermined outcome. Born this way. If someone is born this way, they become a group. Their advocacy groups have not done much for them scanning 'rights' won. Hollywood has done far more in pushing blue collar guys like my dad into accepting gays, allowing for them to be openly gay compared to 30 years ago. Odd thing is, in between the TIME article and today, there has been this killer disease spread by gays that never gets mentioned anymore. Regardless, attaching biological and genetic causes as the primary basis for homosexuality, makes it a lot easier for the media to mold opinions for political referendums, states laws, federal benefits, etc. because it stops being a lifestyle. Beign gay becomes a biological fact like being a woman or minority. This is incredibly odd as the liberals spend most of their time now stating that gender and race are social constructs and not biological reality. The damage is done there though as our laws are coded to favor those groups.

At the same time as the article, the progressives were hard at work turning this into a wedge issue and a potential pool of voters to attach to the coalition. Mondale was the first major Democrat to court the gay vote when he publicly and openly executed on gay donor and voter outreach in 1982. His "important" speech was in front of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, which is a brilliantly named front organization for funneling campaign donations to gay friendly politicians. The title suggests it is about human rights, which, in the '80s with starving Africans to fundraise for, gullible Americans could consider benign. They have since dropped the fund part of their name as the fundraising can be done in the open now. Hidden in this other Mondale and gays link are gems of just how wrong the left was in the early '80s but also comments from Mondale that one must be smooth in saying that one is against discrimination without endorsing their lifestyle. Why? Because there must be three or four million votes out there. Dukakis said no to gay raised money in '88, but gay fundraising helped force Obama's evolution on sort of, half heartedly endorsing gay marriage. It always comes back to politics.

The left needed a new way to turn everyday Americans into a specific focus group. They needed a way to dangle a carrot in front of that voter bloc and whisper, "We will give you this, but they will not, vote, donate, join us". Gay voters are a sliver of the vote, but they make up 5% of the electorate. Sounds small, but if they switched the presidential voting habits of gays from 57-43 to 88-12 since 1984, it makes a difference in every swing state and in some years, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Gays were born that way, you shamefully oppressed them through the years, so they need protections and explicitly defined rights, now why would you not support that? Bigot! Homophobe! No, we won't call you one as long as you vote for us. The media's messaging depends on the recipient. Academics and media outlets pushed the concept of homosexuality being biologically based not just for you or I to accept it, but so that gays would view their very gayness in just one manner and become a solid voting and fundraising bloc for America's progressive overlords.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Why "Government is the Only Thing We All Belong to" is Correct

Roughly a year ago, the DNC rolled out a video that had the phrase "government is the only thing we all belong to" (link). Conservatives umped on this phrase by stating that the government belongs to us not the other way around, and critics pointed out the creepy vibe that the phrase put off, which is correct. The problem is that these critics did not pause to think about who the message was pointed at and the reality of the modern make-up of America's left. That phrase is exactly right because the state is the only thing that the island of misfit voters on the left has in common.

The modern left voting pool does not share a core ideology or even a core identity. It is a patchwork coalition or a headless horseman that just shows up and votes "D" or whatever leftist parties in Europe. I've blogged before on these groups being losers in the capitalist Western Civilization format; there is nothing that ties them together. There is no unifying ideology either as that is forever moving leftward. They live highly segregated, the black and Hispanic blocs are more socialist in economic thinking, the wealthier are more neoliberal (low tax, free trade, anti-union) in economic thinking, union guys are social conservatives by today's progressive standards, and blacks do not vote for gay rights nor like immigration. They are small, divided pieces cajoled and assembled for the first Tuesday in November. Does anyone on the left really care as much about free birth control as their single female voting bloc? No. That is the single lady gimmedat, which is different from the section 8-EBT-free school meals gimmedat for blacks.

Because they all have different gimmedats and often disagree on actual beliefs, they have little in common. Except government. The government or state is what they all belong to since they have such different identities, constantly pushed and honed by the media and education system. Every subset of human identity is carefully cultivated, provided they vote D in November. The progressive steamroller is desperate for the next civil rights crusade that a subset of a subset of sexually different people, transgendered men and women, is the new focus. They are also clearly different and neatly segregated. I doubt a black woman has stepped foot in a B'nai B'rith office unless she was there to beg for money for a charity for underprivileged, black youths. They all get something from the state no matter how wildly different their identity or community is. Even the rich get their crony capitalism favors and tax code rigging from the bought politicians.

The statement is correct because it is geared towards them. This video was not for all of America. It was a convention propaganda film in an age where conventions attract fewer and fewer viewers. It was a poorly worded way to affirm the choice of voting for more government for these true believers and dependents. The dirty truth under the phrase "government is the only thing we all belong to" is that we are so atomized and divided in the multicultural empire that we cannot think of a unified national identity. Liberals glamorize every splinter group without a unified default therefore the sense of belonging as a piece of the state is all that remains. The message is correct. The right is a coalition as well but one can envision a simple outline they belong to "light skin toned family friendly people who love America and hate taxes" (Sailer's "Core Americans" concept). One can't envision a unified identity on the left. The only thing that hodgepodge collection of leftist voters all belong to is the criminal racket known as the US federal government.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

My Col. Jessup Routine

Alluding to "A Few Good Men" a few posts ago reminded me how the leftward drift of my paternal, highly argumentative progressive side of the family has become so bad that they social media shun my uncle who was critical of Obama or gently say to my mom "SOBL's very bright but he says...". I've fully owned the Alex P. Keaton grandson of Archie Bunker role and commit the horrible crime of using facts and not shutting up. I do feel like Col. Jessup when they gang up because the truth is on my side and half of them are government dependents or criminals.

In honor of Jack Nicholson's amazing turn as Col. Jessup, here's my "You Can't Handle the Truth" speech.

"You can't handle the truth. We live in a world of decline and chaos. Some men will have to stand for order. Who's going to do that? You? >looks at Boomer aunt< You Alinsky-Marxist? I have a greater responsibility of providing tax dollars for your government checks and producing children who won't be fucking psychos than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Trayvon and curse the successful businessman! You have that luxury. You have that luxury of being brainwashed to believe lies. You don't know what I know. While that future career criminal's death is tragic, it probably saved lives, and my existence while grotesque and incomprehensible to your Starbucks sipping ass, produces order and security. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at '80s dance parties you WANT me to be successful, you NEED me to be successful. We use words like God, tradition, family. We use them as the backbone of a life spent building civilization. You use 'em as a snarky punchline! I have neither the time nor inclination to explain myself to a man who eats and sleeps with my tax money and in my safe neighborhoods and then criticizes the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you and went back to playing video games! Otherwise, get a job and stop living off others. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!" 

Documentary Review: Hellbound?

Timed right in line with the wonderful Scalia interview in New York Magazine, NETFLIX has a documentary on hell for SWPLs to watch and feel affirmed. "Hellbound?" discusses hell in its variety of forms, its history, modern interpretations, and frames things so that you receive the message that believing in hell is stupid and for fools and psychos.

If one believes in a heaven and hell, which is a relatively new invention per the documentary, there are three views. (Side note: ever notice something 2000 years old is relatively new that can be discarded, but progressive changes after 1968 are established traditions meant to last forever?) There is the classic Dante's Inferno style eternal torment hell, and there is the concept of annihilationism where souls judged as bad are expunged from existence immediately after physical death while the good go to heaven. There is also the concept of universalism, where everyone eventually makes it to heaven. Wait, what??? I was raised Catholic and loved Dante's Inferno, so you can see where my biases lie, but I'll admit, annihilationism sounds interesting and even cool to say, "I am an annihilationist".

The documentary did show multiple angles of the heaven-hell debate, including an atheist who said if he believed in God he would definitely believe in hell (logical). The film starts with the frank talk with the atheist because despite holding a view outside the mainstream of the world, LEAD WITH THE BRAHMIN BELIEF. This was followed up by some Christian theologists and pastors with a super lame pastor who left the church because (paraphrased), "I couldn't *sniff sniff* believe in a loving God who would *sniff* send someone to hell". Well, pastor, he sent them to hell for not following the rules and feeling no remorse. If you sin but feel remorse and ask forgiveness, the love of God will wash away the sin. Oh no, because your personal view is of God being an all loving hippie pussy, you throw away the entire idea of hell. The doc gave airtime to multiple religious writers or former pastors who left the flock because of Christianity's extreme beliefs. Not to mention more atheists. Similar to Scalia's interviewer who described hell frightening, it's as if these mollified modern pansies can't handle any adverse effects to anything. Some hell promoters were shown speaking completely rationally and calmly directly followed by them preaching fire and brimstone. Message: "Even when calm on the surface, these religious folks are crazy over recent inventions like make-believe mythical firepits, and get the soy milk in the frappuccino, SWPL. There is no such thing as hell, enjoy the hedonistic pleasures of modern society."

It was rather striking how some interviewees could not grasp that God could love someone but not let them into heaven if the person was a sinner who did not feel remorse. It's as if these people could not understand why their parents did not forgive their bad behavior just because they were their kids. I was really surprised by the soft spoken pastor who sounded weepy when he could not come to terms with a God that would punish or not allow into heaven sinners. God is not your mom or dad, God is your God. Different relationship. Why give commandments if it doesn't matter if anyone follows them? If there are no consequences for one's actions in our lifetime or the afterlife then what is the point to the rest of your silly little speeches pastor?

Pastor: "Love one another and do good."
Me: "Why fucking bother? Chicks dig jerks, work rewards selfish sociopaths, and who needs long term friends? Now you're telling me there's no hell for me to worry about because your God will just forgive me when I die. The music sucks, too. I'm outta here."

Sounds like that pastor was one of those guys that became a pastor for the attention he'd get, the pats on the head, the prestige, the money and all of the wrong reasons. Jesus didn't do it for the money or fame, and his mom followed him everywhere so he couldn't bang his hooker groupie. The Virgin Mary: the original can't cut the cord, overprotective Jewish mother. I am biased. I am a believer in God, the Devil, heaven and hell. Not just because of Pascal's wager or Scalia's points about Catholic dogma. I've seen too many feats of strength or experienced too many coincidences not to believe there is something behind it all. Enough of my rant on wishy-washy believers and hell, check the documentary out for yourself.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Lone Gunmen

The 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination approaches. JFK, MLK and RFK live on forever as examples of wonderful, virtuous liberal heroes who were gunned down right before they could achieve maximum reach. A film was recently made on RFK's assassination. The dream was cut short. Oliver Stone's terrible conspiracy film JFK motivated enough citizens to push for more release of records. There is always talk of something bigger behind their deaths. No lefty can accept that one person would kill each man. The big, evil system ordered it, man, and that system wanted them silenced. Is it so hard to believe a sole figure could be deranged, angry, and feel the need to assassinate someone? Let's review some American history.

John Wilkes Booth had no major backers with the Lincoln assassination. He tried to orchestrate multiple assassinations with the help of some fools, but it's not like the Confederacy was creating the expanded plot.

James Garfield was shot by a lone nut.

Leon Czolgosz shot President McKinley as a lone gunman. No one was backing Czolgosz. He was an anarchist, so maybe he shunned a network of organized support on principle.

Giuseppe Zangara took potshots at FDR prior to his inauguration.

A duo of Puerto Ricans, so not a lone gunman but not a conspiracy, tried to kill Truman over the issue of Puerto Rican independence.

Gerald Ford had two separate attempts on his life by two separate women.

Ronald Reagan was shot by a lone gunman, John Hinckley, obsessed with Jodie Foster. Kind of a weird thing and funny considering our knowledge of her sexual orientation. It is also weird how the media did not explore Hinckley's dad being a big contributor to Vice President Bush's 1980 presidential campaign.

All of these attempts involved lone gunmen without giant conspiracies. No one crafted giant conspiracy theories afterwards. Why? Those leaders were not progressive icons. There was no need to create a mythology. The pre-Great War assassinations represented the old order that progressives replaced. Newer attempts were on political enemies of the movement. It's similar to Waterloo being associated with defeat. The Son of the Revolution, Napoleon, upending order and spreading revolution and change across Europe, was defeated by an aristocratic force of reaction led by Wellington. The physical symbol of the revolution was finally vanquished at that battle, therefore it is framed to future generations as a great loss.

Think of these three assassination victims and the lost dreams of the left. JFK didn't want to get deeper into Vietnam! Without MLK, the black movement lost a peaceful leader and devolved through the '70s and '80s! RFK would've pulled us out of Vietnam faster! Their deaths become excuses for the failures of liberal leadership, policies and beliefs. LBJ was not a true believer. Blacks never properly replaced MLK. They are practically Scooby Doo schemers, "Oh I would've brought about a socialist utopia if it hadn't been for that murky conspiracy of reactionary agents". Liberalism has not been tried hard enough, but in the misty eyes of aging Boomers, with those men, it would have happened.

Those points are all bunk when the facts are reviewed. JFK was handsome, glib and awful. He also had multiple Republicans in his cabinet. JFK was committed to Vietnam, approving a coup that killed Diem to get better allies in place, since he would not "lose" a country. MLK was a flawed man funded by wealthy northern interests. MLK was already beyond peak influence by '68 (where is he in the Watts/Detroit race riots?) as black nationalists, the Panthers and Muslims were gaining ground that they would expand upon in the '70s. RFK was still expressing commitment to Vietnam (unwinnable but we're committed). In this hysterical article destroying the RFK myth, the Socialist Worker writes how JFK and RFK were wealthy, conservative sons from a powerful family leading the ruling party, not vanguard fighters for the revolution. Progressives cannot understand why anyone would question their policies, challenge their belief system or want to kill their leaders. Few religious acolytes can see their leaders as they are, and these true believers need hagiographies and martyrdom. All religions need their saints and require their sacrifices.

Monday, October 14, 2013

Everyday Liberals and Columbus Day

The essays and anger are showing up about Columbus Day. "Killer, slaver, asshole, grr I hate Columbus". All the silly messages boil down to hating their heritage and demonizing Western Civilization. I've blogged on this before as it is obviously western guilt and self-hatred. Have these liberals even spent an hour with an American Indian? No. The hate on Columbus and the men who conquered a continent, spreading civilization, is to distract themselves or others from their own spot at the top of the pyramid.

Let's use an example that Americans hear from the media is sadly oppressed in American society, black women, and see how awesome their set up is in relation to the world. This slice of women is disproportionately found in the poorest income and wealth levels of the US but we do have a lot of programs to elevate their socioeconomic status, which is paid for with Arab and Asian lending (export earnings recycling) to maintain Americans' standard of living rather than help their own people. From head to toe....

She has a weave, which is made with the hair of Indian women.
She gets her hair done or spends time at the salon or spa with other women waiting on her like she's a royal.
She holds a smartphone that was made with Coltan. Coltan mining has killed a few million (many kids) and funds a civil war in the Congo.
The smartphone was assembled in China by sweatshop labor.
She will use that smartphone for maybe two years.
Her clothes are made in third world nations most likely by children and teens.
Her kids are fed and watched by others so she can self-actualize work chill out at home. These fools pick up your kid even if you don't work and actually can be home all day with your child.
Her Nikes are made by the grandchildren of Vietnamese who survived a multidecade war versus the French and Americans.

But yeah, those European men and women who settled America to farm and for opportunities they could not get in their home countries were horrible oppressors.

Happy Columbus Day!

Friday, October 11, 2013

Underclass Gets to Adrian Peterson

Prayers to Adrian Peterson and his family while they wait for his 2 year old to hopefully recover from a horrible beating at the hand's of his biological mother's boyfriend (sorry, alleged abuse).

Peterson has millions. Peterson has fame. Peterson has a pretty hot current squeeze. He did not wrap up his junk and knocked up a woman a couple of years ago. She gets custody of the son and child support, which the courts will applaud as preserving the mother-child bond while supplementing her socioeconomic status by siphoning off Peterson's income to her. Let's see, send kid to live with multimillionaire father in mansion located in a nice suburb or chick who hit sperm donor lottery with no real means, hmmmm, let's preserve that mother-child bond and send her a nice check each month.

It didn't work. She is still stuck in the underclass. Receiving money didn't change her ways, which exposes the liberal "money fixes all social ills" concept. The suspect sounds like quite a catch with a child with another woman and a protective orders issued on him. He had a violent past. Maybe there is a reason dads go on alert about who their ex-wives allow around their kids. Maybe it's the infanticide stats. A lot of those dead toddlers and babies are killed by mommy's friend.

Besides the child in critical condition, the sad part is that Peterson made it rich and famous despite his criminal father but could not escape the effects of the massive American underclass. Yes, Peterson could've wrapped it up, and maybe he didn't fight for custody of his kid in family court, but if he did, this child's pain and suffering is on our family court system and the leftists who created its modern incarnation. The underclass got to Peterson with the help of an enabling government.

Update: Peterson's son is now dead. Horrible to lose a child.

Update Two: Peterson only recently learned he was the father.

What They Fought For

In the last year, people have told me that veterans fought for gays to be able to marry and on the other hand been told they never would have fought had they known we'd live in the rainbow world of 21st century America. Old vets get trotted out for propaganda pieces and repeat the words supplied to them how they fought for affirmative action, twerking, Obamacare, third world adoptions, Coca Cola, mass immigration, whatever is needed at the moment, but that is all in our timespace. What future were those G.I. Generation soldiers fighting for in 1943?

"It might be hard slogging right now in 1943, but don't you worry Joe, the future is flying cars*. Well they may look like this right now but by the time you get back from the war, marry that swell gal back home and have a pretty little daughter in cute, clean clothes running up to meet you after a long day at your white collar job, our personal helicopters will be ready for you. You too will be a country gentleman. It's what you're fighting for!"

*Note the small print description of these planes as 'fool-proof', 'moderate-priced', and able to 'safely' land if the motor shuts off mid-flight.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Obama's Military Purge

When you're an abandoned orphan loved by no one, maybe you'll have feelings of insecurity as an adult. Marines attending inaugurations with their rifles disabled might be orders of a paranoid President or maybe just a new, safer gun policy. Maybe you've been scratching your head at all the military brass being relieved of command. Me too. Let's review.

The army has seen some big dogs let go right in the middle of wars and even escalation periods of wars. Obama's purge some call it. Got to love the picture they used in that link where Obama is making his puckered prissy look. Cited in that link:

Gen. Petraeus relieved for an affair right around Benghazi.

General Allen for inappropriate involvement with Jill Kelly (no, not the '90s butterface porn star).

General McChrystal in 2010 after a Rolling Stone article where he said Biden's strategy would lead to Chaos-istan (puns, haha). Weird that a general could get fired for an interview critical of a war that a minority of Americans support or know exists still (yes, we're still there). The not funny part is that he is right about Afghanistan.

Gen. McKiernan resigned early in 2009 despite good performance in Iraq, and prior to what many thought would be Obama's quick decision to surge in Afghanistan.

Gen. Ham removed from top command of Africom because he disregarded the stand down order and moved to save lives at Benghazi. His departure was called a retirement.

Admiral Gaouette replaced in October of 2012, reporting says like Ham, he moved to help those at Benghazi.

If I did not know any better, I'd think something important happened at Benghazi. Not earth shattering, but definitely higher in importance than anyone in the Blue Empire is letting on publicly. Like maybe (conspiracy theory hat on) the attack at Benghazi was not Al-Qaeda since Benghazi was where we were running captured Libyan weapons to Syrian rebels affiliated with Al-Qaeda. The attack, which featured organized men in military outfits to fool people, was carried out by our true Middle East foe, the Iranians, formulated by their true believer mastermind.

Typed in Naval Dress Uniform: "You guys set up the smuggling conduit for Al-Qaeda yet you're saying Al-Qaeda performed the attack in Benghazi. So if Al-Qaeda was getting weapons thru Benghazi, and Al-Qaeda was desperate for weapons in Syria, why would they attack their very weapons supplier? Why the self-defeating attack? If we knew it was an attack, why the stand down order? If Al-Qaeda was attacking a US consulate with CIA assets and an ambassador present, why wouldn't the US move to protect them? It was because we got outsmarted and beaten by the Iranians and couldn't let that get out as an October surprise before re-election. The C-in-C ordered the stand down because he didn't want anyone to know the Iranians got the upperhand on us. The administration ordered the weapons smuggling to Syria and when it went bad, they cut those guys loose, they doctored the log book, used the closest excuse around with the Youtube video, put an election ahead of saving lives, and any officer who objected to the stand down was removed!"

Outside of the Benghazi fallout, there have been a variety of other generals removed and demoted. Former Gen. Cartwright is under investigation for leaking information related to cyber warfare. Irony would be if he leaked the "I ordered Stuxnet" Obama boast that the NY Times reported during campaign 2012 to strengthen his C-in-C, warrior credentials.

Marine Generals Guganus and Sturdevant were relieved for not defending a base. Marine Commandant Amos seems to be firing many O5s and O6s and Marines are 'meh' on Amos. O5s and O6s, so like our future Marine leadership, oh ok, thanks Amos.

In fall of 2012, Brig. General Sinclair of the 82nd Airborne faced removal and discipline charges for a variety of low level stuff including sodomy. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't we just give gays the green light to engage in sodomy all they want and serve?

These flimsy sex conduct and alcohol type charges were also used in April of 2013 against Gen. Baker removed from command of the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa.

Marine General Mattis was removed or replaced from command of CentCom in early 2013, possibly for being hawkish and aggressive. An aggressive, kick ass Marine, go figure, and isn't that his job.

Navy Admiral who oversees our nuclear command was demoted and relieved of those duties after being accused of using counterfeit chips at a casino.

There is an honest, nonpartisan writer who wrote that we need to get rid of a lot of brass (published early '12) and Panetta was fighting it (Panetta is a GOP turned Dem old Washington Consensus guy), but the president should send a message. Considering how this White House operates, what if they have been using ticky-tack legal type of means to remove generals and admirals? Seems to fit their MO.

Update 10-11-2013: Air Force General in charge of nukes relieved due to lack of trust.

Wednesday, October 09, 2013

Fiat Everything

Reality will not be denied. As much as progressives want their Emerald City of social and economic world reforms to gleam, their world sinks further into the muck. Our political parties put on show debates for the somewhat informed and just splash images onscreen with outright lies as slogans for the low information voters. "Obama said banks and 1% need to pay moar taxes. He no like 1%. He give me free birth control. Me like him." It is not Kabuki Everything, but it is Fiat Everything. The things we have are not real as we formerly knew them. Society uses the same name to describe these concepts or institutions as the actual things we formerly enjoyed, while no one would logically view them as remotely close to a Platonic ideal.

Fiat Money - Backed by full faith in the United States government. This sounds great until the stupidity of such a concept is clearly exemplified when the government throws out the idea of a trillion dollar platinum coin gimmick to get around spending limits.

Fiat Law - Anarcho-tyranny on a daily basis. You think the connected and wealthy corporations or people are subject to law? Jon Corzine walks free. Rapists get charged with criminal confinement so prosecutors don't have to risk a 'loss' in the courtroom, but you can have rape charges thrown at you well after an interaction from a spiteful woman and be investigated.

Fiat Marriage - Anytime for anything anyone can divorce; often there is a nice payout even with bad behavior. Now with gay marriage, any combination is OK.

Fiat Wives - A lot of men can do the basics their dad or grandfather could do (mow lawn, change tire, basic handyman stuff), how many wives can cook or clean like their moms? How many staying trim after 30?

Fiat Parenting - Both parents work so daycare watches the kids (if that), screw up and child protective services takes your kids away (Fiat Children).

Fiat Friends - How many of your Facebook friends will call you this year? But but but he liked my witty post?

Fiat Dads - 41% illegitimacy rate! Sperm donors replaced by Uncle Sam in many respects so girl can get her freak on. If he is proactive but mom wants a divorce, like a dad has a chance in family court.

Fiat Men - Skinny jeans mocha sippin' hipsters, 1000 yard stare hostages husbands, unemployable absent father consistently criminal emotionally unstable (mimicking momma) black guys, IT video game obsessed hermits, and enlightened academics who hyphenate their names with their wife's name.

Fiat Women - BMI over 30 slugs, just one of the guys jokesters, Hot Pocket chefs, swearin'-drinkin'-bangin' carousel riders, careerists who don't get around to having kids or marrying, they seem to associate femininity with bad, and shameless in all regards.

Fiat Work - Employer-employee relationship is at will so they can fire you for anything, megacorporations that manage employees like inventory, death of medium sized and regional businesses, offshoring, outsourcing, make work for countless white collar and government workers and illegal immigrant substitution for lower skilled because no one values you. Do you see the end result of a day's work?

Fiat Media - No one investigates anything anymore, propaganda everywhere, and even the sports section has become "A Very Special Blossom Episode" each Sunday edition.

Fiat Education - Anyone learn anything anymore in school? Many students are taught by their parents since the schools have to give more attention to the multiple special ed kids scattered throughout classrooms.

Fiat College - Diploma mills that rubber stamp grades to get good jobs (see Fiat Work), and indoctrination camps for the next generation's political commissars.

Fiat Sex - Pornography/Sex/Dating; porn has become barbaric to the point where you can ask "Is this rape fantasy porn?" and "Who finds this sexy?" while watching 90% of scenes. In the real world, chicks try porn moves now at first touch, and no one courts anyone anymore. In an opposite direction, does anyone believe Americans are having more sex than ever when we have more obese people than ever? I doubt those rah-rah articles online.

Fiat Sports - It's product placement at the professional levels, tax free revenue corruption from head to toe at the college level, and insanely competitive down to 7 year old coach pitch or pee-wee football. All for what, an activity few if any play regularly after their first kid?

Fiat Art - Art sucks. Nydwracu tumble blogs awful architecture that the current taste makers like. Check it out in contrast to the amazing old architecture he posts.

Fiat Movies - Everything is a comic/novel adaptation, remake or re-imagining, or a franchise installment. The women are botoxed, men 'roided up, and CGI is in everything.

Fiat Music - See Fiat Art, it sucks. Most pop sounds like two robots fucking with a 13 year old girl singing over it.

Fiat Government - Who was the last president to govern? Nixon? What did they do to him? Thrown out for obstructing an investigation and being mean to enemies. Sounds quaint now.

Fiat Food - Netflix has enough documentaries on how most food is schlock.

Fiat Adulthood - Kickball leagues and feetie pajamas for adults. See Fiat Dads, you have the freedom of children.

There are more abstract concepts like diversity and freedom that could go here, but of course they could since we are living in Fiat Everything. Tonight I will drink. Whiskey. Real alcohol. Not Smirnoff Ice Fiat Booze.

Tuesday, October 08, 2013

The Pull of Harvard

Harvard: the mental and spiritual center of our empire. Do you doubt the gravitational force of Harvard? People can say no to Harvard. Not proles with some smarts or even middle class kids with "the dream". Harvard is too symbolic to them. This is backed up by Harvard receiving 5-10K more applicants than Yale or Princeton. If Yale or Princeton said yes (along with Harvard), and you preferred those schools you would probably be a teenager well versed in their differences with an appreciation for their specific undergraduate programs (Princeton was my #1). Some west coast kids probably pick Stanford over Harvard. These small pools of people aside, do not doubt Harvard's hold on smart American teenagers and striving parents.

Here is an example of the incredible pull Harvard has. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist with some dancing chops, making him a Renaissance man of sorts. Seeing him on a science special about galactic oddities, I checked out his Wikipedia page. It explained how he applied to Cornell as well as Harvard. It quotes Tyson as saying,

Interestingly, when I applied to Cornell, my application dripped of my passion for the study and research of the Universe. Somehow the admissions office brought my application to the attention of the late Dr. Sagan, and he actually took the initiative and care to contact me. He was very inspirational and a most powerful influence. Dr. Sagan was as great as the universe, an effective mentor.
Yes, Carl Sagan reached out to him about going to Cornell. Out of thousands of applicants, Sagan reached out to a single black kid from NYC in the mid '70s. His application "dripped of passion". Wow, so those mini-essay answers you wrote on the common app and Cornell supplemental app really revealed your level of geek. Knowing how that application is structured, I find it hard to believe that was the spark. In the mid '70s, I bet an admissions gopher read the application, saw the black check box, didn't see any athletic accomplishments but noted good test scores and screamed, "I FOUND ONE! He's a science geek, CALL SAGAN! ... Now where's my bonus?".

Sagan's contact is an amazing bit of initiative by the figure that should be sought out rather than the seeker. It shows how much the school wanted Tyson. You wouldn't know Tyson if you saw him in a line up, but millions and millions of Americans know the name Carl Sagan. Actually, you might know Tyson as the mustachioed black nerd on  space specials since he is the only one and constantly asked to appear on said shows. I have yet to meet anyone who had a professor ever reach out to them after their application to encourage and entice the student. Beyond the ordinary professor, this was Carl Sagan. Imagine the effect on any 17 year old. Did Tyson and Sagan team up at Cornell?

No, Tyson went to Harvard.

Monday, October 07, 2013

Propaganda Over Money - When Yale Rejected $20 Million

The American system is built on money. It is a common mantra. A new tactic of the left to apply political pressure is not a boycott of an entity or person but of their advertisers or business associates. Deny them their livelihood, then they will change. Money does not always work as the Koch brothers discovered earlier in 2013 when it was rumored they wanted to buy multiple, large media properties. The left knows the intangible value of their dominant properties and will not sell them to the highest bidder unless there is ideological purity. The Koch denial is nothing new since twenty years ago Yale returned a $20 million dollar donation from Lee Bass that really was a struggle over the opinion molding power of the university. This event reveals the priorities of universities as well as internal motivations.

The Bass family are economic and political power sources that few Americans know by name. The Bass family patriarch, Perry Bass, was an oil billionaire with long reach in Texas and across America. Bass and his four sons inherited billions from their bachelor uncle Sid Richardson, and the family turned those billions into even greater fortunes through shrewd investing and management. For a of couple of decades, they were major shareholders in Disney and selected Michael Eisner to run the firm. The family was a Yale family with Perry and his sons all attending Yale. Their money has continuously found its way to many charities and top tier universities with Yale a major recipient of the family's money.

Not all of their money though as Lee's donation for the establishment of a Western Civilization department turned into a debacle, and Bass' money was returned. Per the L.A. Times:

The final blow apparently came when Yale refused to honor Bass' request to approve faculty appointments to the Bass Program of Common Study in Western Civilization. Bass envisioned the curriculum as focusing on the ancient thinkers, artists and writers who shaped the European culture on which much of modern American society is based.

Faculty members at Yale and elsewhere in the Ivy League said there was opposition to the focus of the program among some professors and students who saw it as a traditional "dead, white, European male" academic agenda. Instead, these factions favored a more multicultural approach that would emphasize the historical contributions of minorities and women.

The university claimed that it had nothing to do with content, but the backstory was that Bass was troubled when he discovered that the Western Civ curriculum would not be a positive discussion of the West but a typical, liberalism tinted portrayal of the evil West. Bass then wanted veto power over the final lecturer selection and direction of the department. This was unacceptable to Yale. They valued expanding multicultural programs, and if there was any Western Civ department, it would be evil Western Civ destroying the world. Twenty years on, there is still no Western Civ department

While it raised questions about philanthropy and the power or control donors are allowed, it clues us into how the university wing of the cathedral will place propaganda over money. In 1991, Yale was actually running in the red, and the $20 million donation would be like $34 million today. The other issue at play would be the effect on other potential donors, leaving aside the multiple billionaires of the Bass family. Money goes where donors want it to go, and the Bass family has connections to Duke and Stanford University who both have smaller endowments that Yale. The problem of universities at the vanguard of the progressive march and funding has been an issue for decades.

As written at length in "Making Harvard Modern", the old, conservative Harvard alumni disliked the pink or reddish tint of new professors. These donors even interfered with Harvard's hiring of specific refugee scholars from Germany in the 1930s. The fear was always that funding would be removed. After the drop in federal government grants after World War Two, Harvard was dependent on donations from the Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations. To create some independence Harvard announced in 1957 the "Program for Harvard College" fundraiser with a goal of $82.5 million by 1959. Harvard had Meet The Press appearances and radio shows on CBS to explain why as well as promote the fundraiser. It took an extension, but in 1960, Harvard hit $82.5 million. This started all top tier universities on the chase for more fundraising. It gave Harvard some daylight and freedom, coming on the heels of the school's confrontation with Congress with regards to some Communists on campus.

Rejecting Bass might seem odd, but the cathedral will not give up control for money. Donations in the millions come in with new waves of millionaires and billionaires who graduate from the universities. The Bass rejection as recent as it was might explain why the endowments of the top tier universities have become amazing alternative investment vehicles. Yale's fund manager was so successful that he wrote a book on investing. Ron Unz brought attention to the size and scope of the Harvard hedge/endowment fund, which others shined a light on. When financially connected Larry Summers was in charge of Harvard, he lost the school $1.8 billion with a carry trade idea over the objections of one of its advisors, Mohamed El-Erian, who is now a top executive at PIMCO. These endowments are hedge funds precisely because they have access to the financial technical knowledge to earn millions to achieve independence. Hedge fund-like income generating activities are the next step in securing financial independence.

These actions, rejecting a multimillion dollar donation and turning endowments into hedge funds, are really side effects of the universities' desires to maintain control, independence, power and drift forever leftward. Bass was upset that the Western Civ studies that he envisioned would never be, and instead be a critical view of the very society that allowed these pampered Brahmins to exist. Bass would not stand for a self-hating department, but Yale valued its hold over the megaphone over $20 million. Creating ethnic, gender or alphabet soup queer studies departments is the nature of today's liberal arts programs in the training grounds of the cathedral and would have been unthinkable to pre-'68 graduates of those schools. To reduce reliance on those old fogey donors, they just had to turn the endowment fund into a hedge fund. The ability to shape minds and mold opinions unencumbered by the unenlightened is Yale, Harvard and their ilk's desire. They say what is right to teach. They control the message.