Tuesday, June 30, 2015

American Hyperinflation Talk

There are enough doomsayers out there calling for hyperinflation. A recent fair assessment of the situation can be found here that is in rather clear eyed terms and an even tone. This is not as bombastic as the Shadowstats guys calling for hyperinflation any minute now... for a decade straight. This is also explicit about it being hyperinflation, which is different than others who see a period of 10-20% inflation coming that would be enough to feel like hyperinflation. It is a good read and a bit nerdy. Check it out, but the question is a good one, could it happen here?

One major thing to remember about hyperinflation is that you basically tear up any long term contracts you had. Your money management skills will be put to the test, not monthly or weekly but daily. It is a horrible situation. The wealth holders of America will not let that happen. Even if the USG hates the citizenry and only cares about its survival, it would not risk hyperinflation. In a hyperinflation, how are they going to pay their lackeys and janissaries? I do not think it happens, but something else bad will happen because as posed in the essay above, I lean towards the American economy is more house of cards today. We do not need hyperinflation for horrible pain. Sustained inflation of 10-20% will crush people because we have seen stagnant wages for decades now. The media will harp on the stagnant wages and income to the 1%, but never discuss the asset bubble focus on our economy since 1980. He who holds the asset gets the gains.

Not to sound like a song stuck on repeat but old productive economy business cycles saw wage inflation on a loop. This was partly the power of unions and partly the lack of foreign manufacturing development. It was also partly how our economy was geared: manufacturing vs. financial. Inflation would go through wages, pushing up prices but still rewarding worker productivity. Our FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) economy recessions are due to asset bubbles being blown, then the investment cycle is hooked into that asset group, the economy grows due to that asset boom and malinvestment, then the bust comes. Wages do not inflate in an asset boom, the asset's value inflates, sending inflated wealth to asset holders. This is why 10-20% inflation for three to four years would crush Americans. Inflation makes the debt worth less, sure, but only if Americans see their wages rise with inflation. How is that going to happen? What mechanism is in place to make sure that happens? I do not see it, and raising the minimum wage to $15 will only lead to automation, immigration substitution and more unemployed Americans (sorry Unz, reduce your autism).

The fear should be that we see that type of inflation with no accompanying increase in wages. The debt remains, the dollars are worth less, but no one has the boost in earnings to make the inflate the debt away program work. You will then have a giant debt overhang with toilet paper dollars. If you go the "print dem dollars for helicopter drops" route, then hyperinflation will come and lead to a greater unraveling. A FED funded tax cut could happen, which would be akin to helicopter drops, but not straight money letters with expiration dates. Psst, FED, why not write down the debt? Oh wait, you work for the TBTF bankster crew, sorry, my apologies.

Unmentioned in the link but a player in the inflation or hyperinflation game is the idea that non-dollar players will find a way to outbid the US for raw materials. The dollar is the reserve currency! Sure, but what backs the dollar? The US army. When people don't fear our guns, that military backing will not matter. What could possibly be a rival for alternative, lesser currencies to lean on to lure raw producers away? Losing that bidding war or even just pushing the cost up for raw materials would lead to pain in America. Because Russia and China are building a separate system and are hoarding gold, the resource providers in the middle might want something that holds value in exchange for their products. This happened before in the early '70s. It can happen again, but we have already created the petrodollar so I do not know what USG can do for an encore. Tick tock dollar pimps.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Passing is Always Opportunistic

The Rachel Dolezal circus show is pretty revealing. The left's trans push is laid bare as a complete joke. The media going along with Dolezal though and supporting her is a great reveal that they will keep the lie going no matter how ridiculous. The social construct lie must continue. Trans must be protected. This is our system, and sadly the number of aware citizens or elastic voters is dwindling down to not matter anymore so what are the consequences. There are umentionables that the media will not touch.

Few, if any, are even commenting on some other items being proven. The lack of talented tenth types to staff organizations and reward with money, the sad realities of human biodiversity, and the potential gains an individual can reap if they pass because the system has been set up to reward the government sanctioned disadvantaged. Rachel Dolezal filled a void, and in doing so showed the multikulti emperor for the naked transmonster it is. These organizations are empty money machines, receiving grants and paying off the organizers of the zombie army to vote in November (or just register so someone can vote for them or prepoulate a ballot and leave it in a bag in their car in case a race is close). Every incentive though is geared towards rushing to a victim group and reaping corporate, government or academic benefits and prog status points.

It also showed the "difficulty settings" game of life. Rachel Dolezal was a nondescript, average white girl. She had scholarship money thrown her way, but surprised her college when she turned out to be white. She mouths the script of a blacktivist and is rewarded with jobs, money and a platform that bestow some prestige. This average white girl turns into a black woman of leadership material. I will use black woman loosely as only fools dying to believe such a paint by numbers blacktivist who looked very european existed would fall for her trick. It was opportunistic. She could play on the desire for someone mouthing all the right platitudes who happened to have the good old fashioned white work ethic. She sent herself multiple fake death threats, which is much better than spray painting one fake death threat on her house. Admit it, she dove into this role and job with fervor.

Dolezal's opportunistic passing reminded me of an email I received that laid out a similar instance. A young woman who was Italian and very pale white had popped up in the nude model and then porn world with success to bounce up from the minor leagues of Miami's scene to filming in higher production quality LA shoots. Weird thing was, as she was making films and earning fans, fans called her Latina or mixed race. Fans said she'd be a great addition due to the lack of mixed or Latina girls headlining. She was rocking a full body tan. With the tan, I could see the confusion, especially if one were to dress in funky clothes, make up, etc. If you envision the Hollywood/media presentation of the sexy, cute biracial white-black girl (ex: post-plastic surgery Halle Berry), she looked that exact part. She did an interview where she clearly stated she was Italian, she left the industry after a year (no surprise), but if you want to waste your money, you can get a private (NSFW link) session with her (hope you don't need Valtrex after).

Steve Sailer is fond of noting the product of integration has been placing mixed race kids in roles or spots that blacks might think belong to blacks. A problem with the push for mixed marriages and interracial romance has been that Denzel's wife would be cast as black in 1990, but in 2015, she can be anything, hurting black actresses. There is only so much to go around when you're part of a minority group collecting tributes from sectors per government decreee. Rachel Dolezal probably will not inspire others in the race racket, and blacks and other groups might be a little more careful with screening in the future to keep the government bennies in the family. American Indians are incredibly strict with casino money; others may start to follow their lead.

Will we see others do this? People respond to incentives, so the structure of society and economics will cause people to play the game. Maybe not right away, and maybe not in the blacktivist realm due to Dolezal. The private sector has a lot of nooks and crannies to hide in, and it has incentives to fill diversity quotas. Ask yourself this: if their careers in music had started in 1960 and not 1990 or 2000, would Mariah Carey and Alicia Keys have hidden their paternal heritage? This might become a bit of a game for everyone to join in. As the Hispanic population rises, we might see more of this from whites. That affirmative action coworker you curse for getting promotions or assignments on projects way over their head might not be "Mexican" but instead "Mexi-kin". If trans* gets accepted enough, every time you announce layoffs are coming, maybe, just maybe, a new guy wearing a kilt and growing out his hair is not really transitioning, but finding a way to protect his job.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Social Matter - Progressive Performance Artists

The Rachel Dolezal news media cycle was fantastic to watch. It was beautiful to see progressives struggling to reconcile the problem of glorifying Bruce Jenner’s transition from man to woman, while somehow not glorifying Dolezal’s transracial attempt.
There are problems. The NY Times op-ed (by a woman), which pushes back against Jenner’s move, reveals the torture the left is going through as they say “gender/race is biological but doesn’t have to be but hey why are you claiming to be part of my group and take on my struggle and claim my oppression.”
The coalition of victims is defensive about their identities because their unique suffering is their identity, making trans* a bit more tricky to handle than grafting on immigrants and homosexuals.
There is another revelation. The progressive system is practically exhausted and is at the point where the charlatans are out in the open. Dolezal is a sign that we have firmly reached the phase where progressive activism has reached performance art.
Enjoy the rest there!

Friday, June 26, 2015

Last Week's Social Matter Post + Preview for This Week's 5

Last week, I wrote about the poly push. It's hard to push really weird deviant behavior, so the next avenue might purely be to erode the institution of marriage.

This week I discuss the phony nature of the new progressive soldiers like Sarkeesian, Deray, Ben Crump and most importantly Rachel Dolezal. Dolezal's work is not important, but a curious case of transracial fraud is. They are even more fraudulent than the prior generation. They have turned the job into a work of performance art.

Last week's SM post...


What do our elites have cooked up next for us, socially? With the victory of gay marriage, elites have wasted no time pushing ‘trans’ on the public. It’s much more difficult to pull off, mostly because of feminist pushback and the idea of ‘transracialism,’ which further exposes tensions inherent in transgenderism as a concept. The media has also spent the last year promoting still weirder stuff as Weimerica reaches new heights for insane tolerance drives. Those are far harder sells.
The next frontier will be the further destruction of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

It is a cliche (but completely true) that the family is the building block of society. It is the mechanism for transmitting culture, social norms, and group mores. This is why progressive education has changed from the norms of yesteryear that focused on facts and figures and moved towards socialization and group programming. The goal is to separate the child from their family’s culture and to inject elite values in its place. Education is compulsory for a reason, even if it does not educate students.

They can take your kids for eight hours, but how do they get to you? They don’t have to hit all families–just enough to make a difference. The elite try to minimize the use of force in modifying beliefs. They prefer to brainwash you long enough to make you think you want it. Joe Biden was explicit about how gay marriage never would have happened without Jewish influence in the media. Not my words, his. A similar elite figure, Masha Gessen, also hinted at the coming change. Old Gollum herself said:
I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.
This quote alone is enough to banish her platform in a healthy society. Now that gays can marry with government sanction and legitimacy, the work moves to shifting how we view marriage in its entirety. Groups used by progs never really benefit; they just continue to be used as pawns.
The push is already here. Out Magazine quotes a NYC psychotherapist on the straight couples who are looking at the openness of gays to redefine how they view marriage.
But Malpas also says that, increasingly, the straight couples he sees are discussing polyamorous or open arrangements, or the possibility of such. This suggests that, perhaps as much as traditional marriage is conservatizing some gay couples, the increasing visibility of gay relationships is turning more straight couples on to the idea of some degree of openness, or at least of alternate ideas of what marriage can look like.
This is blatant distortion. This is using a sliver of one city’s married couples to extrapolate out to broader society. It is so patently false that it can hardly function as anything more than rank propaganda. How many of these couples is Malpas talking about? Five, ten, twenty? Nevertheless, his collection of haphazard case studies is sent through the megaphone and presented as if a broader swath of straight, married couples are going poly.

Remember, 20 percent of all gay men have HIV and a minuscule percentage of gay men are married, but the message being broadcast here is that straights–on a wide scale–are so taken by the association of gay-as-hip (and the need to be hip) that they will emulate gay behavior within an eons-old institution.

A revealing thing in Malpas’ quote is that it is in the context of “the straight couples he sees” that they discuss poly behavior. He is a psychotherapist. No healthy couple sees a psychotherapist. You see a psychotherapist when there are problems. Out is now using this as a way to frame it as though hip NYC couples are trying poly, as opposed to saying that broken, neurotic NYC couples are trying it. The other reveal: who are these gay, married couples that are influencing these straight couples? Gay marriage is a relatively new status even in New York, and of course very small in numbers. Are gay couples openly cheating already in year two? This makes little sense.

The push will widen for polyamorous and open marriages. Even the Washington Post is writing about poly as though it’s a positive thing. Wapo’s “human” example is already a failure, as she had a marriage end in divorce due to her cheating in her twenties, but now wants to cheat openly today as an older woman. This is public condoning of what was formerly considered risky or fringe behavior. It suits the prog government’s needs: weaken all bonds between people. This is such an old idea that Alduous Huxley put it into his progressive dystopia Brave New World. Everyone belongs to everyone.

This might seem like a hard sell, but this has some media push behind it going back for a few years. Multiple outlets have spotlighted polyamorous couples. The writer, usually a woman, is living or in a relationship with two men, usually all wretched looking but HAPPY with the arrangement. Some outlets have even tried to sell cuckoldry as some new, hot fad in the elite. The groundwork is there, so why not push for it to be in marriages?

Wait! There’s a useful media trick with gays marrying. See, gays have a hard time staying monogamous, and shucks, their marriages are often much more open and accepting of poly behavior. Media outlets have used the behavior of gays in marriage (the incredibly small number of gays who marry) as an example of how straights can learn from them and re-evaluate their traditional marriages.

Trans, bestiality, pedos, incest… these are rather tough pills to swallow. Weimerica can only devolve at so fast a pace. Those fringe kinks run into old taboos. While the media can find a random gay couple for a “Just Like Us” essay or advertisement, it is harder to do it with a man and his horse, or a daughter and her father. They will try. Reworking marriage entirely into a game of acceptable “it was just sex, you agreed, I love you” destroys a potential unit people can identify with outside government connections.

Pair bonding matters. Being roommates who sometimes sleep together is not as stable. Modern society has slung many arrows at marriage, and it is a shadow of what it once was, but the final push will be to remove any sacredness from it by making it a transactional relationship, a disposable relationship, something temporary. It helps the regime kill rebellions that start at the dinner table. In the Life of Julia Democrat video, Julia only came in touch with you if the government was the mutual friend.

Where are your bonds, who do you have allegiance to? Bowling Alone explained the destruction of civic bonds, but look closer. Private organizations are attacked, organized religion is attacked, diversity is pushed everywhere, but your connections to government are reinforced by each policy and each media article. You have no shared values with your Somali Muslim refugee neighbor, so resolving conflicts within the small neighborhood is impossible. The feds, however, are waiting and willing to sort out any dispute. Your church does not provide the safety net it once did, but your government does–if not directly, then through grants to your dying church. Your family is a port in a storm, but the government has its eye on that institution, as well.

Who cares who your dad is, your mom is, or whether they are alone, together, or decide to invite others in? All that matters is the one thing you all belong to and all come together for is your government.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Bicycle Troops of WW1

Italian bicycle troops

It is hard to believe but bicycles were a relatively new invention at the outbreak of WW1. These are Italian troops who were bicyclists. It sounds odd but the use of taxi cabs to move troops to the front quickly turned the tide in defending France and saving Paris. One may laugh, but other than bicycles, these men would have been on horse, and a bike is much easier to maintain, does not need to eat and is a much smaller target.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

It's Time We Let the South Go

As any good Yankee, I stopped looking at cat gifs, my Iphone, the Daily Show and Internet porn long enough last week to see the outrage over the Confederate flag. I had not thought of that flag in years since an old girlfriend wore it as a bikini top for a Rednecks + White Trash Party. Still, the media told me that I should be angry about it. Since I am emotionally constipated like any good American and no celebrity of high stature had died that week, I too became outraged and angry. It got me thinking. It's time we let the South go.

Here is my multipoint plan. This is a rough sketch, but when has that ever stopped a Yankee on a crusade.

1. All states of the old confederacy are ejected out of the United States.

2. Borderland states not formerly part of the Confederacy but full of enough evil white people that I suspect are confederates by thought if not mood should be given the option to leave. This would be Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Illinois and even you Indiana. I know you had the Klan active in the 20th century, bigotlords.

3. As any good Yankee, I have much love for my black brothers and sisters, sorry, my black bruthas and sistahs. I would guarantee safe passage, and house these angelic refugees in the progressive states of Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Vermont. Those states have the great schools that blacks have been dying to enter. We'll find jobs for them... eventually.

4. For borderland states, it would be best to save the large metropolitan areas of Chicago and St. Louis as American colonies, while allowing the remaining riffraff of flyover neaderthals to separate. These cities will shine with bright blue lights as beacons of the progressive American spirit. I can just see flashing blue lights and sirens blasting every night in those cities, trumpeting the victory of progressivism over hate!

5. Looking at the map, it might be best to chuck out a bunch more of those flatland, square states. Fuck you flyover hicks! Complaing????? Go tell it to Jesus!

6. Since we good Yankees reject warfare, nukes and violence, we will transfer military equipment, nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons to those stupid crackers. We've got smart diplomacy, and we're not afraid to use it.

This would be a great boon for the remaining United States. We progressives would see the realization of our 2015 dreams. Renewable energy everywhere, mandatory bike lanes, no nukes, no more war, gay men could spend all the time alone with small children they want, and the crown jewel, Nationalized Health Care. Did you read that? I know your Yankee eyes may have blacked out as you orgasmed over the idea of being an arts history major but knowing your parents can rest easy and say "At least we know she has health insurance". It could all be America's if only we kicked those Yosemite Sam acting, Foghorn Leghorn talking, sundress wearing assholes out! Let's do this!

A Note on Writing

Nick Steves tweeted that it looked like I was not taking a summer break. There is a reason for that, but to be frank, I'm trying to cut back on my writing. I'm trying to do 4 posts a week. I have a long term project that I have stalled on and want to complete. I've been stuck at 15,000 words on Robert Rubin for what feels like 18 months. Oddly enough, my youngest child is roughly 18 months old. I always encourage people to write because you never know when you are going to have a great insight and then change a few people's minds. How to do it?

1. Write every single day. - If you write every single day, you refine and improve your abilities. You also can expand your writing style. I try to be serious often, but I have room for my lighter, comedic posts. Writing everyday makes that possible. Practice.

2. Always be looking. - If you write something each day, you need to always be looking for subjects. You'll need to read, you'll need to pay attention to your social world, and you'll need to think about the present, past and future. I put it in my Taki's bio blurb, but I view SWPLs now not with disdain and contempt but as anthropology subjects. It makes dinners with vegans not an hour of suffering but observation and engagement.

3. Always be thinking. - Tease everything out to conclusions. My recent fictional post on the Clinton marriage started after seeing a picture of the two of them and wondering, "What were the emails she had to delete about him and that fucked up marriage?" Add in a dash of every Boomer marriage melodrama and fifteen minutes of brainstorming.

4. Look at the enemy. - I observe and read the enemy's sources often. I want to know how they think, and the BS behind anything they publicly say. They also sometimes reveal reality yet choose to spin it in a way that fits their needs at the moment.

5. You have the time. - The average American watches hours of television and spends hours more on the Internet. Turn that time into reading and writing a 500 word post. Better yet, turn that time into some lifting, reading and writing. Jackasses like me who are not concise turn that into 1000 words. Time management is easy when you cut out the junk food.

Keep lifting, keep posting.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

The Mad Men Effect

The scale of society has grown too big. Searching for mass appeal means a race to the lowest common denominator, leaving many with a hollow feeling. Technology has developed that gives the impression that centralization will provide benefits. That same technology can be used by decentralized controllers to give markets or entities a better representation of what they want. The tastemakers will tell us what is right and good. Tastemakers can also grow incredibly detached from the audiences they supposedly serve. America witnessed this in May as two reruns of I Love Lucy received nearly double the viewers of the Mad Men series finale.

This is Mad Men the water cooler show for the hip. How could I Love Lucy trounce it in the ratings? Why was Mad Men only pulling in 3.3 million viewers for its final episode? Part of this might be the idea that people say they like a show or say they watch but in reality do not. How much of Mad Men's cultural pull was just the mid-20th century aesthetics and LARPing that viewers could enjoy? It might be that Mad Men was a water cooler show to talk about the show's looks and eye candy but not about the actual show. Mad Men could be a SWPL thing. Like all SWPL things, the SWPLs claim to know all about it, but in reality, they know just enough to make small talk and appear knowledgeable.

The other split is that I Love Lucy had a gigantic audience that appealed to the masses. Those masses, while old or dead, still exist in large enough numbers to watch an age old rerun that they already know. Mad Men was beloved by our tastemakers, our cultural gatekeepers, and supposed media elites. Mad Men was a show that played to the NYC centric media's love with itself and the nostalgia vibe that has engulfed our culture as diversity causes people to seek the familiar and certain. Enough people who mattered liked Mad Men, therefore they made the show matter and appear better than it was. This is why The Wire is so lauded while The Shield is relatively forgotten for cable cop dramas. Both were very well done, but one played to the liberal narrative while the other was dark from start to finish with no real heroes. One show became the subject of Harvard courses, while the other has seen supporting characters move onto decent roles in other cop dramas.

This is also why white pundits wrung their hands over liking a show that was so white. How could they love something, consider it cool and hip, but it was so white??? They overlooked the reality of 1960 Madison Avenue and expected a rainbow to be onscreen. Media members also overlooked the heavy female writing crew. It is never quite enough for them. This is also why the few minorities allowed to grace the pages of the NY Times bemoan the whiteness of Mad Men and Girls. "A show is considered excellent, why aren't we on that show? Quick sound the alarm? We need black bodies and homos STAT!" It is a pathetic weird way of trying to skeeze some credit off the celebrated show; like adding a few blacks to Girls and Mad Men will allow some Afro-Am studies professor to think blacks contribute to high/middle brow culture. For a comical juxtaposition, the children's show Veggie Tales for years was Christian and unapologetically white. It had a Mexican character straight from the '50s Warner Brothers set who often played the antagonist and another Indian stereotype character. The NY Times never noticed because the show was for the rubes and never crossed their radar screen. No worries about anachronistic stereotyping with Veggie Tales.

It is not really how many people you reach, but who you reach. I Love Lucy's reruns scored nearly double the viewers, but for right now, which telecast mattered more to viewers? SWPLs and television critics raved or ranted about the series finale as well as the end of the Golden Age of television. I Love Lucy's reruns received a nice blurb about being colorized. This is also a product of the modern inclination towards deconstruction. The tastemakers are pretty detached in their views as they continued to push Mad Men as a very important show with very important messages in contrast to fans who wondered where America went wrong and rolled their eyes at new characters that reflected the Jewish/black/gay experience in the late '60s. The intelligentsia, if it reaches low to dicuss television, while want to deconstruct a show like Mad Men and discuss its dissection of '60s culture with 50 years in between. Your viewers at home do not care. People just wanted to see if Don failed just like people just want to see Lucy get into some hysterical situation and nail a few punch lines.