Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Killer Groupies

Steve Sailer links to this article from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Even in his death row cell, satanic serial killer and rapist Richard Ramirez, the "Night Stalker,"receives bags of mail. And of the dozens of people who try to contact him each year, officials say, about 90 percent are women.

It's not just Ramirez who gets the attention, nor is Scott Peterson alone in the way he attracted admiring women even after he was sentenced to die for killing his wife and unborn child.

Death row prisoners often join the horde of grooms married in group ceremonies such as the one planned Saturday at San Quentin State Prison.

It's a phenomenon that's little understood and seldom studied: Women who fall hopelessly in love - or at the least become wildly infatuated - with the most feared killers.

From the comments thread:


I've been a regular reader of yours for years and have posted, always anonymously, for that same time, especially now.

I don't think I've mentioned this before, but I may be your only reader who can honestly say that her mother did fall in love and have an affair with a murderer while he was in prison.

It's an extremely interesting story, of course, but I'll try to keep it brief as I don't have much time. I want to touch on who she was and which men did, and did not, find her attractive.

Much of the folk wisdom about alpha/beta and dad/cad has some truth, but there is a lot that is missed. From experience, I can confidently tell you that the "missed" parts will not be welcomed.

My mother was very beautiful, though well past her prime and in her '40s; she had been captain of the cheerleader's squad in h.s. She was surprisingly intelligent with an I.Q. in the 140s. She was also very liberal socially: she was pro-choice; pre-marital sex was fine; and divorce was fine; even if it was only because the woman had put on some weight. She believed that when one wasn't happy one needed to take whatever measures necessary and an intact family just wasn't something that should be so enshrined as holy. Families are nice, but not that nice. She had always been faithful to her three husbands and cooked them two meals a day (they were at work during lunch) and very good ones at that. She was never in love with them though, despite her affirmations that she was; I picked up on this at an early age.

Who did she attract? In short, men like her. With the exception of my father, her first husband, they were all socially liberal men with the same views. The difference between her and them, until she met the prisoner, was that while they were selfish, they didn't quite match her. She always did the leaving. My father stood out with his conservatism and high intelligence, but was not a brave man; he wouldn't stand up for or defend anything or anyone.

So up to this point, most of your readers will be nodding their heads in recognition of this pattern.

What they miss is that she was far more liberal than the average woman. She was, as the cliche goes, turned on by the excitement of this aggressive prisoner. For a person to willfully overlook all the warning signs is by definition someone who doesn't live in reality, a liberal.

I will be brutally honest. Some of the bloggers who write about game and all remind me so much of her admirers that I got to observe close up as a teen-ager: they love the bad and loose woman and want her to be "bad" with them and then miraculously become faithful Suzie homemaker. As such, they are liberals. The good girls are "boring" and "repressed".

Other bloggers are much wiser and realize that that such a woman doesn't transform, but they completely inverse the situation when it comes to themselves and can't understand why they can't find a good woman; I believe they put it thus, "There are no good women". That's for another time :)

BTW, which men did not come around: well-to-do conservative men who fought for whatever they believed and whomever they believed in.

I believe this happened with my mother: she had a tragic childhood, with a dash of MacKenzie Phillips type stuff, and slutted it up as did many other baby-boomers. She met my father and cleaned up her act and hoped to fall in love with him. He was a timid type and if she said she regretted her past, hey, who was he to judge? He wanted so desperately to believe she would be a good wife and mother, all evidence to the contrary. I believe she never realized and accepted how unattractive she made herself by her promiscuous ways and social liberalism and was so delusional that she felt she could do better than this weak, but loyal man. She left and did worse. She left again and did even worse. She fell for Mr. Murderer who, finally, was the person who outdid her in being a psychopath (not hateful, but careless with others emotions). Today, she is alone, in her fifties, and has been for years.

Years ago, a very nice girl I was steady with told me that a female friend of hers had been corresponding with an inmate, and had invited her to go along for a prison visit. Solely out of raw, 20-year old male instinct, I forbade it. In later years, having been exposed in a small way to that bizarre sub-culture, I am sure glad I did.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

What is money?

Gary North explains,
Let us return to the original question: What is money? The best answer to this continual question was provided in 1912 by the Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises. In his book, "The Theory of Money and Credit," he provided an answer in six words: money is the most marketable commodity. He had in mind gold and silver coins, but his theory encompassed any commodity that can or has served as money in history.

By defining money as the most marketable commodity, Mises integrated monetary theory with general economic theory. His theory of money was an extension of his theory of the free market. He rested his case for the free market on the right of private ownership.

It follows that attempts to fix the price for the time-preference for money, i.e., the rate of interest, will introduce the same distortions as attempts to fix the prices for medical care, labor, steel, or any other commodity. The Federal Reserve board members are engaged in the same Sysiphean task as the Soviet Gosplan.

The problem with the Republican party


Still the Stupid Party by Tom Piatak,
Yesterday on Meet the Press, Bill Clinton said this when asked if the “vast right wing conspiracy” that Hillary claimed was the source of all the Clintons’ political troubles was still around: “Sure it is, it’s not as strong as it was, because America’s changed demographically, but it’s as virulent as it was.” In other words, because mass immigration is decreasing the white share of the electorate, opposition to liberalism is decreasing. In fact, as all the outrcry over the “racist” nature of the tea parties shows, the future promises to be one where the mere fact that a policy position is held mostly by whites is likely to make it suspect, if not toxic. If the Democrats have figured this out, why does the GOP keep nominating for President men who haven’t?

To which Kevin DeAnna responds,
Conservative explanation—Because social acceptance, as designated by a left wing elite, is more important than winning. As Burkeans, we must bow before established elites, even if they hate us. What’s important is that we lose slowly so people don’t get upset.

Libertarian explanation—Because admitting the existence of cultures, nations, peoples, families, religions, and ethnicities is collectivist and one step away from Stalinism.

Kevin DeAnna has previously eulogized movement conservatism, i.e., the Republican party. And truly, this has been the problem all along: how does one reconcile conservatism with the modern ideal of universal suffrage? If control over the levers of State power is determined by majority vote, the battle for the State necessarily means you must cede the battle for the larger Culture. The Republicans, perforce, chose the former path and are losing the war. Libertarians are similarly aligned with a high time-preference, libertine majority. In short, electoral politics are a dead end for conservatism at this point.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

A 9/11 Memorial

The Real Heroes Are Dead, the incredible life and death of Rick Rescorla.

Read it all, and then watch the only known video footage of Rick Rescorla, head of security for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, recorded at the World Trade Center on July 28, 1998:

Voice Of The Prophet

Friday, September 11, 2009

Gnosticism, continued

When Someone Is Raised Female And The Genes Say XY, Seth Borenstein, Associated Press

Experts say Semenya should be allowed to race as a woman and they cringe at how her case is exploding publicly in the news media. They worry about psychological scars. Two years ago, a star female track athlete who tested male attempted suicide.

Unless she took some illicit substance, Semenya is a female with a birth defect, simple as that, said Dr. Myron Genel, a professor emeritus of pediatrics at Yale University. He was part of a special panel of experts convened by the International Association of Athletics Federations in 1990 that helped end much, but not all, genetic gender testing.
Dr. Louis Elsas, chairman of biochemistry at the University of Miami and a member of the IAAF panel with Genel, said he had hoped the genetic gender testing issue was over after the 1996 Olympics, when most major sports abandoned regular testing. He recalled having to talk to a female athlete and reveal that she had XY chromosomes and that she'd be infertile. It's something that shouldn't splash onto television, newspapers and the Internet, he said.

"It's a severe emotional trauma," Elsas said.

The concern that women with XY chromosomes have a competitive advantage "is malarkey. We don't segregate athletes by height," said Genel, speaking from an international endocrinology conference in New York that has sessions on intersex issues.

Remarkable stuff. And why is Semenya a "female with a birth defect?" Isn't he (XY chromosones, male shoulder and pelvic structure, elevated T-levels, etc.) a male with a birth defect: undescended testes and a malformed penis?

One last money quote:
Simpson, associate dean at Florida International University, said the issue should be simply whether men are masquerading as women. Semenya is clearly a woman, he said.

"Clearly?" With no mammary glands, uterus or ovaries? And XY chromosones? One wonders to what lengths Dr. Simpson would have men go to prove they were not female. And this is from a man whose specialty is medical genetics.

Modern worship of the gnostic ideal prevents even extremely intelligent people from admitting what science and their senses tell them: Semenya is a man with undescended testes and malformed genitals. This is apparent from even the most superficial observation of his physiology and mannerisms. (Just click on the pictures to get the full frame. The Fox Sports photo gallery is here).

And the statement that XY chromosones don't confer a competitive advantage can only be described as breathtaking; there is simply no such thing as "women with XY chromosones."

And here's a picture worth at least a thousand words.

Postscript: I'm going to add Steve Sailer's wonderful tag for such items, political correctness makes you stupid.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

The Photo

I don't understand the uproar over this photo by AP reporter Jenny Jacobson:

The main objection I read in various comments was that the photographer should have respected the privacy of LCpl. Bernard and his family. I am not sure where such arguments come from. LCpl. Bernard, God rest his soul, was a public employee hit by enemy fire in a war funded by taxpayers. I think he and his family can legitimately insist he not be photographed in the trauma unit after all of his clothes have been cut off. But short of that, the people funding the war and voting to approve its continuance should be able to calculate the cost from, among other sources, the visual depiction of young men reduced to bleeding, spastic flesh. There is a lot further that such photographs can go, for that matter.

One particularly deluded commenter I read was outraged that Joshua's family had been robbed of any belief that their son had died quickly and painlessly. Folks, weep instead for the fact that this son of America died without offspring, and weep also over his last moments of appalled shock that his young life was being snuffed out.

Another common sentiment was that the photographer should have deferred to the notion that LCpl. Bernard was "fighting for our freedom." At best, one can say he died so that Islamic militants trained in Afghanistan wouldn't make their way over here. Now, the objective merits of that statement aside, why haven't we stopped at a few training bases in Afghanistan that were destroyed eight years ago?

Isn't the real source of the problem the Open Society's insistence that, as it chooses sides in overseas inter-tribal conflicts, it simultaneously welcomes the protagonists from both sides over here?

And forbids its members from carrying the most basic tools for self-defense on to airplanes?

And will sue folks like the Bernard family into the dirt if they reject the premises of the Open Society?

This gets back to my question of last month: when does the Christian, homeschooling Bernard family realize they are sending their sons to die for an entity that hates them? And what happens then?

Christ our eternal King and God, You have destroyed death and the devil by Your Cross and have restored man to life by Your Resurrection. Give rest O Lord to the soul of Your servant Joshua who has fallen asleep, in Your Kingdom where there is no pain, sorrow or suffering. In Your goodness and love for all men, pardon all the sins he has committed in thought, word or deed, for there is no man or woman who lives and sins not. You only are without sin.

For You are the Resurrection, the Life, and Repose of Your servant Joshua, departed this life O Christ our God; and to You we send up glory with Your Eternal Father and Your All-holy, Good and Life-creating Spirit, now and forever and unto ages of ages.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

The delegitimization of the State, continued...

Here's a story, with photos about the hi-jinks of a merc company retained by the US government to guard its main operating base, excuse me, its "embassy," in Kabul.

Now, there are several things going on here (and I'm not there so I don't know) but I'm guessing what it really boils down to is this: there are no serviceable females for these lads for miles in either direction. Any European or American honeys who might otherwise qualify are behind ten feet of concrete block being swooped by CIA and State Department staff. And what is also very likely, there is a two-inch thick binder full of rules that keeps the mercs from getting within ten feet of Afghan women who would party-hearty for some cash and cheap beer. And food. And medicine. And some diverted building materials. And a shot at convincing one of these saps to marry her and take her to the US so she can increase her lifespan by 20+ years.

And any tub-thumper out there who doesn't like how this is sounding, let me suggest we shouldn't be in the business of imperial war to begin with.

Of course, I'm happy to concede that my guess as to what this really boils down to is just plain wrong.

Maybe the State really is reduced to paying homoerotic thugs $100K a year to guard its imperial palaces.

Maybe it really can't find enough competent men among its 2.3 million active and reserve troops to accomplish the task.

Or maybe the State is just spreading the wealth around rather than oh, I don't know, paying its E-3's more than $20K a year.

But in any event, the State is proceeding apace towards anarcho-tyranny, with its gang of homoerotic thugs taking their place among all the other gangs of homoerotic thugs victimizing peaceful folk.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

"You Dogs!"

From Jeff Snyder, on

Jeff Snyder's essay takes its title from Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities," wherein a French aristocrat utters the phrase to a crowd that gathers after his carriage runs over a child. Dickens notes that the aristocrat acts out of a sense of complete impunity, reinforced by the seemingly cowed state of the lower classes. What happened next, as we now know, was the French Revolution.

Mr. Snyder makes the point in his turn that the American elites are engaged in an increasingly blatant and massive expropriation of wealth from taxpayers and downstream dollar-holders.

It is not morning in America.

Within the last year, the Treasury Department has bailed out AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and forced Bank of America to acquire Merrill Lynch while promising that Treasury would take care of Merrill’s losses on its mortgaged-backed securities. The Federal Reserve, a government-sponsored private bank, has provided hundreds of billions in credit support to faltering or insolvent banks. Details not provided. With letters from voters to Congress running hundreds to 1 against, Congress approved $700 billion in TARP funds for the Treasury Department to purchase banks’ toxic assets. It now turns out that no one can say, or is willing to say, how the first $350 billion or so of those funds were used or to whom they were paid.

To deal with the toxic assets it is purchasing in order to save the banks, the Treasury Department created a program under which companies can form public-private enterprises (PPEs) to buy pools of these assets from the Treasury and resell them. The Treasury or other government agency set up for this business will put up 7%, the private company will put up 7% and the PPE can obtain 86% government financing to purchase these toxic assets at a discounted price determined by the FDIC. The financing is nonrecourse, so if the PPE does not make enough money to repay the loan, the private company is not liable for the deficiency, and the losses are absorbed by the taxpayers. The result is that, after the taxpayers absorb the initial losses in value on the toxic assets in an amount determined by the FDIC, for 7% of the discounted value down, the private company in the PPE gets the chance to make a profit reselling the same toxic assets that it or its comrades in finance helped create in the first instance. Is this a great country or what?

The Administration forced a cram down of General Motor’s creditors and, with 67% of the American people opposing the plan, acquired a substantial ownership interest in GM and bailed it out. The federal government is now in the car as well as banking businesses.

With only about 37% of the American people supporting it and 43% opposing it, Congress passed a $787 billion spending spree bill to caffeinate the zombie economy. It’s money we don’t have. By its own estimates, the federal government is going to run a deficit this year of about 1.6 trillion dollars, and projects a ten-year estimated budget deficit in excess of $9 trillion. That’s on top of our existing national debt, and doesn’t include the interest costs the government is going to incur to pay on the bonds it issues to obtain that money.

The theft is so massive, in fact, that it is economically unsustainable. And one must wonder, as I have, how long the parasitic elite can rely on the forbearance of their hosts. The obvious answer is, "Not forever," and Mr. Snyder's clever tie-in is that in pre-Revolutionary France, the unsustainable state of affairs persisted, until the day it didn't. A tipping point is surely being approached, and upper class snickering at the illogic of Medicare beneficiaries raging against socialized medicine becomes quite irrelevant.

[A]fter a year in which the members of Congress have continually disregarded the voters’ wishes and committed them to trillions in debt to save the rich, the members of Congress, on return from the capital to the provinces this summer, have been caught unawares, completely surprised at the vitriol that has been directed at them in this summer’s town hall meetings. Some of the voters are calling them socialists or fascists, and waving the swastika at them! Some of the voters are spluttering with rage, are incoherent, or saying contradictory and stupid things, like telling their representatives that they don’t want government involved in health care, but don’t take away our Medicare! The folks at Comedy Central are having some fun with that. Look at these morons rage! Ah oui, c’est très amusante, cela!

Not everyone sees this as a source of hilarity or, like some pundits, a reason to bemoan the sad, infantile state of political "discourse" in this country. Trends forecaster Gerald Celente, citing the anger at this summer’s town hall meetings, says that we are in the early stages of "The Second American Revolution." Whether it is true remains to be seen, but the prediction certainly echoes a vibrant chord of dissension running through the tenor of the times.

Celente’s name for the developing conflict is potentially misleading, in that it suggests, by implicit reference to the mythology of our first revolution, that the eventual outcome may be more freedom, not less. But as Bertrand de Jouvenel pointed out in his examination of the growth of power, historically, revolutions have always resulted in greater centralization of power, greater control over society’s resources by the state and greater tyranny, as some strong man or group found a way to harness and ride the rage to a new position of command.

The fact of the matter is that for all their illogic and incoherence, the protesters are more right than wrong.

Is the anger we see in town hall meetings limited to Congress’ attempt to reform our health care system? Are some of these people mad just because Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have whipped them into a frenzy about socialism? Yeah, it’s possible, but then again, why were they able to do that? Some commentators have noted that the anger is being fueled by people’s anxiety and uncertainty over their jobs and what’s going to happen to them. No doubt that there’s something to that, but I suspect that it has a lot more to do with something they are not uncertain of at all, some fundamental truth that’s just been really rammed home, namely, that whatever happens, they’re the ones who pay. They’re the ones who must not only bear their own losses but recompense the losses of the architects of the disaster. They’re the ones who must adjust and whose income and lives must diminish, so that those who are too big to fail continue to receive their due, and can continue to live in the style to which they’ve become accustomed. They’re the ones who are supposed to be consoled by President Obama’s assurances that "our best days are ahead," apparently coming right after they’ve finished paying a few trillion dollars to assure that our financiers’ best days continue to be right now.

And if you think these people are mad now, just wait until it becomes clear that tax-deferred 401(k)'s and defined-benefit pensions are a sucker's bet, on top of the already bankrupt Social Security and Medicare funds.

Snyder concludes,

The final aspect of Dickens’ portrait that I wish to highlight is the blindness of the upper classes to the coming bloodbath, and the apparent unshakable security of their position almost right up to the day it breaks. They have no sense that they are pushing people closer and closer to the brink, and never have the slightest doubt but that they are secure in the power that their position and wealth confers, and their insulation from the conditions of the rest of their society. As Dickens portrays it, even at the edge of the precipice, there is still no sign of their danger or impending doom, and it seems that things will just go on the same way forever.

We see this in the second part of the chapter, where a Marquis’ carriage runs over a small child in the streets of Paris, and the carriage stops to secure the horses. A crowd forms around the Marquis’s carriage, but Dickens notes that "[t]here was nothing revealed by the many eyes that looked at him but watchfulness and eagerness; there was no visible menacing or anger." The Marquis is imperial and speaks to people in the crowd, but does not doubt for one instant the security of his position. Nor would he have any cause to do so for, as Dickens notes, "[s]o cowed was their condition, and so long and hard their experience of what such a man could do to them, within the law and beyond it, that not a voice, or a hand, or even an eye was raised." It seems such people could never rise up to overthrow anything. The people have been brought so low, so reined in that they have no option but to continue paying, carrying and kowtowing to this predatory and useless class. But the reader knows, as the Marquis does not, that this is an illusion, that the pressure is growing, that the tighter the controls, the worse they are treated, the harder they are squeezed, the greater the coming explosion will be. The reader knows, as the Marquis does not, the dam will soon break and these people, silent and cowed today, will be part of a bloodthirsty mob tomorrow.

The facts that there are no rumblings of revolt, no outbreaks of hostility, no displays of anger, that the people are as subdued and tractable, as fully under thumb as ever, are absolutely no indication that all is well, that matters are not coming to a head. This, of course, is what makes the disconnectedness and self-absorbed, self-regard of the upper classes all the more dangerous and, ultimately, fatal.

Dickens sees that, for those living at that time, the French Revolution was not a gradual, unfolding series of events, each more clearly foretelling the horror to come, but a sudden, complete rupture of the social order, cataclysmic, like an earthquake. The ground is solid, permanent, fixed and unmoving; nothing is more stable or certain. Yet underneath the pressure is building until one day it reaches a point where the plates suddenly slip. The earth moves, a chasm may open beneath one’s feet, and the landscape is forever altered.

It is because Dickens shows life shortly before the Revolution proceeding the same as ever, that the concluding words of his chapter are so powerful: "all things ran their course." The aristocrats are attending their Fancy Ball and "the rats," meaning the people, "are sleeping in their dark holes." Nothing has changed. There are no new developments that give cause for concern. Life is proceeding in the same way, everything is as it should be, all’s right with the world and it’s bright and wonderful and marvelous. Yet, as readers with the hindsight of history, we know where this course leads, and how it ends.

In November 1989, I along with everybody else watched the newscasts of Germans tearing down the Berlin Wall. I remarked to my roommate at the time that the Soviet Union would be gone in five years. He said ten. It took less than two.