Monthly Archives: November 2015

Serge and Frederick Kovaleski

Trump’s getting heat for mocking a disabled NYT reporter, Serge Kovaleski. I have no sympathy for NYT reporters, so I support Trump attacking them.

Anyway, Serge is the son of Frederick Kovaleski. Frederick Kovaleski was a tennis player who worked as a CIA spy for a decade, recruiting other spies. Serge wrote of Fred’s work as a spy in the Washington Post in 2006. Oddly, Fred doesn’t have an English wiki, although, he does a French one, which, run through Google Translate, states this:

He grew up in a small town Hamtramck Michigan near Detroit and mainly populated by Eastern European immigrants where most people converse in Polish. Poland is the country of his parents, he speaks Polish and Russian. At school he first played handball and his gym teacher sees him as a tennis player potential. There is no court in the city then it draws a line on the gym wall and asked if his parents can buy her a racket. After asking 10 dollars to his father who does not see what sport it is, it advises instead to play baseball or something like that. His teacher, Jean Hoxie who became a local legend of tennis, provides him a racquet and tennis teaches him, he is 11 years old. It will be selected for the US Junior Davis Cup Team and spotted by several universities of Michigan, where he will visit but for a short time since October 1942 he had to make war from the Philippines.

On his return his tennis success earned him invitations to tournaments, USTA and then left to tour Europe with the financial support of Jean Hoxie in 1950, after a 1/8 finals at Roland Garros is classified in the top 15 worldwide for Wimbledon where he also reached the 1 / 8th. His many successes throughout the world earned him a further invitations chaining in France, Italy, Pakistan, India, Hong Kong, Philippines etc. He met many US diplomats in various embassies. At Monte Carlo in 1951 the question arose to turn pro after an offer from Calcutta tournament, but he refused because only a handful of players at that time could make a living as a pro.

His contacts then offered her to work for the CIA. His first mission was to support defectors from the Soviet army because of his knowledge of the language. He continued in parallel its business coverage, tennis player. He meets in Cairo Manya Jabes, of Russian origin. The CIA considered too high risk and asked him to choose. He chose to marry her, in Lebanon or it will just find a position for Pepsi. They then go to Sudan and the CIA back in touch with him and asked him to make recordings of translations after reconsidering her marital situation.

He works after Yemen and South Africa in Cape Town, still for Pepsi. In 1961 Serge and his son was born, and he decided to leave the CIA. He left for Australia and Pepsi situation at Revlon, not before had an MBA at Columbia University. The family moved to New York and then go to Washington to follow their son Serge who works for the Washington Post. It is for this newspaper that Serge will tell the story of his father in 2006. Following the article the family returned back to Manhattan the son to follow in his new post at the New York Times where he will pick the Pulitzer Prize in 2009. That year Fred Kovaleski won the USTA National Men’s Grass Court Championships for over 85 years, and in 2010 and 2011. n June 2014, nearly 90 years he decided to speak for the first time in his past secret agent

According to Serge’s article linked above, Serge knew his father by 1973 and Fred worked in the upper echolons of Pepsi, Revlon, and Nabisco. There’s also this little tidbit:

Soon after my father arrived in Cairo, a socialite friend introduced him to an exotically fetching Egyptian woman of White Russian parents. He started to court Manya Jabes, even though she was married to a wealthy Egyptian banker, Rene, and devoted to her young son and daughter, who were at school in Europe.

To be inconspicuous, she and my father would meet at his apartment, take drives outside of Cairo or have drinks at a bar on a Nile house boat. After knowing her for two years, my father asked my mother to marry him. She said yes and divorced Rene several months later. She has seen her other children — my half siblings — often over the years.

My father was exalted about marrying my mother, but apprehensive. He knew how the CIA felt about agents wedding foreigners, especially a foreigner whose father had returned to the Soviet Union. His fears were justified. In March, 1957, his boss received a cable from Washington: If my father married Manya Jabes, he would have to resign.

Now out of the CIA, my father found civilian work with Pepsi, which sent him to Khartoum, Sudan, for training at a local bottling plant. Ironically, it wasn’t long before he got a call from the CIA chief of station there who offered him a job translating tapes from taps on Khartoum’s Soviet Embassy. My father declined, but said he knew someone for the job: his new wife, who spoke six languages, including Russian.

This article elucidites a bit more:

While Kovaleski’s cover story eventually changed from tennis pro to travel agent, he continued his work in Cairo with the CIA. There he fell in love with a woman named Manya Jabes of Russian descent. Marriage, however, required approval by his boss at the agency. “I supplied her name, birthdate, family members, et cetera, all of which was cabled back to D.C. for security processing,” says Kovaleski. “They discovered that Manya’s father had divorced Manya’s mother, married another Russian woman who was a poet and returned to the Soviet Union.”

She was considered a security risk. The CIA told Kovaleski he had to choose his career or Manya. He chose Manya and resigned as an officer of the CIA.

Manya ended up working for the CIA a few years later. Serge was born in Cape Town in 1961, which, as near as I can tell, would have been around the time Manya was working as a spy. Serge graduated from William & Mary, one of the original Public Ivies and has worked the rounds of newspapers: The Washington Post, the New York Daily News, Money Magazine, and The Miami News.

Interestingly, he won a Pulitzer in 2009 for his work in writing on Spitzer’s prostitution scandal. 28 Sherman has connected Spitzer’s scandal to Maurice Greenberg, who himself has numerous known CIA connections and has been accused of even deeper connections.

Also, Greenberg and Trump have been feuding for a while now, starting around the time Greenberg was forced out of AIG by Spitzer and is backing Bush in this election.

I don’t see a direct link between Greenberg and Kovaleski,* but it would be doubtful that someone who wrote for Money Magazine didn’t know someone as involved in the financial world as Greenberg. It seems at the very edge of coincidence that the man who was awarded for destroying Spitzer, which just happened to benefit the big hedge funds and got revenge for Greenberg, is also the man who is at the centre of a manufactured controversy against Trump, who is also warring against hedge funds and is feuding with Greenberg.

Don’t forget, Serge’s entrance into the controversy was when he backtracked on his article in 2001 which stated:

In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.

Which directly supports Trumps assertions on this issue and which the usual suspects are attacking him on.

If you look around, Kovaleski has been involved in pushing numerous other left-wing causes in his “reporting”. Here he is sympathizing with Tsarnaev, painting Zimmerman as creepy and crazy, and pushing the poor, victimized Michael Brown narrative.

None of this amounts to proof of anything, but the coincidences of a left-wing NYT reporter being involved in two scandals to destroy the enemies of AIG and Greenberg, are rather interesting. In fact, it’s almost amazing how little there is on the internet about the Kovalski family despite (because of?) the two parents being known CIA spies, the father being an executive at multiple MNC’s and a world-class tennis player, and the son being a NYT reporter at the heart of two different national headline political controversies. I suspect there’s probably more to this than the superficial outrage generation.

What NRx and the alt-right really need is a wiki/encyclopedia/editable web so we can track the web of connections between all these people. It would be a huge project, but if we mapped the web of connections within the Cathedral over the last century, I’m sure it would provide reams of interesting information.

****

* There’s a Dan Kovaleski who works as an Assistant VP at AIG, but I don’t see any linkages but the name (Dan Kovaleski is almost non-existent on the internet), and Kovaleski isn’t rare enough to assume a family connection on last name alone.

A Democratic Thanksgiving

A couple years back, I posted on the emptiness of leftists who think of the holidays as an opportunity for indoctrinating their family. It looks like the campaign has started again this year. (H/T: SDA).

If you want my thoughts this, you can read it there. Right now, I’m going to forgo any substantial insights and indulge in a little bit of lulz, by focusing on the content of the official Democratic site for turning Thanksgiving into an opportunity to spew political propaganda: Your Republican Uncle. The site states:

The holiday season is filled with food, traveling, and lively discussions with Republican relatives about politics sometimes laced with statements that are just not true. Here are the most common myths spouted by your family members who spend too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh and the perfect response to each of them.

Look at these “perfect responses” on Trump:

Trump1Trump2Trump3

These responses are retarded. Maybe, I might be able to understand looking up and memorizing talking points full of hard statistics, sophisticated political philosophy, and strongly reasoned ideology, if you are broken enough that that what’s Thanksgiving and Christmas mean to you. But this? Who can not think up the stunningly intellectual arguments of “Trump is an evil xenophobe who went bankrupt a couple times” and “deportation is mean, you meanie-head” without the gentle guiding hand of a DNC shill.

Oh, and just in case you were thinking those links may expand on the arguments, they do not go to supporting documentation with anything more substantial, they merely allow you to tweet your ignorance and asininity to the people you know. Although, why Democratic operatives anybody would think anybody would want to publicly advertise their own vacuousness is beyond me? They must think even more condescendingly of their base than I do.

The rest are more of the same asininity. Read them if you thinks your IQ is too high and you want to lop off a few points.

Now, note the faces: The Republican Uncle is a grumpy meanie-face, while the Liberal, who has prepared and memorized partisan political talking points in advance so he can “win” a debate family dinner, is happy (because that’s what happy people do right?). But look at the happy face:

Smug

The smug just radiates from it. Even leftist PR flacks can’t imagine a liberal at a family dinner not being an insufferable, smug, condescending asshole.

Finally, look at this. The site was designed so that only the first talking point is shown when you open a category and you have to click to see more. This is what you click on to see more:

StillTalking

Note how condescending it is (that fool is still yapping). Then consider this, the site is implying that parroting the first of your inane Democratic talking points will so bedazzle ‘your Republican uncle’ that he will fall silent in awe of your superior genius and insight. Heh.

I found something even better. Here’s a DNC flack:

“This time of year, the only thing more annoying than holiday traffic is an awkward conversation with family about politics,” DNC Digital Director Matt Compton wrote in an email announcing the site. “We designed YourRepublicanUncle.com so that it look greats and loads quickly on your phone — no getting ambushed when you go back for seconds on stuffing.”

Political conversations suck, so make sure to prepare for and start them, and we know our base is completely ignorant about everything, so you can pull up rebuttals on your phone and let us do your thinking for you.

****

Now, I doubt (hope?) that there is (not) any statistically significant number of people who actually use these talking points, however many guides the media will put out.

Rather, the most interesting part of this is just how little the Democratic Party thinks of their base. The GOP cuckservatives will attack their base and ignore their base’s wishes, but at least they assume we’re evil. The DNC just assumes their base are a bunch of dysfunctional retards who are ignorant of the world around them and need to be handheld through basic human interaction.

Lightning Round – 2015/11/25

The official neoreaction forum.

On pseudonymity.
Related: Tips for staying secure and anonymous.

History never ended.
Related: The third world is colonizing us.
Related: Another open letter to France.
Related: How to deport 11 million people.
Related: Immigration theology.
Related: The Muslim rape of Norway.
Related: What percentage of Muslims approve of terrorism.
Related: Refugee system discriminates against Christians.
Related: A short allegorical SF story.

The Confucian heuristic.

Underclass coddling.

Whiteness as liberalism.

The Jewish role in the NAACP.

Hispanic migration makes secession more difficult.

Homeostasis.
Related: Homeostasis and modernity.
Related: Beer, cholera, and public health.

The Daily Beast has a retarded article on #NRx up.

Technological responsibility.

The rise of obesity and anorexia.

Yet another PC outrage.

On North Korea.

The mammon trap.

Urban tactics: survival. Related Brainstorm.

Quebec and Sanders.

H/T Zippy

Le Petite Mort

I was asked if I was going to write something on the French Attacks. I wasn’t planning to, but I will now.

Anyone could have told France these attacks were inevitable, and in fact many have. The French invited diversity in and were culturally enriched. Following 9/11, Charlie Hebdo, Rotherham, 7/7, Burgas, Madrid, numerous riots, and the untold other incedences, this is not unexpected.

However, unlike in Charlie Hebdo, these were not leftists, these were just normal people going about their lives, so I do have sympathy and wish their families the best; may God have mercy on the victims in the next life.

And yet, while the individual victims deserve sympathy, France as a corporate body doesn’t. France is a democracy. Theoretically, the people rule and, in actuality, the people are able to vote for their government in relatively fair elections. The people even have a party dedicated to preventing foreign invasion and mass murder. Yet, the people refuse to vote for that party. France has willfully chosen pro-immigration policies and has once again received the natural consequences of their actions. If the French don’t want to be mass-murdered by savages, they should stop inviting savages in.

France chose to suffer these attacks. Not just once, but repeatedly, the French have overwhelmingly voted to aid savages in attacking France. If the French wish to play status games rather than defend themselves, no amount of sympathy in the world will help them. They have chosen their fate.

Now, I doubt the French are going to lay prostrate forever. They probably won’t do anything real now, the status games are too entrenched, but at some point something will happen.

The rational, compassionate thing to do, would be to find and execute everyone somewhat involved in these attacks, then end (Muslim) immigration and (humanely) mass deport Muslims from France. This would be a calm, measured respone and could be done with minimal bloodshed and suffering.

But equal and opposite reactions are the thing of physics. Humans work differently, especially when aggregated. They tend not to take measured and appropriate responses. Instead, they tend to keep doing what they are doing, ignoring or downplaying tensions as they build. Political inertia is a powerful force. Things will keep chugging along as they are right now.

Then suddenly, they won’t.

Humanity does not work like a spherical cow in a vacuum, it works more like man’s most base act. The act begins, tension mounts over time, then the pent-up pressure is released in a singular explosive moment.

In the case of Muslim immigration, the act has already begun. We are in the tensions mounting phase. Attacks, assaults, and riots and the occasional counter-attack (a la Breivik) will create continual friction between the French and their invaders, but nothing will be solved by these thrusts and counter-thrusts. Instead, at some point, the French tensions will reach their breaking point, and the French will release themselves in an orgasm of violence.

This will be an explosive release, not a calm, measured response. Cracked had a recent article about the Bosnian genocide, and an earlier one about the Rwandan genocide, the first point of each is how sudden it was. So it will be in France.

Contrary to these articles, these types of violence are never sudden or shocking, however quickly they may occur. They are the final result of long-standing tensions. They can be prevented if action is taken before the release, but once the release occurs it can not be stopped until it is fully spent.

The French will play their status games, ignoring the low-level guerrilla war and avoiding taking necessary measures, then, at some unknowable point for some unforeseeable reason, the dam will burst and genocidal violence will release all over the country. Rather than enacting a preventative policy now, while it will be comparatively clean and merciful, the French will bloody their hands in brutality when the situation has gone beyond reason.

After the violent release, they will look back and realize a little part of them died in that brutality. Their sons and daughters will look back and wonder how neighbour could turn against neighbour so suddenly.  People will be shocked at how violence like that could happen so suddenly.

Now, as I said before, I want to prevent this violence. I don’t want the white man to be broken and forced into this brutality simply to be able to enjoy their own civilization and culture in peace.

So, France, please stop the status games and act now while you can do so with clean hands. Don’t wait until fields of blood are your only recourse. If nothing is done now, the blood will be on your hands, because you valued status more than peace and justice.

Lightning Round – 2015/11/18

Status point theory.
Related: Paris and signalling.
Related: The madness of the social signalling game.

Controversial: A letter to France.
Related: Observations on Paris.
Related: Yes, we are at war with Islam.
Related: A difficult question.
Related: A look at the stats of Islam and terror.
Related: Not with gold.
Related: The attacks and the future of Europe.

Servants without masters.
Related: On The Economy?
Related: The system, SCALE, and scams.

Corrosive individualism?

The day they tore down The Future and the sinking of the working class.

Curt adds a third point to What is Neoreaction? I think that it is simply an outflow of the first two.

Mike released his Idaho Project book.

Propaganda in standardized tests.

The end of Rex Americana.

China, Forex, and Rubin.

Against neo-paganism.

On the Bay of Pigs.
Related: Communications architecture.

Women can serve because the state doesn’t need combat units.

BW Rabbit is closing up and starting anew.

On the Puritans. More.
Related: Irish and Germans in America.

The unintended consequences of recording the police.

Unreality.

The wages of female pastorship.

Live and let live.

Who owns the red pill?

The slow drift from marriage.
Related: The daddy-go-round and the family-go-round.

Nobody believes porn is adultery.

Martel returns with a couple of stories.

Scientist: Peer review doesn’t work. Related.

These candidate questions are fairly amusing.

GOP prefers Hillary to Trump.

The collapse of the publishing industry.

H/T: SDA

Lightning Round – 2015/11/11

There won’t be any other posts this week and the LR is short, but here goes:

Primary loyalties.

Social Matter at NPI.
Related: Amusing NPI silly string video.

Ruminations on pan-whitism.

Mass migration is war.
Related: The Europeans guide to helping refugees.
Related: The rape feminists will ignore.

Stereotype accuracy is one of the most robust social science findings.

Keep manhood in the bargain.
Related: The forgotten men.
Related: Why are middle-aged white male deaths rising?
Related: Whites down, diversity up.
Related: Why this trend from 1999-2002 wasn’t noticed until 2015.

Corrosive individualism.

SJW “rights” are anti-rights.

Why the web is disappointing.

Oppression is in the eye of the beholder.

The cultural revolution in the US.
Related: Anti-intellectualism is good.

Why fat activism is a godsend for the right.

Currency debasement is immoral, but not in the way you think.

Are you a nut?

On ambiguous proverbs.

Ranger School cover-up.

Most educated women have rape fantasies and 40% of rape victims continue to date their attacker.

The feminist backlash against the red pill documentary.

A review of Cernovich’s new book.

SJW’s using honey-pot traps in tech.

Trudeau literally makes the “because it is 2015” argument.

 

Order and Freedom

Freedom comes from social trust, social trust comes from order.

Formal rules are only necessary when there is a lack of social trust. When people trust each other, there is no need for an impartial mediators such as law and bureaucracy, as social norms . When I lend money to a friend, I do not make him sign a contract, because I know he will pay me back. Evolutionist X outlines this more thoroughly.

Social trust is built through repeated positive interactions. If I’ve lent $10 to a friend before and he paid me back, I’d consider lending him $20 at later time. If he has a repeated history of paying me back and spotting me when I needed a loan, I may even lend him $1000 if he needed.

I would probably not loan $10 to someone I had never met. But, if I’ve loaned to many friends (and they’ve reciprocated) within a social circle over the years and was always paid back, and I met someone new within that social circle at dinner and they forgot their wallet, I’d likely be willing to spot him $20 for dinner. By being part of the social circle he has inherited that social trust.

Social trust is destroyed through negative interactions. If just once my friend stiffed me, I’d probably never loan to him again; it’s possible I may no longer remain his friend. I’d also be less willing to loan to other friends in the future. If I was stiffed a few times, I’d probably never loan again.

Social trust builds on itself. If I loan to a friend, he’s likely to loan to me in the future, and I in turn am then even more willing to loan to him in the future, and upwards rides the virtuous cycle. Likewise, social distrust spirals downwards. If my friends stiffs me, I refuse to loan to someone else, who in turn refuses to loan to me, which in turn makes me even less likely to loan to others, and downwards spirals the vicious circle.

Eventually, the virtuous cycle results in a social norm of lending and repaying. The vicious circle results in no social norm of lending and repaying arising. Rather, if someone ones to borrow money, legally enforced contract loans become necessary. The vicious cycle leads to law and regulation. It also leads to much higher transactions costs. In the virtuous cycle, a $1000 loan requires little more than politely asking a friend or two and providing an explanation. A $10 loan requires nothing more than a “can you spot me til payday?”  In the viscious circle, a $1000 loan requires lawyers, banks, contracts, insurance, and interest. A $10 loan is impossible because the extra costs would be worth more than the loan itself.

Those first few interactions are critical. If my first interactions are positive, the virtuous cycle will build itself and will naturally continue. Once I’m caught up in the virtuous cycle with strong social norms, even the occasional defector will be regarded as a bad apple rather than representative of the group. Only a critical mass of defections will destroy the cycle. On the other hand, if my first few interaction are negative, the vicious circle will start to decay. Once I’m trapped in the vicious circle, the positive interactions will be seen as the unrepresentative outliers. It is nigh impossible to rebuild a virtuous cycle as a critical mass of non-defectors will rarely build up as others defect on them.

Because of this, it is necessary to stop natural defectors from destroying those initial interactions. Order is what prevents defectors from defecting. If a potential defector knows he will be punished should he defect, he will not defect and will not start a viscous circle. In the loan example, if someone knows there is a social norm of shunning by the group for refusing to pay back a loan, they will likely not defect.

Because there is order in the group, we can freely loan. There is no need for laws or regulations regarding loans because we know the social norms will enforce repayment, and these social norms were originally built by the maintenance of order.

We can also see order builds upon itself. The social norm of punishing defectors, leads the the social trust virtuous cycle, which leads to the creation of the social norm of repayment.

If freedom is your goal, order will break down; if order is your goal, freedom will naturally result.

As we can see above, freedom is the natural result of order. Social norms lead to social trust which leads to further social norms which frees us from regulation and bureaucracy.

We can start this order with law as well. If the authority emplaces an authoritarian initial law that harshly punishes stiffing on a loan, people know defectors will be punished and will be willing to engage in those initial positive interactions, even with people they don’t know. The virtuous cycle builds upon this initial law.

In this situation a man’s handshake becomes his bond. When a man’s handshake is his bond, there is no need for contracts, there is no need for lawyers and no need for regulations on the minutiae of contract law. Social norms enforce the spirit of the agreement and there is freedom in loan-giving.

On the other hand, if that initial law against stiffing on a loan is not put into place, people can not trust that defectors outside their close social circles will be punished. So defectors defect. With no social norms people turn to written, enforceable contracts. As they write contracts, they will realize the letter of the agreement is enforced, the spirit is not. This leads to the necessity of lawyers to ensure the letter is correct and the need for detailed regulations to define every aspect of lending contract. With no social norm enforcing the spirit of the law, people will learn to manipulate the letter. In order to prevent the injustices of those manipulating the letter of the law, further regulations will be introduced to prevent manipulation. This will result in a bureaucracy to create these regulations, which will itself be manipulated, and so on down the vicious cycle, as more regulations are placed upon more regulations. Order and freedom break down, replaced by the letter of the law and regulation.

Order is freedom, chaos is tyranny.

As above, we see that order leads to freedom. In a ordered community, strong social norms make intrusive, detailed regulation or bureaucracy unnecessary. The social norms uphold themselves while allowing freedom.

On the other hand, where there is no order, where there is chaos, laws and regulations become necessary. If you can’t trust your neighbour not to defect, not  to violate the spirit of any agreements, you need laws and regulations to enforce agreements make up for the lack of social trust.

Increased regulation is a sign that your community is becoming more chaotic and more disordered. Increased tyranny is a result of disorder.

As well, tyranny creates chaos. As shown, as regulations increase the letter of the law and of the agreement becomes more important than the spirit. When the letter become more important, people stop simply not defecting. Instead, people try to defect as much as possible on the spirit while still holding to the letter. Trust breaks down, and chaos reigns.

Increased regulation leads to more chaos, which leads to more regulation. Tyranny is not order, tyranny is chaos and chaos is tyranny.

Order is freedom.

If you desire freedom, order should be your primary goal.