Category Archives: Business

Matriarchy In The Sky–And In All Manner Of In-Your-Face Grotesquery

Affirmative Action, Business, COVID-19, Etiquette, Feminism, Free Markets, Gender, Ilana Mercer, Private Property, Race

Commenting on ‘The End of the All-Male, All-White Cockpit,’ Fox News personality Tucker Carlson beseeched, June 3, 2022: “What’s color to do with competence?” Sir, do check the aggregate accident statistics as to who are the best, safest pilots, sir! Correlation’s not causation, BUT:

Via ScienceDirect: “… female pilots employed by major airlines had a significantly greater likelihood of pilot-error incidents than their male colleagues.” Then the excuse-making weasel words begin—concealing with bafflegab that if you fly with a female you’re more risk. Female pilots yield a higher error/accident rate but, say the Fake Science propagators, this is only because they are younger and less experienced. What you the passenger MUST DO is not be such a bigot and forget about these confounding variables when you fly. Ya hear me, sexist? SEE? The desired outcome is that you fly with a less able pilot, ceteris paribus. Noble cause.

Or, as our reader put it:

“It states in the beginning that females had a higher accident rate, then it states they are about the same as males. SO WHICH IS IT??? Pretty much.”

I wonder. Does anyone get the life-and-death difference between a “pilot” trained at an affirmative-action, feel-good girlie flight school and a veteran of the Air Force? Remember Capt. Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger, III of the famed “Unable; we’ll be in the Hudson”? That was “Manliness (Not A Miracle) On The Hudson.”

Patronize the private airline industry nascent. Viva the free market and all the magnificent military trained man pilots ousted from the cartel of the commercial industry to fly private jets. This is what I’ll be exploring, as I think my life is worth it: “Flying private is cheaper than you think — here are 6 airlines to consider for your next flight.”  As illustrated in this 2002 tract—“Whose Property Is It Anyway?”—too many aspects of the airline industry, airports included, have been federalized (by The Shrub, aka Bush). Covid, and the cartel that has attached to it, has completed the demise of the industry.

In the vain of in-your-face female awfulness, Lena Dunham err, DungHam, resurfaced, “posing poolside in a bikini.” Says she, I “forgot how important it is to wear a bikini.

To be or not to bikini. I never thought of it this way. But if you say so, Lena. So, I posed in my bathroom, with my 30-year-old swimsuit, bought in Cape Town. But that’s as far as I’ll go with this outfit and this particular existential search for meaning.

And, thank you, role model Lena. I feel like a woman, now. At least I’ll say it: It is utter peacockery that moves women to pose, not authenticity, said here in “hedonism, not heroism:

To get naked for the world to see is immodest, not heroic. Displaying “saggy tummies” and “stretch marks” does not a hero make. Narcissism, self-adoration, bad taste, or just being comfortable in your own skin: these are not heroic, although they’ve been cast as such.

And here, in “Skanks in the Sky“:

Women are generally far more narcissistic and exhibitionistic than males are and habitually ho-up for travel and work. There is sexy and there is skanky.

We are nature’s worst peacocks, moved by vanity, not by the need to attract a mate, which is what moves the Real Peacock.

The celeb world responded to Lena Dunham with, “Just stunning.”  The old man said (about Lena, not ilana), “More like breathtaking.”

The lead image on this post comes via Max Denken of Gab. No need for words, but in case you mince yours or use euphemisms; I offer the correct crawler—as in the apt chyron beneath an image: Polina Gagarina, Russia’s most famous singer, chaste, gorgeous, natural; vs America’s  slumdog culture’s offering: Lizzo. This mountain of flesh is seen mounting a jet. Let’s hope Lizzo will not be piloting the thing.


Business, Canada, Conservatism, Technology, The State, Welfare

Just got an excitably worshipful note from a reader about Elon Musk (who is such an “individualist” that he is currently sulking about being ignored by Democrats).

You know him: The man who has littered the earth with Tesla and now seeks to further pollute space, via rocket producer SpaceX.

There’s the conservatives’ yen for celebrity, of course. But the short memory about—and fixation with—a man who made his fortune off a taxpayer-subsidized industry perplexes.

As for Musk’s “support” for the Canadian truckers: Judging from the overall monies the truckers received; Musk was either a non-player in freedom’s fight or mean in the extreme.

READ:  Like all members of the corporate arm of the Deep-State, Elon Musk, et al. is slippery.

UPDATED (2/7/022): GoFundMe Threatens To Defraud Canadian TruckersForFreedom And Steal From Them

Argument, Business, Canada, COVID-19, Republicans

F-ck your promise of an inquiry (“we have questions“), Rep. Jim Jordan. When an alleged perpetrator–-GoFundMe-–operating across stateliness, is caught red-handed with private property stolen, you don’t plan on convening a congressional committee—always mere theatrics—to “question” him; you dispatch or coordinate the appropriate authorities to stop a crime in progress, liberate the funds stolen, apprehend the perps and bring them in for questioning.

The infraction under discussion is, as mentioned, courtesy of GoFundMe, which had originally promised to “withhold millions of dollars raised for Canadian truckers protesting against vaccine mandates, citing police reports of violence. The Freedom Convoy has been rallying since last weekend, and more protests are expected in Toronto and Ottawa.”

Why the use of the terms theft and fraud? Why, it ought to be obvious: The GoFundMe fucks were 1. threatening theft of private property. 2. Perpetrating fraud by initially promising donors to act as a trust-worthy fiduciary and then violating that promise.

Fraud can be a federal crime. And there’s something audaciously both criminal and lawless about an organization operating across state lines, entrusted with donations—that’s GoFundMe’s mission statement—appropriating these funds publicly.

Most Republicans see their main occupation as waiting in Fox News’ Green Room. I have to finally concede, though, that unique among them is Governor Ron De Santis. He truly gets it. De Santis is a man who’s seriously attempting to govern in accordance with first principles, and is acutely aware of the systemic rights violations against the kind of Deplorables who support him.

He tweets:

It is a fraud for Go-Fund Me to commandeer $9M in donations sent to support truckers and give it to causes of their own choosing. I will work with AG Ashley Moody to investigate these deceptive practices — these donors should be given a refund.

Go-Fund Me Thieves won’t be fucking with De Santis.

Oh, and Maybe multi-billionaire Elon Musk will do more than tweet? He got rich off an industry wholly subsidized by taxpayers, the Commie Car racket. Would that he’d  show some noblesse obligé to his working-class benefactors.


NEW From Ottawa: Canada’s Truckers Are Sheer Unmasked Goodness

Will Justine Ape Pappy Trudeau, And Use The Military Against Canadian Truckers?

“Tucker And The Trucker: Condescending About Canada; Wrong About American South”

Dispatch From Ottawa, Canada: ‘FUCK YOU, TRUDEAU’

UPDATED (2/7/022):   THEFT’S THE THEME: Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson orders his goons to STEAL the private property of Truckers For Freedom. Shameful armed police officers and firefighters have STOLEN so far 3,200 litres of fuel from peaceful heroes struggling to keep from freezing in arctic temps. READ.

FRED REED: Plumbing The Chinese Dijjywan

Asia, Business, China, Economy, FRED REED, Government, Trade

“… When America cuts a country off from SWIFT … the blow is economically devastating. The mere threat of disconnection intimidates. Consequently many countries would like to have an alternative to [spiteful American economic strong-arming via] SWIFT.”

By Fred Reed

Normally I write about things I know. In the case of digital currencies, and in particular the digital yuan (hereinafter dijjywan) I write about something that piques my curiosity. So little seems to be known that it is difficult to find anything definitive. Yet the question is so important, digital currencies so new, the implications so sweeping, that discussion seems a good idea. The following therefore is a sort of declarative question, a listing of ideas from many sources, perhaps sometimes wrong, about which I hope readers can enlighten me. To avoid endless qualifications and caveats, I write affirmatively things that I don’t really know. Correction and thoughts welcome.

Some things to know: The dijjywan, being rolled out in the Winter Olympics, is not a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, intended to maintain anonymity of users: all transactions are or can be known to Beijing. A dijjywan account is not a bank account, though it is administered by PBOC, the People’s Bank of China.  You don’t need to have a bank account to use it. It does not earn interest. You cannot speculate in dijjywan any more than you can with normal yuan, because the digital yuan is the normal yuan, but in digital form. A dijjywan account does not provide access to credit. It is as close to being physical currency as you can get without being physical currency. Transactions are instantaneous and final.

So how does it work? As an individual, you will download an app that China calls a digital wallet to your cellphone, as you would any app. This is currently being done in China. You do a face scan and the system gives you a unique QR code. You now have a dijjywan account. No bureaucracy, filling out of forms, demands for identification, or examination of financial history. There is nothing new or Star Wars about this. Everyone in China has already done it to use WeChat Pay or Alipay.  Some eighty percent of retail transactions in China are made by cellphone app, making acceptance there likely.

Suppose that you are in Kathmandu and I am in Cancun and you want to send me five hundred dijjywan. You call up the app, go to contacts, tap Fred, type in 500, and hit send. Five seconds later in Mexico, I have the money. (I made that up, but it is close to payments I have seen made in Chengdu.) For practical purposes instantaneous, no bureaucracy.

Interesting question: What would easy, convenient, fast transfer of funds by cellphone do to Western Union? What would it do to debit cards from Mastercard and visa? American credit-card companies get a percentage of every sale. If China, as a tactic of economic warfare, did not take a rake-off or took a smaller one, what would this do to Visa and Mastercard? Merchants would certainly favor a system that cost them less.

When China goes cashless with the dijjywan, which is its stated intention, it will improve efficiency within China but have no great effect in the outside world.  Who outside of China would want to use a Chinese digital currency?

Perhaps lots of people. There being many Chinese tourists in Cancun, hotels and restaurants would like to grab business from Chinese who didn’t want to bother with currency conversion. Mexico likely would be happy to have the money come into the country.  People in Zimbabwe, whose currency is worthless anywhere else, and who might worry that Harare would print even more money and destroy their savings, would be happy with dijjywan that could be taken out of the country or spent internationally online. Such a nation, if it wanted a stable currency, might make the dijjywan the national currency, or a national currency, as Panama and Ecuador do with the dollar. People without bank accounts, estimated at two billion, would find it useful. The result would be a distributed all-yuan Sinocentric financial ecosystem.

The Chinese currency would appeal to the many countries that do not want American influence over their finances. Dijjywan would be a reliable store of value for, say, people in Brazilian favelas as robbery would be nearly impossible: An armed robber could force his victim to transfer money to his phone, but this would create a record in the Chinese cloud of time, place, amount, and identity of both parties. The authorities could simply extract the stolen lucre and replace it with the rightful owner, and freeze the thief’s account. Digital policing of this sort has been mentioned by Chinese authorities.

Intriguing, though not related to China: America is dabbling with the idea of a digital dollar. If America went cashless (granted, not likely before the heat death of the sun), the illegal drug trade would disappear overnight. In retail transactions, on which the trade depends, with the friendly corner crack merchant, the identities of both buyer and seller would be recorded. This would not be good for business.  Dealers could easily be detected. No arrests would be needed, as freezing their dijjywan account would suffice. Since accounts depend on face recognition, the dealer could not set up another account. Totalitarianism has its appeals.

Digital-currency accounts would be programmable. If a country went on an anti-booze crusade, people could be prevented from buying more than a certain amount of liquor per month. China has pointed out the virtues of the dijjywan in stopping money laundering. These ideas justifiably upset civil libertarians, but they represent an upside to the downside. What would be the social effects of ending the drug business in black ghettoes?

The possibilities for surveillance and social control are obvious but, since China is going all-digital anyway, alarm is unlikely to have much effect. Perhaps worth noting is that America is going fast in the same direction, with much of  the surveillance and censorship ‘being done by semigovernmental enterprises such as Google and Twitter. With many countries considering digital currencies, it appears that we will fairly soon have them anyway. And, if history is a guide, the likelihood is that most people would accept surveillance as the price of convenience.

But let’s get to the serious stuff: America’s financial sanctions on countries it doesn’t like. As perhaps most people know, international payments, as for example for oil, go through the SWIFT financial payment system, headquartered in Brussels, supposedly independent but in fact under American control. It is the only practical way for countries to do business with each other. When America cuts a country off from SWIFT, as it has with Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba, the blow is economically devastating. The mere threat of disconnection intimidates. Consequently many countries would like to have an alternative to SWIFT. So where does the dijjywan come in?

Note that the digital yuan is scalable. In principle it is as easy to send a million as a hundred dijjywan, making it practical as a means of paying for, say, petroleum from sanctioned countries. Further—read this carefully: dijjywan transactions are completely independent of Washington, completely independent—eeek!—of SWIFT, and, thanks to heavy encryption, opaque to the US. This threatens America’s ability to strongarm other countries and, if widely adopted, would result in a major diminution of US power in the world.  It may be that China has thought of this. The US certainly has.

Why could a tobacconist in Paris not buy five thousand dollars of cohiba cigars from Cuba, or China a tanker of oil from Venezuela, or any business in Europe goods to or from Iran, or from each other, in dijjywan? The US might make it difficult for sanctioned countries to convert dijjywan to other currencies, but this would simply force those countries to trade more with China.

China has said repeatedly that, why, no, it has no thought of using the dijjywan for international settlement payments. As Deutsch Bank says, it is being set up for domestic use. However, China is working with—whatever exactly that means—Hongkong, Thailand, and the UAE for just this purpose. Why the UAE? Not because China wants to further retail sales to the Emirates by Alibaba, since they have the aggregate population of a large city bus. But they have oil. Interesting. Let us remember that China very, very much wants to internationalize the yuan.

A concern mentioned by the Treasury Department, and the Foreign Policy Research Institute,  is that there could result a distributed Sinocentric financial ecosystem independent of the West. Many countries that trade heavily with China, or have poor relations with America, might come aboard. The Central Asian stans, the BRICS, Latin American countries tired of being under the US boot. China might make use of the dijjywan a requirement for loans and participation in the BRI. It would not be either the dijjywan or the dollar as countries could use both.

American officials often say complacently that the yuan accounts for only a small percentage of international commerce and that the dijjywan is no threat to the dollar’s hegemony. Perhaps. But the world’s economic and technological center of gravity is moving to the east, a market as huge as China’s has persuasive powers all of its own, many countries want to avoid American domination, and the digital yuan is something entirely new. I don’t think anyone really knows what effects we will see.

Thoughtful comments welcome and, again, I throw these ideas out in search of enlightenment, not because I regard myself as an authority.

Read Fred’s Books! Or else. We know where you sleep.


FRED REED describes himself as [previously] a “Washington police reporter, former Washington editor for Harper’s and staff writer for Soldier of Fortune magazine, Marine combat vet from Viet Nam, and former long-haul hitchhiker, part-time sociopath, who once lived in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from the Yankee Capital.”
His essays “on the collapse of America” Mr. Reed calls “wildly funny, sometimes wacky, always provocative.”
“Fred is the Hunter Thompson of the right,” seconds Thomas E. Ricks in Foreign Policy magazine. His  commentary is “well-written, pungent political incorrectness mixed with smart military commentary and libertarian impulses, topped off with a splash of Third World sunshine and tequila.”



Killer Kink

Hardboiled is back! (The exclamation point is to arouse wild enthusiasm int the reader, a boiling literary lust.) Gritty crime fiction by longtime police reporter for the Washington Times, who knows the police from nine years of riding with them. Guaranteed free of white wine and cheese, sensitivity, or social justice.