For violating laws enforcing information socialism, billionaire Raj Rajaratnam, innocent in natural law, could be incarcerated for decades. In their latest efforts to bring ruin to capital markets, SEC blood hounds have ensnared one of the country’s most powerful hedge-fund “impresarios.” MORE.
It’s easy to be thrown off scent when trying to divine the vague, ill-defined, unconstitutional laws under which the Securities and Exchange Commission hunts for corporate prey. Suffice it to say that the SEC operates with the understanding that competition in capital markets must proceed from a level playing field. All investors are entitled to the same information advantage irrespective of effort and abilities.
Rajaratnam had not violated the rights of other shareholders or potential buyers. There is no natural right to a guaranteed profit, nor is there a right to be shielded from losses. And there most certainly is no such right as a one that guarantees to the collective information the individual has worked hard to obtain and optimize.
Navy SEALs are incredible specimens, both intellectually and physically. Every interview, over the past few days, with members of this elite unit, has demonstrated the superman qualities SEALs possess. They even look like cut-out images from an episode of “The Unit.” It’s a shame that these magnificent men must place their skills at the service of the state. I suspect, however, that if you are SEAL material, you don’t have many options.
American men have endured decades of emasculation—legal and cultural—in civilian life. Hobbies and work that require such a perfect amalgamation of mental and physical prowess, as being a SEAL demands, are hard to come by. Or are illegal. These men are … manly men; they are chivalrous and disciplined. These qualities are penalized in the feminized workplace culture that has been crafted by the feminists manning Human Resources (Y chromosome carriers included). Frankly, manly qualities are being bred-out of men.
(HR makes my contact behind enemy lines—the American corporation, which works a lot like the US State does—take “Diversity” tests and PC quizzes to keep him in-line.)
Punish a little boy time and again at school for “Bang-bang you’re dead,” of for playing “Cowboys and Indians,” and then teach him do so to his own tyke—and you get generations of girly-boys (down to the fussy sounding falsettos with which many heterosexual men now speak).
I even wondered in “Manly No More,” whether it was possible that “the feminization of society over the last 20 to 30 years is changing males, body and mind. Could the subliminal stress involved in sublimating one’s essential nature be producing less manly men?”
In any event, if one were so endowed, where could a man find private-sector work or hobbies that allowed him to put into practice the skills he would use as a SEAL? That is, without being arrested by the powers that be, or sent to de-Nazification camps/programs (Dr. Phil, anger management, etc).
Although Demi Moore kept getting in the way (and blocking views of Viggo Mortensen), I watched “G.I. Jane” many times over for the impossible training. Of course, not even Amazonian women should be considered for this kind of Special Operations team where, esprit de corps is everything. Fortunately, “G.I. Jane” was just fiction; women are precluded from the Navy SEALs.
UPDATE I (May 8): I think Robert G., below, has been reading and contributing to this (moderated) site long enough to know what a traditionalist means when she points to manhood. Mr. Glisson’s mentors are certainly of a piece with the manhood described. But there is more.
I was referring to something else SEALs seem to possess. We’re talking here about different expressions of manhood. However, the culture has prohibited open discussion of the things my post addresses, very specifically. These are a combination in some men (and certain women too) of qualities that make them scale mountains as the explorers of old did, take to the seas to discover new places, and slay dragons, to use a metaphor.
Have we forgotten the superman (one among a few hundred kids) who graduated with us, and who managed, with equal easy, higher math (in my days they divided us into groups according to ability), marathons, while charming everyone around him with his drive and decency? I remember the specimen! And I am not going to pretend he didn’t exist so as to make everyone feel better. I am quite able to live with the reality that I was not of that species; others prefer to deny that there is such a specimen.
Mr. Glisson seems to want me to say that such supermen end up as killers for the state. As a young girl who partook of the mixed-sex scouts in Israel, I remember so well our 16-year-old group leader. A mere boy, who, when we were lost in the scrubby mountain range of Israel’s tiny interior, in temperatures of 120 degrees, with one water container per child—how with absolute cool, this boy navigated back to base, using the primitive navigational instrument of the day—the compass—sans cellphones and 911 helis hovering above.
On his back he carried the kids who passed out for lack of water. He was already about 6 feet and 3 inches tall. I was but 12, but I recall looking at his face to see if I should be fearful. His young face reflected the enormous responsibility he had undertaken—and was given. But by looking at him, I also knew he’d get us back to base. I even recall his name: Avner.
Doesn’t any one remember that kind of kid? Serious, studious, focused—nothing he couldn’t do??? I doubt these types are allowed to flex their mental and physical muscle to the fullest these days—and certainly not in the repulsively politicized, feminized scouts. The Avners of today, if they persist in contributing to society to the fullest—in the scouts, for instance—would be programmed not to show superior skill (lest stupid, fat kids be made to feel bad); not to comfort sad kids, not to mentor kids like themselves, in case he risked transmitting and excess of machismo competency. Blah, blah.
UPDATE II: rch’s note: It’s succinct, apolitical, and to the point; as you would except from One of These Men. I’m proud to know him too. Enough said.
UPDATE III: Mr. Glisson and I always have a good dialogue; between us we get to the soul of the subject. Each SEAL is an individualist, capable of becoming a leader at the drop of a hat. It is sad that this kind of core character is under assault. This pushes men—whose biology and mentality craves the excitement and the challenge—to serve the state.
In an interview with RT (Russia Today) Julian Assange claimed that Facebook “in particular, is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented. Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations and the communications with each other, their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US intelligence. Facebook, Google, Yahoo – all these major US organizations have built-in interfaces for US intelligence. It’s not a matter of serving a subpoena. They have an interface that they have developed for US intelligence to use.”
“Now, is it the case that Facebook is actually run by US intelligence? No, it’s not like that. It’s simply that US intelligence is able to bring to bear legal and political pressure on them. And it’s costly for them to hand out records one by one, so they have automated the process. Everyone should understand that when they add their friends to Facebook, they are doing free work for United States intelligence agencies in building this database for them.”
Had Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook—which we all use to such great advantage—neglected to schmooze Washington, one of this or the next administration’s top dogs (Republicans are no better than Democrats in persecuting business) would pick-up the scent and give chase. Why? Because we labor under a system “in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation.” So wrote the Tannehills in The Market for Liberty.
Fascism, in short.
Duly, Facebook now has a new Washington office. As the Wall Street Journal reported:
“… Facebook is still trying to find a path to Washington, where the company has only a fledgling lobbying operation, even though it finds its privacy policies under increasing scrutiny and is trying to navigate a politically sensitive expansion into China.
In seven years, Facebook has risen from a tiny start-up to an Internet power with a potential market value estimated at more than $50 billion. Now an online forum with more than 600 million users, Facebook faces growing pressure from lawmakers and regulators concerned about the way it uses personal information shared by its users. [Yeah, right; the Big Bosses only want what’s best for us.]
At the same time, the company is confronting questions about how it will handle its role as a global public square for dissidents if it enters China and other countries with little tolerance for dissent. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal about its approach abroad, Facebook officials in Washington suggested the company might be willing to play by China’s rules—a stance that could raise hackles in Congress.
Until lately, Facebook has spent very little money in Washington, even by Silicon Valley’s frugal standards. The company’s outlays on lobbying totaled $351,000 last year, federal records show. That’s a fraction of the amount spent by other technology giants, including Google Inc.’s $5.2 million and Microsoft Corp.’s $6.9 million.”
[SNIP]
Any serious student of economics knows that regulation hinders wealth creation, often forcing the entrepreneur to replace viable, voluntary trades and transactions with bureaucratic, politicized decision making. Rather than concentrate on satisfying and protecting his users on Facebook, Zuckerberg, is now compelled to divert resources from customer service and technical innovation into navigating the bureaucrat’s tax and regulatory laws.