RSS
From the New York Times:
Mellody Hobson, the president of Ariel Investments, a Chicago investment firm, can’t help but notice how corporate America is still overwhelmingly white and male.
“I’ve been asking myself one question over and over again,” she said at the DealBook conference on Thursday. “Where is the corporate Kaepernick?”
Also from the NYT:
Mellody Hobson Says the Time for Corporate Diversity Is Now
By ALINA TUGEND NOV. 14, 2017Mellody Hobson, president of Ariel Investments, says it’s time for corporate America to stop trying to create workplace diversity.
It’s time to start doing it.
“Trying is not the same as doing,” she said, noting that she wishes more chief executives would emulate the football player Colin Kaepernick, who repeatedly knelt during the national anthem to protest against social injustice, especially the deaths of African-American men at the hands of the police.
“I’ve never met Colin Kaepernick, but he’s a hero of mine,” Ms. Hobson said. “I’m in awe that he took it upon himself to publicly promote the American values of life and liberty that we all cherish.”
Looking out at the sea of executives attending the DealBook conference hosted by The New York Times last week, Ms. Hobson asked, “Where is the corporate Kaepernick?”
Ariel Investments, founded in 1983 by John W. Rogers Jr. (son of a lady who was a deputy cabinet secretary in two GOP administrations, and Princeton basketball teammate of Craig Robinson, brother-in-law of Barack Obama), is the largest minority-owned investment firm. So, you might think Ms. Hobson’s Ariel Investments could, you know, invest in firms that will benefit in the marketplace by being diverse.
Also, Ms. Hobson’s boyfriend, an entrepreneur, recently sold his his company, Lucasfilm, for $4 billion, so he has some spare change to invest in firms that aren’t irrationally discriminating, right?
And Ms. Hobson’s new friends she made at the 2016 and 2017 Bilderberg conferences probably have some cash sitting around too.
“‘Richard Spencer stood out like a poo in a punch-bowl’: Woman who studied German with alt-right leader recounts his offensive tirades and how he was widely despised by their classmates”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5081641/Woman-recounts-Richard-Spencer-s-racist-tirades-Germany.html
” New Zealander Julie Hill recounted her experience with Richard Spencer in Berlin as they studied German in the summer of 2006
Hill said that Spencer would make inappropriate jokes about German women being ‘hairy and asexual’
She claimed Spencer was widely disliked among their classmates
Hill wrote: ‘In class, he would go off on lengthy, tedious monologues that had even our teacher rolling his eyes’
She also wrote about his racist comments about Mexicans and Germans”
Wasn’t her husband, in effect, “taking a knee” when he produced Red Tails.
On some level, I am genuinely bewildered. Or is this simply a reflection of the ultimate spiritual enervation of George Lucas? I only know of this woman as his female companion, but…I suppose that for many women that would be enough. I was a great fan of the original Star Wars films, and I even grant that the prequel trilogy was not as bad as I had thought the first time I watched it. But why is she going around whining about this nonsense?
Most everyone agrees that “The Empire Strikes Back” was better than “Star Wars”. It was! It was great! Why didn’t he continue on that path?
I take George Lucas as basically a failed genius. By contrast, Colin Kaepernick… is some guy I heard about in the newspapers. An outright buffoon.
As for his artistic genius, well, see these:
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/
First, Lucas had never actually intended to make more movies beyond the first trilogy and had no idea where he wanted to take the story line for the prequels and sequels. He was showing up for production with a thin sheaf of script pages he had banged out the night before filming. Even in Return of the Jedi he was running out of ideas so he redeemed Vader, and oh what the hell, let's blow up another Deathstar, everyone loved that in the first one.
Secondly he became over-dependent on CGI for making the movies. Red Letter showed clips of him directing the filming and he wasn't even in sight of the actors. The would be standing in front of a green screen, and Lucas would be out of their sight behind a bank of monitors yelling at them what he was seeing on the CGI monitors and how they were supposed to react to it.
Hobson began dating film director and producer George Lucas in 2006, after they met at a business conference. Hobson and Lucas announced their engagement in January 2013, and were married on June 22, 2013, at Lucas’ Skywalker Ranch. They have one daughter together, Everest Hobson Lucas, who was born via surrogacy in August 2013. [Wiki]
This reminds me of a comment made by a mutual friend of the groom, of a not-so-lovely black bride, at his bachelor party:
She must have done something that made him feel real good to get him to marry her.
But by appearances the thrill is gone for George.
Yeah, George Lucas is a short guy. And his look hasn't aged well. And ... he needs to lose some weight.
But seriously, he's George Lucas with f-you money. If he wanted another wife and family he could have done a lot better than combining genes with Melody Hobson. If AnotherMom had dumped me a decade back and I was on the market even with what I earn I wouldn't have Melody Hobson on my arm. With a couple billion in my pocket ... LOL.
So someone who will:
1. Get woke
2. Become liability
3. Get dropped
4. Offer to go back to sleep for old job back
Did I miss anything?
South African style 'Transformation' will occur everywhere except where there's serious money to be had by these people.
Let’s be thorough about this and address over-representation wherever and whenever it exists.
https://twitter.com/AJB109/status/930451644239761408
Who owns the US Congress?
Who dominates the US Supreme Court?
Who forces acceptance of the fictitious & impossible ’6M & gas chambers’?
Who runs the media / entertainment?
Who runs the music business?
Who dominates ‘academia’?
Why is AIPAC the most powerful, dominant lobby, which regularly writes the text of Congressional bills and resolutions?
Who is it that wants to censor free speech via the “hate speech” canard?
Who is it that demands we shed the blood of US troops for their interests?
Who are the real & biggest racists on the planet?
The stock market is to scratch-off cards as this speech is to guys shaking a can of coins on the subway.
Most everyone agrees that "The Empire Strikes Back" was better than "Star Wars". It was! It was great! Why didn't he continue on that path?
I take George Lucas as basically a failed genius. By contrast, Colin Kaepernick... is some guy I heard about in the newspapers. An outright buffoon.
The divorce of Lucas and his film editor wife in 1983 was a turning point.
Bilderberg hates nations, Kaepernick’s girlfriend hates his nation – it’s a match made in heaven.
Yes, but education is to serious as school is to bus.
Didn’t Megan McArdle go to a Bilderberg meeting a couple of years ago?
https://twitter.com/AJB109/status/930451644239761408
Black activists who think whites are keeping them down are exactly analogous to white nationalists who think Jews are keeping them down. And feminists who think men are keeping them down.
While I consider myself a WN, I personally do not focus on the JQ -- certainly not overly so -- but to deny the disproportionate role and influence of Jews (and Jewish money) in the media (including Hollywood) and public policy (especially important here: promoting and defending mass non-white immigration to majority white countries), as you seem to do, is really, really dishonest.
Me neither.
You know how when women are successful at something, men immediately take it away from them? Like the way popular women's sports programs have to subsidize unpopular men's sports programs, or the way that men always win in divorce court?
Me neither.
You know how when Jews are successful at something, gentiles immediately take it way from them? Like how Jewish billionaires have to give back their wealth until gentiles are proportionately represented among high net worth individuals, or how prominent Jews have to denounce the Jewish ethnostate to be accepted into influential social and political circles?
Me neither.
You know how when white males are successful they are always giving speeches about how there needs to be more set asides for white males and how they praise whiteness and white ethnostates?
Me neither.
So I guess you're saying white gentiles are justified in resenting Jewish racial hypocrisy and double standards. White gentiles are justified in resenting the Jewish stranglehold on their foreign policy. White gentiles are justified in resenting the enormity of Jewish influence in their media, entertainment, education and legal systems.
Are Jews willing to hear out white activists and discuss the accuracy and legitimacy of their claims before rejecting them? Or is it a whole lot easier (and more rewarding) to simply denounce them as "anti-semites"?
Just because, blacks, women, white-nationalists and for that matter Jews, teenagers and 3-year old boys facing nap time are all complaining, does not mean they are all complaining about the same thing.
Blacks are complaining that whites done give them enough stuff. They want more stuff.
Women are complaining that men don't give them enough stuff. They want more stuff.
White nationalists are complaining Jews are looting and destroying their nations. They want Jews to leave them alone.
Finding the truth in oppression\exploitation narratives is not super complicated. There's a simple test: Does the "oppressor" actually need the oppressee? Does the oppressee need the oppressor? (Or are they willing and capable of making a go of it without the oppressor around.)
Feudal lords did actually need the labor of their serfs and would not let them go. The serfs were indeed oppressed.
Ante-bellum plantation owners did actually need the labor of their slaves and would not let them go. The slaves were oppressed. (How well they would do on their own is another question, but they were oppressed.)
In contrast, whites do not need or in any way shape or form depend on the labor of blacks. Blacks in fact are a huge dead weight loss on white society--higher taxes, crime, security for crime, AA spots, wasted cycles, major cities blighted. Whites would be fine--much better off--without blacks. In contrast, blacks show basically no sign of making a go of it without whites. With whites merely not immediately present--Detroit. Without them altogether--Africa.
Men and women is of course more complicated--we're biologically linked and don't survive without each other. Men clearly do need women--for sex, companionship and most of all for reproduction. But men do not need or depend much on the cash labor of women. Men would be absolutely fine without women engineers, corporate executives, bankers, lawyers, politicians, professors, scrientists, cops, firefighters (LOL), soldiers (LOL,LOL) or let's pretend generals. In fact, the economy might and society almost certainly would function better without women doing any of that. In contrast, women desperately need--are completely dependent upon--male labor and genius for the standard of living they have. If men didn't show up for work--keeping the lights on, the water clean, the sewers working, all the machines humming--society would within days be in the dark ages.
White nationalists argue that Jews are looting their nations and wrecking them with immigration. Right or wrong, the white nationalists are not asking the Jews to labor for them or give them stuff, they are asking the Jews to leave them alone. Evidence suggests that whites throw a pretty good nation without Jews around. Historically the most successful European nations seem to be ones that have had a low Jewish presence. England and France--expelled the Jews in the late middle ages and subsequently rose to become leading powers. In the modern era, Scandinavia which is Jew light is--or was pre-immigration--pretty nice and Jew light. Post-Holocaust Germany--very Jew light--is the leading economy in Europe and very (pre-Merkel) pleasant. White nationalists are clearly correct in thinking whites can make it own their own--in fact very, very well--without Jews.
In contrast if whites tell Jews to make it on their own--building your own damn country club ... it's the golfocaust! Jews do not want to go their own way, they insist on glomming onto whites. Now, it is obvious that Jews can make it on their own and do very well--as Israel demonstrates. But Israel--open and gladly accepting any Jews--demonstrates that most Jews prefer to stay in white nations. Trading, rent-seeking on top of and comfy sinecures within, a rich white nation is simply more lucrative and fun. The availability of "go your own way" Israel option suggests that if there's any oppression or exploitation going on between whites and Jews, it's Jews not whites doing the exploiting.
Again, none of this is rocket science. Who is dependent on whom is obvious from the nature of the complaints people have, how they behave and where they run to.
The bottom line is that white gentiles go somewhere and create a nice environment with their presence--law abiding, prosperous, pleasant. They go do that ... and other people run over and glom onto what they have built. That's just the reality we see.
Apparently reading comprehension isn't one of your virtues.
The original claim can be parsed as follows: in a society that allegedly values diversity and proportional representation, isn't it odd that we can't discuss massive over-representation of a minority group.
Not that Jews, I might add, are the only offenders. The lockdown that Indians have on the H1B visa system is another case that cannot be discussed. The fact that Cognysis and Tata (etc) have an employee landscape consisting of 98% asian males is apparently unremarkable, while Facebook/Google/etc are routinely lambasted for much more lenient demographics.
This isn't a 'keeping us down' argument. it is pointing out hypocrisy.
I suppose if they do take this seriously, it’ll just mean more and more corporate jobs getting outsourced here, to non-diverse Eastern Europe. I suppose calling out companies that do that will be the next thing.
I guess I am missing something here, but isn’t Kaepernick kind of taking down the NFL with him? Aren’t their ticket sales, viwership, and advertising revenue down?
Why would she suggest that CEO’s emulate him?
Does she want to invest in those companies?
I don’t understand.
I wonder if the tendency for CEOs and what not to jump from company to company plays a part too, there isn't any skin in the game, so the long term consequences don't factor in, just the short term dopamine.
That was John Rogers routine when he started Ariel. Go to corporate boards of directors and embarrass them into hiring Ariel so that they can report they have a minority firm managing some of their pension assets. (Otherwise, it might be pointed out to Kaepernick-like employees that you don't have any blacks/minorities running their pension money.)
Kaepernick is a metaphor for the negative havoc that will result should you not agree with the proposal, i.e. that's a nice business you got there, it'd be a shame if anything happened to it...
Why would she suggest that CEO's emulate him?
Does she want to invest in those companies?
I don't understand.
I suspect in most of these cases what happens in three or more years doesn’t really enter into the conversation. It needs to happen now, it will make me feel good and that is all the pay off these people need.
I wonder if the tendency for CEOs and what not to jump from company to company plays a part too, there isn’t any skin in the game, so the long term consequences don’t factor in, just the short term dopamine.
Funny. jews are keeping blacks, whites and women down.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5081641/Woman-recounts-Richard-Spencer-s-racist-tirades-Germany.html
" New Zealander Julie Hill recounted her experience with Richard Spencer in Berlin as they studied German in the summer of 2006
Hill said that Spencer would make inappropriate jokes about German women being 'hairy and asexual'
She claimed Spencer was widely disliked among their classmates
Hill wrote: 'In class, he would go off on lengthy, tedious monologues that had even our teacher rolling his eyes'
She also wrote about his racist comments about Mexicans and Germans"
Hilarious. Maybe Richard should have gone with a sort of “racist” Tucker Max approach instead of over-serious nazee-whistling.
1. Get woke
2. Become liability
3. Get dropped
4. Offer to go back to sleep for old job back
Did I miss anything?
Nah, they’ll keep her around and in 2050 she can give the same speech again. It’s about defining privilege and warped perspective by being white not being hyper rich.
South African style ‘Transformation’ will occur everywhere except where there’s serious money to be had by these people.
exactly analogous
While I consider myself a WN, I personally do not focus on the JQ — certainly not overly so — but to deny the disproportionate role and influence of Jews (and Jewish money) in the media (including Hollywood) and public policy (especially important here: promoting and defending mass non-white immigration to majority white countries), as you seem to do, is really, really dishonest.
Perhaps a higher Italian-to-Jew ratio?
There’s a pretty big difference between saying Jews are “keeping the white man down” and simply pointing out how frequently Jewish people accuse whites of unfairly keeping black people down, while at the same time always insisting that their own successes are due solely to their intelligence and hard work.
You know how when a blacks are successful at something, whites immediately take it away from them? Like the legal ceilings on the numbers of blacks in the NFL, NBA, music, etc.? Or the Affirmative Action programs for whites with every major employer of blacks?
Me neither.
You know how when women are successful at something, men immediately take it away from them? Like the way popular women’s sports programs have to subsidize unpopular men’s sports programs, or the way that men always win in divorce court?
Me neither.
You know how when Jews are successful at something, gentiles immediately take it way from them? Like how Jewish billionaires have to give back their wealth until gentiles are proportionately represented among high net worth individuals, or how prominent Jews have to denounce the Jewish ethnostate to be accepted into influential social and political circles?
Me neither.
You know how when white males are successful they are always giving speeches about how there needs to be more set asides for white males and how they praise whiteness and white ethnostates?
Me neither.
“Where is the corporate Kaepernick?”
Amen! What can I do to help?
Let’s do for giant corporations what Kapernick did for the NFL. And let’s start with the entertainment industry and silicon valley.
Me neither.
You know how when women are successful at something, men immediately take it away from them? Like the way popular women's sports programs have to subsidize unpopular men's sports programs, or the way that men always win in divorce court?
Me neither.
You know how when Jews are successful at something, gentiles immediately take it way from them? Like how Jewish billionaires have to give back their wealth until gentiles are proportionately represented among high net worth individuals, or how prominent Jews have to denounce the Jewish ethnostate to be accepted into influential social and political circles?
Me neither.
You know how when white males are successful they are always giving speeches about how there needs to be more set asides for white males and how they praise whiteness and white ethnostates?
Me neither.
Bravo Sir, bravo.
Do the math. “Exactly analogous” is not quite the phrase that springs to mind.
That narrative has been around for a while now, but it doesn’t really work for the simple fact that one can see how African nations are failures and white nations (with close to zero jews) are not.
Yes, yes, yes, yes please. Please let this happen to Google, Facebook, Uber, Starbucks, The Economist, The Guardian, CNN, late night snark political shows, Hollywood, etc. All these need to get the Kaepernick treatment.
I am genuinely curious about what Ms. Hobson, the President of Ariel Investments, does at work. I keep coming across her being at fundraising events, diversity-fests, etc., and she is all over YouTube and the MSM talking about how to be black or how to be a woman, but while her bios all trip over themselves to describe her as a “businesswoman” and “entrepreneur”, I’ve never heard, and can’t find, anything from her the least bit businesslike or entrepreneurial. You know, something like financial advice, market analysis, stuff you can actually use in business to create value (to use that cliched but nonetheless true term).
Ariel Investments appears to be a genuine mutual fund firm, which is a competitive and demanding field. So somebody in the firm has to be doing competitive and demanding financial stuff, but if so, the President has very little to say about it. And yes, I know about proprietary data and trade secrets and so on, but other spokespersons for other firms manage public promotion with private protection.
She seems like a nice person, and I’d genuinely like to believe the things written about her, but every attempt to do so comes up against a certain hollowness of the facts.
Ariel’s mutual finds seem to perform at or a little below industry averages, which suggests that they attract investment by some criterion other than performance. Is it possible that Ariel gets included in a lot of corporate 401k packages as a way for the corporate sponsors to meet diversity goals? If so, I guess that is entrepreneurship of a sort, albeit one that does not really create value–unless you consider paying protection money to be creating value (or more precisely, corralling your employees into paying protection money for you). Does Ariel have a strategy beyond buying the Russell 2500 Index and making Diversity™ speeches? If so, I’d like to learn from them. If not, I’d appreciate less chaff.
He offered a long explanation of how he'd found an anomaly that let him beat the stock market despite accepting the Efficient Markets Hypothesis was generally true. At the time, I'd read a fair number of such how-I-beat-the-market explanations, and Rogers' was one of the more plausible.
Somebody told me a number of years later that Rogers' theory of investing really had worked for him, but most of the irrational prices he'd found were in small-cap stocks, and that as he'd gotten more investment dollars under his control, it was harder for him to make investments without moving the price of the wrongly priced stock while he was buying.
So over time he made Ariel into a firm that benefits from diversity mandates to employ minority-owned investment funds. But Ariel is likely the best of such firms.
Rogers is a legit African-American aristocrat. His dad was a judge, his mom a big wheel Republican who served in the Ford and elder Bush administrations. He was captain of the 1980 Princeton basketball team under famous coach Pete Carrill. The star freshman on that team was Craig Robinson, older brother of Michelle Robinson.
Here's a video of Rogers defeating Michael Jordan 3-2 in one-on-one at a fantasy basketball camp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B7U74Dg04k
Jordan appears surprised that the little Spike Lee-looking rich guy has a strategy for winning. He probably would have played harder on Rogers' first two buckets if he'd remembered that Rogers had been team captain under Pete Carrill.
A little about John Rogers:
It doesn't take a genius to make a buy-and-hold strategy work when the entire market has been booming, for the most part, since the 1980s. In the 1980s, the S&P was in the 100-value range. Yes, the S&P went down to the 600-range in the big crash around 2008-2009, but it recovered a lot of its drop in 1 year, and it's being hurtling along ever since. Every investment adviser from Warren Buffett on down will tell you that buy and hold long-term works. It doesn't take genius to sit on your hands and just watch your money grow.
The important thing about Hobson is that she's Lucas' girlfriend. The whole point of her employment is to attract a lot of dumb Hollywood capital into Ariel. If no one's investing, then Hobson can't pay herself fat fees out of Ariel's profits. Becoming Lucas' girlfriend was a career move for her in more ways than one.
Of course, Lucas' picking Hobson as a girlfriend was also a good financial move for him. He doesn't have to pay any fees if she's investing 'the family money' for him for free. Any other company would make him cough up. If you're a billionaire, your broker/adviser/management fees are huge. As his girlfriend and potential heir, she also has an incentive not to steal his billions from him.
But you never know.
Such musical names . . .
Mellody Hobson is warming up in the bullpen, just in case Michelle Obama isn’t up for the job in 2020.
How could the Dems possibly lose?
[url=https://postimg.org/image/k0d2qa19z/][img]https://s7.postimg.org/6w7idl98b/hobson_lucas.jpg[/img][/url]
Rumor has it that Mellody has a pair of nice store-bought tits. Always a big winner on the campaign trail!
Ariel Investments appears to be a genuine mutual fund firm, which is a competitive and demanding field. So somebody in the firm has to be doing competitive and demanding financial stuff, but if so, the President has very little to say about it. And yes, I know about proprietary data and trade secrets and so on, but other spokespersons for other firms manage public promotion with private protection.
She seems like a nice person, and I'd genuinely like to believe the things written about her, but every attempt to do so comes up against a certain hollowness of the facts.
Ariel's mutual finds seem to perform at or a little below industry averages, which suggests that they attract investment by some criterion other than performance. Is it possible that Ariel gets included in a lot of corporate 401k packages as a way for the corporate sponsors to meet diversity goals? If so, I guess that is entrepreneurship of a sort, albeit one that does not really create value--unless you consider paying protection money to be creating value (or more precisely, corralling your employees into paying protection money for you). Does Ariel have a strategy beyond buying the Russell 2500 Index and making Diversity™ speeches? If so, I'd like to learn from them. If not, I'd appreciate less chaff.
I assume she does the same sort of things that Ellen Pao did
So what she’s asking for, in effect, is the final takedown of Corporate America. I suppose some consolation prize is to be had in the knowledge that in the process it will become impossible to hide the truth about the utter uselessness of most NAMs, or to keep subsidizing their unproductive lives. As TheJester has written on these pages:
Ariel Investments appears to be a genuine mutual fund firm, which is a competitive and demanding field. So somebody in the firm has to be doing competitive and demanding financial stuff, but if so, the President has very little to say about it. And yes, I know about proprietary data and trade secrets and so on, but other spokespersons for other firms manage public promotion with private protection.
She seems like a nice person, and I'd genuinely like to believe the things written about her, but every attempt to do so comes up against a certain hollowness of the facts.
Ariel's mutual finds seem to perform at or a little below industry averages, which suggests that they attract investment by some criterion other than performance. Is it possible that Ariel gets included in a lot of corporate 401k packages as a way for the corporate sponsors to meet diversity goals? If so, I guess that is entrepreneurship of a sort, albeit one that does not really create value--unless you consider paying protection money to be creating value (or more precisely, corralling your employees into paying protection money for you). Does Ariel have a strategy beyond buying the Russell 2500 Index and making Diversity™ speeches? If so, I'd like to learn from them. If not, I'd appreciate less chaff.
Yawn. Most everyone does.
We’ve reaching the point where we have to acknowledge that “being nice” is no virtue and in fact can become a vice if pushed too far. We have to get back to basics in evaluating the worthiness of causes and people in matters where essential and existential worries are at stake: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Ariel Investments appears to be a genuine mutual fund firm, which is a competitive and demanding field. So somebody in the firm has to be doing competitive and demanding financial stuff, but if so, the President has very little to say about it. And yes, I know about proprietary data and trade secrets and so on, but other spokespersons for other firms manage public promotion with private protection.
She seems like a nice person, and I'd genuinely like to believe the things written about her, but every attempt to do so comes up against a certain hollowness of the facts.
Ariel's mutual finds seem to perform at or a little below industry averages, which suggests that they attract investment by some criterion other than performance. Is it possible that Ariel gets included in a lot of corporate 401k packages as a way for the corporate sponsors to meet diversity goals? If so, I guess that is entrepreneurship of a sort, albeit one that does not really create value--unless you consider paying protection money to be creating value (or more precisely, corralling your employees into paying protection money for you). Does Ariel have a strategy beyond buying the Russell 2500 Index and making Diversity™ speeches? If so, I'd like to learn from them. If not, I'd appreciate less chaff.
I can recall reading maybe a quarter of a century ago in a Chicago business publication a long interview with the founder of Mellody’s employer, Ariel Investments: John W. Rogers Jr.
He offered a long explanation of how he’d found an anomaly that let him beat the stock market despite accepting the Efficient Markets Hypothesis was generally true. At the time, I’d read a fair number of such how-I-beat-the-market explanations, and Rogers’ was one of the more plausible.
Somebody told me a number of years later that Rogers’ theory of investing really had worked for him, but most of the irrational prices he’d found were in small-cap stocks, and that as he’d gotten more investment dollars under his control, it was harder for him to make investments without moving the price of the wrongly priced stock while he was buying.
So over time he made Ariel into a firm that benefits from diversity mandates to employ minority-owned investment funds. But Ariel is likely the best of such firms.
Rogers is a legit African-American aristocrat. His dad was a judge, his mom a big wheel Republican who served in the Ford and elder Bush administrations. He was captain of the 1980 Princeton basketball team under famous coach Pete Carrill. The star freshman on that team was Craig Robinson, older brother of Michelle Robinson.
Here’s a video of Rogers defeating Michael Jordan 3-2 in one-on-one at a fantasy basketball camp:
Jordan appears surprised that the little Spike Lee-looking rich guy has a strategy for winning. He probably would have played harder on Rogers’ first two buckets if he’d remembered that Rogers had been team captain under Pete Carrill.
Regarding the investing, that sounds about right. Rogers was simply going after the "value" premium which is stronger in small cap (~$500 million market cap to ~$2 billion) stocks than large cap stocks - and really strong in microcap stocks ($50 million to $500 million).
It's a bit silly to compare the performance of a small value fund - which harvest three premiums (market, small and value) - to the S&P 500 which harvests only one premium (the mark premium). The better comparison is between a small value fund and a benchmark that has very similar characteristics.
(However, even there, it's get dicy because there are various way to measure "cheapness" in stocks and because these days a fund and/or the benchmark may be employing various screen to weed out low quality value stock and value stock with low momentum, i.e. is the stock performing well compared to its peers. And, again, there different ways to measure quality and momentum.)
So if you look at the first decade of the Ariel Fund (presumably the first fund opened by Rogers since it started in 1986), you see that it have annualized return of 13.87%. Pretty good, except when you compared it to Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) US Small Cap Value index, which returned 16.47% over the same period. (DFA is a major player in this type of investing.) In live action, DFA US small value fund, which started in 1994 has handily beat the Ariel Fund.
That being said, Rogers was smart enough to understand that small value was the place to be and savvy enough to start a firm to go after it and patient enough to let it work, so kudos to him.
The problem that any successful manager runs into is that it's a lot easier to be successful when you have less money. You can go after very small stocks and concentrate in fewer stocks both of which enhance returns. Your stellar returns are not because you are smarter than everyone else; they're the result of you being able to fish in a different pond. As more money pours in, you have to invest in larger stocks and spread out your money to more stocks (you can only shove so much money into a stock before you impact the price), which by default make you look more and more like the benchmark. It's a capacity issue, not a skill issue.
Finally, going after these various premiums or "factors" (market, value, quality and momentum) does contradict EMT to some extent but doesn't negate it completely. You can still believe that markets are pretty efficient but that some systemic behavioral mistakes exist and can be exploited - if you have the patience to ride out the sometimes very long periods of underperformance. Indeed, small value stocks have sucked for around a decade compared to the S&P 500, a long enough period of underperformance to squeeeze out all but the diehards, and, more importantly, to get advisors fired for recommending such funds.
Go ahead and lead the way, Ariel – show us how all those other investment houses are making a mistake by not being diverse enough and beat them at their own game. It seems Silicon Valley is doing just fine with its overwhelming bias towards white and Asian males but that’s probably a fluke.
The idea that diversity makes all things better is totally pervasive these days but I am hard pressed to find a business or institution that practices what it preaches in this regard. When someone give the diversity rationale for anything, what they are really saying is that it would be great if more black or latinos got cut in on the action, or in the case of schools get to go to the higher performing and less disruptive white-dominated suburban ones and away from people that look like themselves.
“Do or do not. There is no try.” — Yoda.
Is this the new corporate philosophy? (To go along with things like “think outside the box,” “use best practices,” etc.)
Rather amusing Lucas related stuff from a few years ago:
Lucas and Rich Neighbors Agree to Disagree: Part II
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/us/george-lucas-retreats-from-battle-with-neighbors.html
Red tails – known by actual combat fighter pilots as turn tails, just never could seem to engage the enemy or maybe their record is really because they were such superior defensive pilots, but then you would think that skill would cross over into a halfway decent kill record, but nah, just shufflin and jivin in the air
Is this the new corporate philosophy? (To go along with things like “think outside the box,” “use best practices,” etc.)
(waving hand in front of investor)
You do not need to see Ms. Hobson’s credentials. This is not the stock you want to sell. You can buy, hold, go about your business, and move along now.
Steve, no offense intended but this seriously made me want to vomit. Not a reference to your writing.
Do an image search on her and you’ll see a bunch of “couples” pictures with Lucas looking dour relative to the beaming Hobson. I did manage to find a couple with him smiling slightly.
This reminds me of a comment made by a mutual friend of the groom, of a not-so-lovely black bride, at his bachelor party:
She must have done something that made him feel real good to get him to marry her.
But by appearances the thrill is gone for George.
Most everyone agrees that "The Empire Strikes Back" was better than "Star Wars". It was! It was great! Why didn't he continue on that path?
I take George Lucas as basically a failed genius. By contrast, Colin Kaepernick... is some guy I heard about in the newspapers. An outright buffoon.
Another view is that he’s an excellent businessman who had two and a half great ideas (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and American Graffiti) that made him $4 billion+.
As for his artistic genius, well, see these:
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/
She got George Lucas to consider putting the Star Wars Museum in her hometown of Chicago. They came into town and acted like they owned the place. Chicagoans were naturally offended and the plan fell through. The museum will be built in Los Angeles, which is a more appropriate place for a show business type thing like a Star Wars Museum anyway. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-lucas-museum-opinion-kamin-met-0624-20160624-column.html
Is this the new corporate philosophy? (To go along with things like "think outside the box," "use best practices," etc.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50No
“On my honor I will do my best to do my duty….etc. etc.”
“On my honor I will try to do my best to do my duty…. etc. etc.”
The Boy Scouts Oath vs. the Girl Scouts Oath. For real.
And of course this dovetails nicely with comments made here over the years about competitions in which everyone gets an award for just taking part, where “everyone’s a winner”.
But we can’t be too coldhearted. Every society has losers. What to do with them? Turn them into Soylent Green?
On the other hand, none of us wants to fly on an airplane or drive across a bridge that was designed by affirmative action hires.
So we muddle along. People just have to abide by the limits imposed by their own abilities. When they overreach, others must have the freedom to push back. Negative feedback is the key to a self-sustaining organization.
Blacks were justified in blaming whites for slavery. Blacks were justifiably aggrieved by lynchings. Blacks were within their rights to resent Jim Crow laws. (Whites were stupid for caving in to black demands, but I don’t blame blacks for pursuing their interests.)
So I guess you’re saying white gentiles are justified in resenting Jewish racial hypocrisy and double standards. White gentiles are justified in resenting the Jewish stranglehold on their foreign policy. White gentiles are justified in resenting the enormity of Jewish influence in their media, entertainment, education and legal systems.
At least whites are willing to hear out black activists and discuss the accuracy and legitimacy of their claims before rejecting them.
Are Jews willing to hear out white activists and discuss the accuracy and legitimacy of their claims before rejecting them? Or is it a whole lot easier (and more rewarding) to simply denounce them as “anti-semites”?
https://twitter.com/AJB109/status/930451644239761408
I think only one of the Jews on the Supreme Court can be fully blown.
Kaep is openly communist and an admirer of Fidel. Anyone who has nothing bad to say about Kaep should not be allowed to do any job besides garbage collector. The fact that this anti-white see-ya-next-Tuesday was given a platform by the NYT tells us everything we need to know about our elites
He offered a long explanation of how he'd found an anomaly that let him beat the stock market despite accepting the Efficient Markets Hypothesis was generally true. At the time, I'd read a fair number of such how-I-beat-the-market explanations, and Rogers' was one of the more plausible.
Somebody told me a number of years later that Rogers' theory of investing really had worked for him, but most of the irrational prices he'd found were in small-cap stocks, and that as he'd gotten more investment dollars under his control, it was harder for him to make investments without moving the price of the wrongly priced stock while he was buying.
So over time he made Ariel into a firm that benefits from diversity mandates to employ minority-owned investment funds. But Ariel is likely the best of such firms.
Rogers is a legit African-American aristocrat. His dad was a judge, his mom a big wheel Republican who served in the Ford and elder Bush administrations. He was captain of the 1980 Princeton basketball team under famous coach Pete Carrill. The star freshman on that team was Craig Robinson, older brother of Michelle Robinson.
Here's a video of Rogers defeating Michael Jordan 3-2 in one-on-one at a fantasy basketball camp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B7U74Dg04k
Jordan appears surprised that the little Spike Lee-looking rich guy has a strategy for winning. He probably would have played harder on Rogers' first two buckets if he'd remembered that Rogers had been team captain under Pete Carrill.
Steve,
Regarding the investing, that sounds about right. Rogers was simply going after the “value” premium which is stronger in small cap (~$500 million market cap to ~$2 billion) stocks than large cap stocks – and really strong in microcap stocks ($50 million to $500 million).
It’s a bit silly to compare the performance of a small value fund – which harvest three premiums (market, small and value) – to the S&P 500 which harvests only one premium (the mark premium). The better comparison is between a small value fund and a benchmark that has very similar characteristics.
(However, even there, it’s get dicy because there are various way to measure “cheapness” in stocks and because these days a fund and/or the benchmark may be employing various screen to weed out low quality value stock and value stock with low momentum, i.e. is the stock performing well compared to its peers. And, again, there different ways to measure quality and momentum.)
So if you look at the first decade of the Ariel Fund (presumably the first fund opened by Rogers since it started in 1986), you see that it have annualized return of 13.87%. Pretty good, except when you compared it to Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) US Small Cap Value index, which returned 16.47% over the same period. (DFA is a major player in this type of investing.) In live action, DFA US small value fund, which started in 1994 has handily beat the Ariel Fund.
That being said, Rogers was smart enough to understand that small value was the place to be and savvy enough to start a firm to go after it and patient enough to let it work, so kudos to him.
The problem that any successful manager runs into is that it’s a lot easier to be successful when you have less money. You can go after very small stocks and concentrate in fewer stocks both of which enhance returns. Your stellar returns are not because you are smarter than everyone else; they’re the result of you being able to fish in a different pond. As more money pours in, you have to invest in larger stocks and spread out your money to more stocks (you can only shove so much money into a stock before you impact the price), which by default make you look more and more like the benchmark. It’s a capacity issue, not a skill issue.
Finally, going after these various premiums or “factors” (market, value, quality and momentum) does contradict EMT to some extent but doesn’t negate it completely. You can still believe that markets are pretty efficient but that some systemic behavioral mistakes exist and can be exploited – if you have the patience to ride out the sometimes very long periods of underperformance. Indeed, small value stocks have sucked for around a decade compared to the S&P 500, a long enough period of underperformance to squeeeze out all but the diehards, and, more importantly, to get advisors fired for recommending such funds.
Hello fellow Whites,
Not really. WNs are cutting at the root. Black people who complain about the white man are, depending on whether or not one views Jews as white, either being overly broad with their blame or barking up the wrong tree entirely.
Very few white people want to “keep the black man down” and even fewer are in any position to do so. The worst thing that most whites, including powerful whites, are guilty of is erroneously assuming that the average black person will ever be able to adhere to white norms of civility, industriousness, productivity and law-abidingness. At least blacks admit it’s “racist” to expect blacks to abide by the norms that help make white societies generally more pleasant, peaceful and prosperous than black societies.
Ariel Investments appears to be a genuine mutual fund firm, which is a competitive and demanding field. So somebody in the firm has to be doing competitive and demanding financial stuff, but if so, the President has very little to say about it. And yes, I know about proprietary data and trade secrets and so on, but other spokespersons for other firms manage public promotion with private protection.
She seems like a nice person, and I'd genuinely like to believe the things written about her, but every attempt to do so comes up against a certain hollowness of the facts.
Ariel's mutual finds seem to perform at or a little below industry averages, which suggests that they attract investment by some criterion other than performance. Is it possible that Ariel gets included in a lot of corporate 401k packages as a way for the corporate sponsors to meet diversity goals? If so, I guess that is entrepreneurship of a sort, albeit one that does not really create value--unless you consider paying protection money to be creating value (or more precisely, corralling your employees into paying protection money for you). Does Ariel have a strategy beyond buying the Russell 2500 Index and making Diversity™ speeches? If so, I'd like to learn from them. If not, I'd appreciate less chaff.
She has a pretty good dress sense, not such a common thing nowadays.
Yet she can’t notice that her boyfriend’s fortune in which she shares came overwhelmingly from young white male people– with about as much judgment and taste as she has.
While I consider myself a WN, I personally do not focus on the JQ -- certainly not overly so -- but to deny the disproportionate role and influence of Jews (and Jewish money) in the media (including Hollywood) and public policy (especially important here: promoting and defending mass non-white immigration to majority white countries), as you seem to do, is really, really dishonest.
So how does Argentina, the second-most Jewish country in the hemisphere, manage to avoid this? What can we learn from them?
Perhaps a higher Italian-to-Jew ratio?
I think you are somewhat misinformed re what's happened to Argentina in the last decades:
American Renaissance -- Argentina: A Mirror of Your Future
How demographic change can destroy a country.
https://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Villa_31.jpg
Perhaps a higher Italian-to-Jew ratio?
So how does Argentina, the second-most Jewish country in the hemisphere, manage to avoid this?
I think you are somewhat misinformed re what’s happened to Argentina in the last decades:
American Renaissance — Argentina: A Mirror of Your Future
How demographic change can destroy a country.
Ariel Investments appears to be a genuine mutual fund firm, which is a competitive and demanding field. So somebody in the firm has to be doing competitive and demanding financial stuff, but if so, the President has very little to say about it. And yes, I know about proprietary data and trade secrets and so on, but other spokespersons for other firms manage public promotion with private protection.
She seems like a nice person, and I'd genuinely like to believe the things written about her, but every attempt to do so comes up against a certain hollowness of the facts.
Ariel's mutual finds seem to perform at or a little below industry averages, which suggests that they attract investment by some criterion other than performance. Is it possible that Ariel gets included in a lot of corporate 401k packages as a way for the corporate sponsors to meet diversity goals? If so, I guess that is entrepreneurship of a sort, albeit one that does not really create value--unless you consider paying protection money to be creating value (or more precisely, corralling your employees into paying protection money for you). Does Ariel have a strategy beyond buying the Russell 2500 Index and making Diversity™ speeches? If so, I'd like to learn from them. If not, I'd appreciate less chaff.
Princeton graduate Mellody Hobson’s asset to Ariel Investments is her strong set of social skills, something that John Rogers deeply lacks. Rogers by the way is the ex-husband of Desirée Rogers (Wellesley, Harvard MBA), Barack Obama’s ill-fated social secretary. John Rogers second ex-wife is Sharon Fairley (Princeton, Wharton MBA, University of Chicago Law School) who was named head of Chicago’s Independent Police Review Authority by Rahm Emanuel after her divorce from Rogers.
A little about John Rogers:
That’s funny coming from a guy whose own ethnic narrative is an uninterrupted tale of victim-hood and ethnic grievance stretching back 5,000 years.
I’m on her side. Make these companies put their money where their mouths are, and then watch them choke on it.
This would give smaller companies a nice advantage. My suspicion is that if AA quotas from top to bottom was made more or less mandatory for large companies due to PR reasons, they would push for AA to be legally mandatory for all companies to even the playing field.
Most everyone agrees that "The Empire Strikes Back" was better than "Star Wars". It was! It was great! Why didn't he continue on that path?
I take George Lucas as basically a failed genius. By contrast, Colin Kaepernick... is some guy I heard about in the newspapers. An outright buffoon.
Star Wars was better because it was an entertaining and well-made movie for kids, that adults could also enjoy. The Empire Strikes Back had jumped up pretentions at being something more, which it could never be. George Lucas is no Tolkien or Homer.
He offered a long explanation of how he'd found an anomaly that let him beat the stock market despite accepting the Efficient Markets Hypothesis was generally true. At the time, I'd read a fair number of such how-I-beat-the-market explanations, and Rogers' was one of the more plausible.
Somebody told me a number of years later that Rogers' theory of investing really had worked for him, but most of the irrational prices he'd found were in small-cap stocks, and that as he'd gotten more investment dollars under his control, it was harder for him to make investments without moving the price of the wrongly priced stock while he was buying.
So over time he made Ariel into a firm that benefits from diversity mandates to employ minority-owned investment funds. But Ariel is likely the best of such firms.
Rogers is a legit African-American aristocrat. His dad was a judge, his mom a big wheel Republican who served in the Ford and elder Bush administrations. He was captain of the 1980 Princeton basketball team under famous coach Pete Carrill. The star freshman on that team was Craig Robinson, older brother of Michelle Robinson.
Here's a video of Rogers defeating Michael Jordan 3-2 in one-on-one at a fantasy basketball camp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B7U74Dg04k
Jordan appears surprised that the little Spike Lee-looking rich guy has a strategy for winning. He probably would have played harder on Rogers' first two buckets if he'd remembered that Rogers had been team captain under Pete Carrill.
Interesting. Thanks.
I never understand stuff like this.
Yeah, George Lucas is a short guy. And his look hasn’t aged well. And … he needs to lose some weight.
But seriously, he’s George Lucas with f-you money. If he wanted another wife and family he could have done a lot better than combining genes with Melody Hobson. If AnotherMom had dumped me a decade back and I was on the market even with what I earn I wouldn’t have Melody Hobson on my arm. With a couple billion in my pocket … LOL.
Anybody remember that total bomb "Red Tails" about the Black AA World War II fighters that single handedly defeated the evil White racist NAZIs?
Me neither.
Yeah, he's beginning to look like Jabba The Hut.
This doesn't seem like a trophy wife situation at all, more like two exceptionally driven people forming a sensible union. Despite her sweetly pretty looks, Hobson gave one of the least sentimental interviews in Porter magazine that I have ever come across in a women's interest magazine or newspaper section. You even got the sense that George Lucas has taken on a role more conventionally fulfilled by the wife in a marriage. She sounds very resilient, hard-nosed, and self-accountable, an atypical advocate for diversity-guided corporate employment.
Hobson said that there are plenty of white men in high-status jobs who weren't hired based on merit, and that minorities have to work ten times as hard to attain the same positions, so it isn't true that diversity quotas diminish the quality of candidates. To be fair to her, she probably expressed her opinion better than I've paraphrased, but unfortunately the interview is not online.
Most everyone agrees that "The Empire Strikes Back" was better than "Star Wars". It was! It was great! Why didn't he continue on that path?
I take George Lucas as basically a failed genius. By contrast, Colin Kaepernick... is some guy I heard about in the newspapers. An outright buffoon.
The prequel trilogy doesn’t look as bad to me either but I realize that is only in comparison to the Abrams version of Star Wars. On balance even as wooden and non-credible as the characters were in the Lucas prequel they were still not as bad as the cardboard stock video game characters that Abrams plugged in to The Force Awakens. At least Lucas made an attempt to recreate the character development you saw in the original trilogy even as weak and improbable as that attempt was. Red Letter Media did an excellent analysis of what went wrong with the prequels. The failure came down to two factors:
First, Lucas had never actually intended to make more movies beyond the first trilogy and had no idea where he wanted to take the story line for the prequels and sequels. He was showing up for production with a thin sheaf of script pages he had banged out the night before filming. Even in Return of the Jedi he was running out of ideas so he redeemed Vader, and oh what the hell, let’s blow up another Deathstar, everyone loved that in the first one.
Secondly he became over-dependent on CGI for making the movies. Red Letter showed clips of him directing the filming and he wasn’t even in sight of the actors. The would be standing in front of a green screen, and Lucas would be out of their sight behind a bank of monitors yelling at them what he was seeing on the CGI monitors and how they were supposed to react to it.
He had to beat Peter Jackson's Weta Digital out to the market, which he ended up doing by about two years. Star Wars, the Matrix and Gollum...and off to the races the movie industry went into the digital age.
After all, Lucas and ILM used one of the earliest CG images on film during the trench scene in Star Wars. If you go through the history of CG/digital film, either Lucas and ILM are at the forefront of it: Star Trek II, Young Sherlock Holmes, The Abyss, Terminator II, Forrest Gump....and on and on and on- that's before you add in LucasFilms spinoff, Pixar. It's no surprise that almost the minute Pixar creates the first all computer graphic film in Toy Story, Lucas starts working on a new trilogy for Star Wars. So Lucas was busy focusing on the important part of his movies.
Another thing: for however terrible the prequels are, most of the negativity was a confluence of the mainstreaming of internet-cultures and a PR hit job from Hollywood...it's forgotten how negatively Hollywood people reacted to Lucas deciding to make these films. I believe there was an "intervention" by some of his friends like Martin Scorsese at Skywalker Ranch on behalf of the various unions [from actors on down] who felt he was directly taking aim at replacing them all with his digital films on the eve of filming. Suddenly, golden boy George Lucas (after the initial Fox/Lucas paid PR push) couldn't do anything right. His shlock was suddenly so terrible as to barely arises to the level of a joke compared with all the other Hollywood shlock. It became an embarrassment to work with him. Voices from media outlets were given the okay to treat him like a pariah. All of this wasn't all organic, this was a concerted effort; and the RLM guys (among others) never tell this part of the story.
Mellody Hobson is practicing what I call “pyramid economics” where billionaires, who are obviously at the top of the pyramid, promote and fund dissent among people at the bottom of the pyramid, increasingly using blacks as a catalyst, such as George Soros with Black Lives Matter. Once the plebs are squabbling amongst themselves, the wealthy can enact policies and laws that benefit themselves or otherwise do what they want with little or no pushback.
One thing i do like in Melody Hobson’s comment–and in the general trend of commentary this past few years, is the *openness* in the call for looting.
While the “diversity is our strength” b.s. is continually pitched, the clear thrust of all the whining by blacks, Jews, immigrants, women, homos, trannys, Mexicans, Indians, Chinese is that straight white gentile men are simply *not* entitled to their stuff–jobs, careers, neighborhoods, nations. Where white men venture and bring their skills, rule of law and make things prosperous and pleasant … that is unfair and must be shared.
The openness of this “you deserve to be looted”, i really appreciate. What’s still missing though is for leaders in the nominal “white party” to acknowledge this, state it clearly and say “Bullshit!, White guys have no obligation, morally, ethically, legally to share one iota of the value they create in the world.”
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9197
Leftist America has become a PC Racist nation against whites.
They want whites dead and gone.
This is Racism at it’s core.
I think Hobson and Lucas are actually married “They have one daughter together, Everest Hobson Lucas, who was born via surrogacy in August 2013.”
There has to be some Saileresque analysis in the strong and empowered career woman marrying a rich guy who is into science fiction and having her presumably frozen eggs grown in an outsourced uterus.
The head guy of Ariel Capital wasn’t/isn’t a bad guy – his mom was decent GOP. John Rogers sort of got moved in to the #1 Black investment leader of the USA so he had to go the Obama route and boy did he profit in the hundreds of $ millions. This Mellody Hobson is however a real vicious, hate Whitey Black Bitch and is ruining the lives of lots of people I know and like who are small, regular people who thought the system was fair it’s not.
John Roger’s private school High School has been pushed to PC Lib Left BlackLiesMatter politics. Obama sent his children their, mayor Emanuel sends his children there. Lib Left Dem, BlackliesMatter elites don’t use Chicago public schools.
This is a brutal place – Chicago city.
Anyone besides me noticed the sudden wave of SHRM commercials? So I looked them up and the Society for Human Resources Management recently had a conference with classes on how to make transgenders feel more welcome in the workplace. The Left is actively colonizing human resource departments, and soon Human Resources Management will be synonymous with Diversity Departments.
Yeah, George Lucas is a short guy. And his look hasn't aged well. And ... he needs to lose some weight.
But seriously, he's George Lucas with f-you money. If he wanted another wife and family he could have done a lot better than combining genes with Melody Hobson. If AnotherMom had dumped me a decade back and I was on the market even with what I earn I wouldn't have Melody Hobson on my arm. With a couple billion in my pocket ... LOL.
The original Lucas Star Wars weren’t very/any hate White people, Lib Leftist. But since he hooked up with this Melody Hobson, anything Lucas has been PC hate Whitey to the max.
Anybody remember that total bomb “Red Tails” about the Black AA World War II fighters that single handedly defeated the evil White racist NAZIs?
Me neither.
While I consider myself a WN, I personally do not focus on the JQ -- certainly not overly so -- but to deny the disproportionate role and influence of Jews (and Jewish money) in the media (including Hollywood) and public policy (especially important here: promoting and defending mass non-white immigration to majority white countries), as you seem to do, is really, really dishonest.
To ignore the legacy of slavery, the legacy of colonialism, and the discrimination that takes place to this very day is just as dishonest.
"Hello, fellow White American!"
Proclaims (((Sabril))), the Israeli citizen who's abandoned his homeland to live amongst evil racist Whites in America.
It all just has become a club with which to beat them over the head.
The best the other side can seem to do is become a parasite class. Not much morality in that.
Yeah, George Lucas is a short guy. And his look hasn't aged well. And ... he needs to lose some weight.
But seriously, he's George Lucas with f-you money. If he wanted another wife and family he could have done a lot better than combining genes with Melody Hobson. If AnotherMom had dumped me a decade back and I was on the market even with what I earn I wouldn't have Melody Hobson on my arm. With a couple billion in my pocket ... LOL.
“Yeah, George Lucas is a short guy. And his look hasn’t aged well. And … he needs to lose some weight. ”
Yeah, he’s beginning to look like Jabba The Hut.
While the "diversity is our strength" b.s. is continually pitched, the clear thrust of all the whining by blacks, Jews, immigrants, women, homos, trannys, Mexicans, Indians, Chinese is that straight white gentile men are simply *not* entitled to their stuff--jobs, careers, neighborhoods, nations. Where white men venture and bring their skills, rule of law and make things prosperous and pleasant ... that is unfair and must be shared.
The openness of this "you deserve to be looted", i really appreciate. What's still missing though is for leaders in the nominal "white party" to acknowledge this, state it clearly and say "Bullshit!, White guys have no obligation, morally, ethically, legally to share one iota of the value they create in the world."
Critical Race Theory has spread far and wide.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9197
First, Lucas had never actually intended to make more movies beyond the first trilogy and had no idea where he wanted to take the story line for the prequels and sequels. He was showing up for production with a thin sheaf of script pages he had banged out the night before filming. Even in Return of the Jedi he was running out of ideas so he redeemed Vader, and oh what the hell, let's blow up another Deathstar, everyone loved that in the first one.
Secondly he became over-dependent on CGI for making the movies. Red Letter showed clips of him directing the filming and he wasn't even in sight of the actors. The would be standing in front of a green screen, and Lucas would be out of their sight behind a bank of monitors yelling at them what he was seeing on the CGI monitors and how they were supposed to react to it.
Lucas wasn’t over-reliant on CG- the movies were a showcase of ILM’s computer-technical possibilities.
He had to beat Peter Jackson’s Weta Digital out to the market, which he ended up doing by about two years. Star Wars, the Matrix and Gollum…and off to the races the movie industry went into the digital age.
After all, Lucas and ILM used one of the earliest CG images on film during the trench scene in Star Wars. If you go through the history of CG/digital film, either Lucas and ILM are at the forefront of it: Star Trek II, Young Sherlock Holmes, The Abyss, Terminator II, Forrest Gump….and on and on and on- that’s before you add in LucasFilms spinoff, Pixar. It’s no surprise that almost the minute Pixar creates the first all computer graphic film in Toy Story, Lucas starts working on a new trilogy for Star Wars. So Lucas was busy focusing on the important part of his movies.
Another thing: for however terrible the prequels are, most of the negativity was a confluence of the mainstreaming of internet-cultures and a PR hit job from Hollywood…it’s forgotten how negatively Hollywood people reacted to Lucas deciding to make these films. I believe there was an “intervention” by some of his friends like Martin Scorsese at Skywalker Ranch on behalf of the various unions [from actors on down] who felt he was directly taking aim at replacing them all with his digital films on the eve of filming. Suddenly, golden boy George Lucas (after the initial Fox/Lucas paid PR push) couldn’t do anything right. His shlock was suddenly so terrible as to barely arises to the level of a joke compared with all the other Hollywood shlock. It became an embarrassment to work with him. Voices from media outlets were given the okay to treat him like a pariah. All of this wasn’t all organic, this was a concerted effort; and the RLM guys (among others) never tell this part of the story.
Why would she suggest that CEO's emulate him?
Does she want to invest in those companies?
I don't understand.
Yeah, Colin Kaepernick is not the analogy she wants! If she wanted an example of unappreciated-because-of-prejudice talent she might have said Jeremy Lin or Christian McCaffrey or some overachieving white cornerback. Then again, if her point was that we need to promote more underqualified blacks who, with enough promoting, might rise high, then Barack Obama is her man.
Pity they eliminated analogies from the SAT, that was the best part! I guess they eliminated analogies, in part, to remove an obstacle out of the path to greatness of people like Mellody Hobson.
The mind works with analogies. Eliminating them can only mean planned pauperization of the mind and ushering in of Newspeak.
The War on Thought, indeed.
Amother reminder that even in a group with a very high verbal IQ, someone has to get the short end of the stick.
Just because, blacks, women, white-nationalists and for that matter Jews, teenagers and 3-year old boys facing nap time are all complaining, does not mean they are all complaining about the same thing.
Blacks are complaining that whites done give them enough stuff. They want more stuff.
Women are complaining that men don’t give them enough stuff. They want more stuff.
White nationalists are complaining Jews are looting and destroying their nations. They want Jews to leave them alone.
Finding the truth in oppression\exploitation narratives is not super complicated. There’s a simple test: Does the “oppressor” actually need the oppressee? Does the oppressee need the oppressor? (Or are they willing and capable of making a go of it without the oppressor around.)
Feudal lords did actually need the labor of their serfs and would not let them go. The serfs were indeed oppressed.
Ante-bellum plantation owners did actually need the labor of their slaves and would not let them go. The slaves were oppressed. (How well they would do on their own is another question, but they were oppressed.)
In contrast, whites do not need or in any way shape or form depend on the labor of blacks. Blacks in fact are a huge dead weight loss on white society–higher taxes, crime, security for crime, AA spots, wasted cycles, major cities blighted. Whites would be fine–much better off–without blacks. In contrast, blacks show basically no sign of making a go of it without whites. With whites merely not immediately present–Detroit. Without them altogether–Africa.
Men and women is of course more complicated–we’re biologically linked and don’t survive without each other. Men clearly do need women–for sex, companionship and most of all for reproduction. But men do not need or depend much on the cash labor of women. Men would be absolutely fine without women engineers, corporate executives, bankers, lawyers, politicians, professors, scrientists, cops, firefighters (LOL), soldiers (LOL,LOL) or let’s pretend generals. In fact, the economy might and society almost certainly would function better without women doing any of that. In contrast, women desperately need–are completely dependent upon–male labor and genius for the standard of living they have. If men didn’t show up for work–keeping the lights on, the water clean, the sewers working, all the machines humming–society would within days be in the dark ages.
White nationalists argue that Jews are looting their nations and wrecking them with immigration. Right or wrong, the white nationalists are not asking the Jews to labor for them or give them stuff, they are asking the Jews to leave them alone. Evidence suggests that whites throw a pretty good nation without Jews around. Historically the most successful European nations seem to be ones that have had a low Jewish presence. England and France–expelled the Jews in the late middle ages and subsequently rose to become leading powers. In the modern era, Scandinavia which is Jew light is–or was pre-immigration–pretty nice and Jew light. Post-Holocaust Germany–very Jew light–is the leading economy in Europe and very (pre-Merkel) pleasant. White nationalists are clearly correct in thinking whites can make it own their own–in fact very, very well–without Jews.
In contrast if whites tell Jews to make it on their own–building your own damn country club … it’s the golfocaust! Jews do not want to go their own way, they insist on glomming onto whites. Now, it is obvious that Jews can make it on their own and do very well–as Israel demonstrates. But Israel–open and gladly accepting any Jews–demonstrates that most Jews prefer to stay in white nations. Trading, rent-seeking on top of and comfy sinecures within, a rich white nation is simply more lucrative and fun. The availability of “go your own way” Israel option suggests that if there’s any oppression or exploitation going on between whites and Jews, it’s Jews not whites doing the exploiting.
Again, none of this is rocket science. Who is dependent on whom is obvious from the nature of the complaints people have, how they behave and where they run to.
The bottom line is that white gentiles go somewhere and create a nice environment with their presence–law abiding, prosperous, pleasant. They go do that … and other people run over and glom onto what they have built. That’s just the reality we see.
Unlike the rare black QB, the rare black executive needs to be smart about money, so he’s probably not going to take a knee.
lol, mainstream Jewish writers complain as much about “anti-semitism” as the average white nationalist complains about Jews. Hell, successful Jews are still complaining about supposed slights that their ancestors faced a hundred years ago.
Look inward my middle-eastern friend, for no one outdoes your people for whining.
https://twitter.com/AJB109/status/930451644239761408
Who demands mass immigration into white gentile countries, but stops non-Jew immigration into “that shitty little country”?
Who owns the US Congress?
Who dominates the US Supreme Court?
Who forces acceptance of the fictitious & impossible ’6M & gas chambers’?
Who runs the media / entertainment?
Who runs the music business?
Who dominates ‘academia’?
Why is AIPAC the most powerful, dominant lobby, which regularly writes the text of Congressional bills and resolutions?
Who is it that wants to censor free speech via the “hate speech” canard?
Who is it that demands we shed the blood of US troops for their interests?
Who are the real & biggest racists on the planet?
Just because, blacks, women, white-nationalists and for that matter Jews, teenagers and 3-year old boys facing nap time are all complaining, does not mean they are all complaining about the same thing.
Blacks are complaining that whites done give them enough stuff. They want more stuff.
Women are complaining that men don't give them enough stuff. They want more stuff.
White nationalists are complaining Jews are looting and destroying their nations. They want Jews to leave them alone.
Finding the truth in oppression\exploitation narratives is not super complicated. There's a simple test: Does the "oppressor" actually need the oppressee? Does the oppressee need the oppressor? (Or are they willing and capable of making a go of it without the oppressor around.)
Feudal lords did actually need the labor of their serfs and would not let them go. The serfs were indeed oppressed.
Ante-bellum plantation owners did actually need the labor of their slaves and would not let them go. The slaves were oppressed. (How well they would do on their own is another question, but they were oppressed.)
In contrast, whites do not need or in any way shape or form depend on the labor of blacks. Blacks in fact are a huge dead weight loss on white society--higher taxes, crime, security for crime, AA spots, wasted cycles, major cities blighted. Whites would be fine--much better off--without blacks. In contrast, blacks show basically no sign of making a go of it without whites. With whites merely not immediately present--Detroit. Without them altogether--Africa.
Men and women is of course more complicated--we're biologically linked and don't survive without each other. Men clearly do need women--for sex, companionship and most of all for reproduction. But men do not need or depend much on the cash labor of women. Men would be absolutely fine without women engineers, corporate executives, bankers, lawyers, politicians, professors, scrientists, cops, firefighters (LOL), soldiers (LOL,LOL) or let's pretend generals. In fact, the economy might and society almost certainly would function better without women doing any of that. In contrast, women desperately need--are completely dependent upon--male labor and genius for the standard of living they have. If men didn't show up for work--keeping the lights on, the water clean, the sewers working, all the machines humming--society would within days be in the dark ages.
White nationalists argue that Jews are looting their nations and wrecking them with immigration. Right or wrong, the white nationalists are not asking the Jews to labor for them or give them stuff, they are asking the Jews to leave them alone. Evidence suggests that whites throw a pretty good nation without Jews around. Historically the most successful European nations seem to be ones that have had a low Jewish presence. England and France--expelled the Jews in the late middle ages and subsequently rose to become leading powers. In the modern era, Scandinavia which is Jew light is--or was pre-immigration--pretty nice and Jew light. Post-Holocaust Germany--very Jew light--is the leading economy in Europe and very (pre-Merkel) pleasant. White nationalists are clearly correct in thinking whites can make it own their own--in fact very, very well--without Jews.
In contrast if whites tell Jews to make it on their own--building your own damn country club ... it's the golfocaust! Jews do not want to go their own way, they insist on glomming onto whites. Now, it is obvious that Jews can make it on their own and do very well--as Israel demonstrates. But Israel--open and gladly accepting any Jews--demonstrates that most Jews prefer to stay in white nations. Trading, rent-seeking on top of and comfy sinecures within, a rich white nation is simply more lucrative and fun. The availability of "go your own way" Israel option suggests that if there's any oppression or exploitation going on between whites and Jews, it's Jews not whites doing the exploiting.
Again, none of this is rocket science. Who is dependent on whom is obvious from the nature of the complaints people have, how they behave and where they run to.
The bottom line is that white gentiles go somewhere and create a nice environment with their presence--law abiding, prosperous, pleasant. They go do that ... and other people run over and glom onto what they have built. That's just the reality we see.
Beautifully said. Well done, sir.
@64 Sabril: “To ignore the legacy of slavery, the legacy of colonialism, and the discrimination that takes place to this very day is just as dishonest.”
“Hello, fellow White American!”
Proclaims (((Sabril))), the Israeli citizen who’s abandoned his homeland to live amongst evil racist Whites in America.
But you kind of missed the point. I don't think white misbehavior is an important factor in black problems, but enough exists to provide a hook for the scapegoaters. Same thing with Jewish nonsense. Sure Jews are overrepresented among prominent Leftists. But it doesn't follow that Jews are to blame for white self-destruction.
What? When!
The mind works with analogies. Eliminating them can only mean planned pauperization of the mind and ushering in of Newspeak.
The War on Thought, indeed.
CCZ, what does that mean ” born via surrogacy”? Someone else impregnated her or a fetus was carried to term in someone else’s womb.
Ovum and sperm of intended parents are combined to create embryos that are implanted into the uterus of the surrogate mother. In most states the names of intended biological father and intended biological mother are entered on the original birth certificate.
IVF & Egg Donation (IVF/ED) Program:
Ovum from a donor is fertilized with sperm of the intended biological father. Resulting embryos are implanted into the uterus of the surrogate. In most states the name of intended biological father and intended mother are entered onto the original birth certificate.
Become a Surrogate Mother - Compensation Up To $60,000 | creatingfamilies.com ($500 Signing Bonus Until December 1, 2017)
(and there is more:
What Does LGBT Friendly Surrogacy Include?
First agency to help a LGBT couple
51% of CSP clients are LGBT)
Neu, you forgot Ben and Jerry’s , otherwise spot on.
I think you are somewhat misinformed re what's happened to Argentina in the last decades:
American Renaissance -- Argentina: A Mirror of Your Future
How demographic change can destroy a country.
https://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Villa_31.jpg
Ah, no wonder I’m meeting so many white Argentinians around here lately. Those who can get out are doing so.
Ariel Investments appears to be a genuine mutual fund firm, which is a competitive and demanding field. So somebody in the firm has to be doing competitive and demanding financial stuff, but if so, the President has very little to say about it. And yes, I know about proprietary data and trade secrets and so on, but other spokespersons for other firms manage public promotion with private protection.
She seems like a nice person, and I'd genuinely like to believe the things written about her, but every attempt to do so comes up against a certain hollowness of the facts.
Ariel's mutual finds seem to perform at or a little below industry averages, which suggests that they attract investment by some criterion other than performance. Is it possible that Ariel gets included in a lot of corporate 401k packages as a way for the corporate sponsors to meet diversity goals? If so, I guess that is entrepreneurship of a sort, albeit one that does not really create value--unless you consider paying protection money to be creating value (or more precisely, corralling your employees into paying protection money for you). Does Ariel have a strategy beyond buying the Russell 2500 Index and making Diversity™ speeches? If so, I'd like to learn from them. If not, I'd appreciate less chaff.
Almost, she is one of the few black women in America whose net worth is more that $100.
Colleen, I was never in a combat situation, but I would never criticize anyone, repeat,anyone, who put their life on the line.
Reg, good point, but remember black males have a negative net worth and black females have a net worth of only $100, have to go were the money is.
Yeah, he's beginning to look like Jabba The Hut.
Mike M, so if Ms Hobson decides that she can’t live with the short, fat guy, she still gets a nice chunk of his wealth through a divorce. Which is great, as it will raise the average net worth of black American women to more that $100.
Just because, blacks, women, white-nationalists and for that matter Jews, teenagers and 3-year old boys facing nap time are all complaining, does not mean they are all complaining about the same thing.
Blacks are complaining that whites done give them enough stuff. They want more stuff.
Women are complaining that men don't give them enough stuff. They want more stuff.
White nationalists are complaining Jews are looting and destroying their nations. They want Jews to leave them alone.
Finding the truth in oppression\exploitation narratives is not super complicated. There's a simple test: Does the "oppressor" actually need the oppressee? Does the oppressee need the oppressor? (Or are they willing and capable of making a go of it without the oppressor around.)
Feudal lords did actually need the labor of their serfs and would not let them go. The serfs were indeed oppressed.
Ante-bellum plantation owners did actually need the labor of their slaves and would not let them go. The slaves were oppressed. (How well they would do on their own is another question, but they were oppressed.)
In contrast, whites do not need or in any way shape or form depend on the labor of blacks. Blacks in fact are a huge dead weight loss on white society--higher taxes, crime, security for crime, AA spots, wasted cycles, major cities blighted. Whites would be fine--much better off--without blacks. In contrast, blacks show basically no sign of making a go of it without whites. With whites merely not immediately present--Detroit. Without them altogether--Africa.
Men and women is of course more complicated--we're biologically linked and don't survive without each other. Men clearly do need women--for sex, companionship and most of all for reproduction. But men do not need or depend much on the cash labor of women. Men would be absolutely fine without women engineers, corporate executives, bankers, lawyers, politicians, professors, scrientists, cops, firefighters (LOL), soldiers (LOL,LOL) or let's pretend generals. In fact, the economy might and society almost certainly would function better without women doing any of that. In contrast, women desperately need--are completely dependent upon--male labor and genius for the standard of living they have. If men didn't show up for work--keeping the lights on, the water clean, the sewers working, all the machines humming--society would within days be in the dark ages.
White nationalists argue that Jews are looting their nations and wrecking them with immigration. Right or wrong, the white nationalists are not asking the Jews to labor for them or give them stuff, they are asking the Jews to leave them alone. Evidence suggests that whites throw a pretty good nation without Jews around. Historically the most successful European nations seem to be ones that have had a low Jewish presence. England and France--expelled the Jews in the late middle ages and subsequently rose to become leading powers. In the modern era, Scandinavia which is Jew light is--or was pre-immigration--pretty nice and Jew light. Post-Holocaust Germany--very Jew light--is the leading economy in Europe and very (pre-Merkel) pleasant. White nationalists are clearly correct in thinking whites can make it own their own--in fact very, very well--without Jews.
In contrast if whites tell Jews to make it on their own--building your own damn country club ... it's the golfocaust! Jews do not want to go their own way, they insist on glomming onto whites. Now, it is obvious that Jews can make it on their own and do very well--as Israel demonstrates. But Israel--open and gladly accepting any Jews--demonstrates that most Jews prefer to stay in white nations. Trading, rent-seeking on top of and comfy sinecures within, a rich white nation is simply more lucrative and fun. The availability of "go your own way" Israel option suggests that if there's any oppression or exploitation going on between whites and Jews, it's Jews not whites doing the exploiting.
Again, none of this is rocket science. Who is dependent on whom is obvious from the nature of the complaints people have, how they behave and where they run to.
The bottom line is that white gentiles go somewhere and create a nice environment with their presence--law abiding, prosperous, pleasant. They go do that ... and other people run over and glom onto what they have built. That's just the reality we see.
Well that’s about the most reasonable approach to the whole thing that one is likely to come across. I don’t see many Jews agreeing with it though. Independent white nations means finance will once again be subservient to manufacturing and that’s only going to happen over globalist’s dead bodies.
He offered a long explanation of how he'd found an anomaly that let him beat the stock market despite accepting the Efficient Markets Hypothesis was generally true. At the time, I'd read a fair number of such how-I-beat-the-market explanations, and Rogers' was one of the more plausible.
Somebody told me a number of years later that Rogers' theory of investing really had worked for him, but most of the irrational prices he'd found were in small-cap stocks, and that as he'd gotten more investment dollars under his control, it was harder for him to make investments without moving the price of the wrongly priced stock while he was buying.
So over time he made Ariel into a firm that benefits from diversity mandates to employ minority-owned investment funds. But Ariel is likely the best of such firms.
Rogers is a legit African-American aristocrat. His dad was a judge, his mom a big wheel Republican who served in the Ford and elder Bush administrations. He was captain of the 1980 Princeton basketball team under famous coach Pete Carrill. The star freshman on that team was Craig Robinson, older brother of Michelle Robinson.
Here's a video of Rogers defeating Michael Jordan 3-2 in one-on-one at a fantasy basketball camp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B7U74Dg04k
Jordan appears surprised that the little Spike Lee-looking rich guy has a strategy for winning. He probably would have played harder on Rogers' first two buckets if he'd remembered that Rogers had been team captain under Pete Carrill.
Googling Ariel and their funds-looks like they did pretty good until 2008, when by their own terms the bottom fell out. Since, they have roughly average to below average returns in their mutual funds. Appear to have wrongly avoided the big caps that have fueled the latest market surge, like Apple, Amazon, Netflix in favor of losers like Viacom and lots of small caps. Kinda hard to get ahead unless you stumble onto a few real finds; Ariel has not. Get the sense financial reporters are disinclined to say anything bad because….Also notice some chatter from interns about the company being a bit too interested in their president and CEO rather than the task at hand, and a lot of “sitting around”. Could not care less about the color of the people I am investing in and with,but rather whether they’re making better money than the market. And simply for the last decade Ariel is nothing special.
Someone else’s womb.
Last year.
Why would she suggest that CEO's emulate him?
Does she want to invest in those companies?
I don't understand.
What you’re missing is that corporate America is run by so many squishes–soft touches to the Jesse Jackson-style shakedown routine. Cucks that quiver at the hint of being labeled racist.
That was John Rogers routine when he started Ariel. Go to corporate boards of directors and embarrass them into hiring Ariel so that they can report they have a minority firm managing some of their pension assets. (Otherwise, it might be pointed out to Kaepernick-like employees that you don’t have any blacks/minorities running their pension money.)
Kaepernick is a metaphor for the negative havoc that will result should you not agree with the proposal, i.e. that’s a nice business you got there, it’d be a shame if anything happened to it…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5081641/Woman-recounts-Richard-Spencer-s-racist-tirades-Germany.html
" New Zealander Julie Hill recounted her experience with Richard Spencer in Berlin as they studied German in the summer of 2006
Hill said that Spencer would make inappropriate jokes about German women being 'hairy and asexual'
She claimed Spencer was widely disliked among their classmates
Hill wrote: 'In class, he would go off on lengthy, tedious monologues that had even our teacher rolling his eyes'
She also wrote about his racist comments about Mexicans and Germans"
We get it, you don’t like uppity whites.
In Vitro Fertilization/Gestational Surrogacy(IVF) Program:
Ovum and sperm of intended parents are combined to create embryos that are implanted into the uterus of the surrogate mother. In most states the names of intended biological father and intended biological mother are entered on the original birth certificate.
IVF & Egg Donation (IVF/ED) Program:
Ovum from a donor is fertilized with sperm of the intended biological father. Resulting embryos are implanted into the uterus of the surrogate. In most states the name of intended biological father and intended mother are entered onto the original birth certificate.
Become a Surrogate Mother – Compensation Up To $60,000 | creatingfamilies.com ($500 Signing Bonus Until December 1, 2017)
(and there is more:
What Does LGBT Friendly Surrogacy Include?
First agency to help a LGBT couple
51% of CSP clients are LGBT)
Yeah, George Lucas is a short guy. And his look hasn't aged well. And ... he needs to lose some weight.
But seriously, he's George Lucas with f-you money. If he wanted another wife and family he could have done a lot better than combining genes with Melody Hobson. If AnotherMom had dumped me a decade back and I was on the market even with what I earn I wouldn't have Melody Hobson on my arm. With a couple billion in my pocket ... LOL.
If he wanted another wife and family he could have done a lot better than combining genes with Melody Hobson.
This doesn’t seem like a trophy wife situation at all, more like two exceptionally driven people forming a sensible union. Despite her sweetly pretty looks, Hobson gave one of the least sentimental interviews in Porter magazine that I have ever come across in a women’s interest magazine or newspaper section. You even got the sense that George Lucas has taken on a role more conventionally fulfilled by the wife in a marriage. She sounds very resilient, hard-nosed, and self-accountable, an atypical advocate for diversity-guided corporate employment.
Hobson said that there are plenty of white men in high-status jobs who weren’t hired based on merit, and that minorities have to work ten times as hard to attain the same positions, so it isn’t true that diversity quotas diminish the quality of candidates. To be fair to her, she probably expressed her opinion better than I’ve paraphrased, but unfortunately the interview is not online.
Do Jews count as minorities? Because they don't seem to have a problem climbing the ladder. Far from it.
The use of the term 'white' is always questionable. Sometimes Jews, Arabs and Turks are included (e.g., in the US census), sometimes hispanics are (e.g., in the FBI perpetrators of crime data). Sometimes they are not. This redefining of 'white' as a person sees fit is a deliberate rhetorical device.
She also fails to consider the general issue of self-perpetuating social networks. That is, there are alternative explanations. The Baltimore and Washington DC transit systems, I am told, are an example of corporate entities where networks of blacks exclude members of other ethnic groups. Given that CEO appointments and board appointments are heavily network-driven (and given that these networks are resilient), it is not hard to see why you are going to have many white males in power in the corporate world.
Not that I am justifying cliquishness, nepotism and all the rest, but she excludes alternative hypotheses all too eagerly.
The conclusion does not follow. I don't doubt at all that many white men in high-status jobs were not hired on merit. Indeed, I don't doubt that it is true. As for the second premise, it may be true that "minorities" have to work harder to get the same unmerited bonus points, but many get bonus points just for being "minorities". Actually, the vast majority do, today. But in any case the second premise is irrelevant: how hard you have to work says nothing about your merit. What makes this a poor argument is that the fact that very often the wrong white men are hired does not at all entail that diversity quotas don't weaken the quality of candidates.
He had to beat Peter Jackson's Weta Digital out to the market, which he ended up doing by about two years. Star Wars, the Matrix and Gollum...and off to the races the movie industry went into the digital age.
After all, Lucas and ILM used one of the earliest CG images on film during the trench scene in Star Wars. If you go through the history of CG/digital film, either Lucas and ILM are at the forefront of it: Star Trek II, Young Sherlock Holmes, The Abyss, Terminator II, Forrest Gump....and on and on and on- that's before you add in LucasFilms spinoff, Pixar. It's no surprise that almost the minute Pixar creates the first all computer graphic film in Toy Story, Lucas starts working on a new trilogy for Star Wars. So Lucas was busy focusing on the important part of his movies.
Another thing: for however terrible the prequels are, most of the negativity was a confluence of the mainstreaming of internet-cultures and a PR hit job from Hollywood...it's forgotten how negatively Hollywood people reacted to Lucas deciding to make these films. I believe there was an "intervention" by some of his friends like Martin Scorsese at Skywalker Ranch on behalf of the various unions [from actors on down] who felt he was directly taking aim at replacing them all with his digital films on the eve of filming. Suddenly, golden boy George Lucas (after the initial Fox/Lucas paid PR push) couldn't do anything right. His shlock was suddenly so terrible as to barely arises to the level of a joke compared with all the other Hollywood shlock. It became an embarrassment to work with him. Voices from media outlets were given the okay to treat him like a pariah. All of this wasn't all organic, this was a concerted effort; and the RLM guys (among others) never tell this part of the story.
Another thing: for however terrible the prequels are, most of the negativity was a confluence of the mainstreaming of internet-cultures and a PR hit job from Hollywood…
Thanks for this info, explains a fair bit about the awful reception for the prequels, which seemed excessive, despite the movies not matching up to the original series (although personally, I’d easily choose Episode 3 over Episode 6.) People who were kids or young teens when the prequels were released seem to like them just fine, and they were/are the purest audience.
This doesn't seem like a trophy wife situation at all, more like two exceptionally driven people forming a sensible union. Despite her sweetly pretty looks, Hobson gave one of the least sentimental interviews in Porter magazine that I have ever come across in a women's interest magazine or newspaper section. You even got the sense that George Lucas has taken on a role more conventionally fulfilled by the wife in a marriage. She sounds very resilient, hard-nosed, and self-accountable, an atypical advocate for diversity-guided corporate employment.
Hobson said that there are plenty of white men in high-status jobs who weren't hired based on merit, and that minorities have to work ten times as hard to attain the same positions, so it isn't true that diversity quotas diminish the quality of candidates. To be fair to her, she probably expressed her opinion better than I've paraphrased, but unfortunately the interview is not online.
The Bilderbergs like her.
Ariel Investments appears to be a genuine mutual fund firm, which is a competitive and demanding field. So somebody in the firm has to be doing competitive and demanding financial stuff, but if so, the President has very little to say about it. And yes, I know about proprietary data and trade secrets and so on, but other spokespersons for other firms manage public promotion with private protection.
She seems like a nice person, and I'd genuinely like to believe the things written about her, but every attempt to do so comes up against a certain hollowness of the facts.
Ariel's mutual finds seem to perform at or a little below industry averages, which suggests that they attract investment by some criterion other than performance. Is it possible that Ariel gets included in a lot of corporate 401k packages as a way for the corporate sponsors to meet diversity goals? If so, I guess that is entrepreneurship of a sort, albeit one that does not really create value--unless you consider paying protection money to be creating value (or more precisely, corralling your employees into paying protection money for you). Does Ariel have a strategy beyond buying the Russell 2500 Index and making Diversity™ speeches? If so, I'd like to learn from them. If not, I'd appreciate less chaff.
If an investment company had just bought a nice basket of S&P 500 stocks 25 years ago, when it was in the 400s, they’d have fine sum right now, since the S&P is in the 2500 range.
It doesn’t take a genius to make a buy-and-hold strategy work when the entire market has been booming, for the most part, since the 1980s. In the 1980s, the S&P was in the 100-value range. Yes, the S&P went down to the 600-range in the big crash around 2008-2009, but it recovered a lot of its drop in 1 year, and it’s being hurtling along ever since. Every investment adviser from Warren Buffett on down will tell you that buy and hold long-term works. It doesn’t take genius to sit on your hands and just watch your money grow.
The important thing about Hobson is that she’s Lucas’ girlfriend. The whole point of her employment is to attract a lot of dumb Hollywood capital into Ariel. If no one’s investing, then Hobson can’t pay herself fat fees out of Ariel’s profits. Becoming Lucas’ girlfriend was a career move for her in more ways than one.
Of course, Lucas’ picking Hobson as a girlfriend was also a good financial move for him. He doesn’t have to pay any fees if she’s investing ‘the family money’ for him for free. Any other company would make him cough up. If you’re a billionaire, your broker/adviser/management fees are huge. As his girlfriend and potential heir, she also has an incentive not to steal his billions from him.
But you never know.
And so, when it is a given that we must make affirmative action hires, then we must do our duty and hire non white-gentile people, whether or not they are qualified, to force out all those white gentiles. This is our Hobson’s choice:
She has the right name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice
“Black activists who think whites are keeping them down are exactly analogous to white nationalists who think Jews are keeping them down. ”
Apparently reading comprehension isn’t one of your virtues.
The original claim can be parsed as follows: in a society that allegedly values diversity and proportional representation, isn’t it odd that we can’t discuss massive over-representation of a minority group.
Not that Jews, I might add, are the only offenders. The lockdown that Indians have on the H1B visa system is another case that cannot be discussed. The fact that Cognysis and Tata (etc) have an employee landscape consisting of 98% asian males is apparently unremarkable, while Facebook/Google/etc are routinely lambasted for much more lenient demographics.
This isn’t a ‘keeping us down’ argument. it is pointing out hypocrisy.
This doesn't seem like a trophy wife situation at all, more like two exceptionally driven people forming a sensible union. Despite her sweetly pretty looks, Hobson gave one of the least sentimental interviews in Porter magazine that I have ever come across in a women's interest magazine or newspaper section. You even got the sense that George Lucas has taken on a role more conventionally fulfilled by the wife in a marriage. She sounds very resilient, hard-nosed, and self-accountable, an atypical advocate for diversity-guided corporate employment.
Hobson said that there are plenty of white men in high-status jobs who weren't hired based on merit, and that minorities have to work ten times as hard to attain the same positions, so it isn't true that diversity quotas diminish the quality of candidates. To be fair to her, she probably expressed her opinion better than I've paraphrased, but unfortunately the interview is not online.
“Hobson said that there are plenty of white men in high-status jobs who weren’t hired based on merit, and that minorities have to work ten times as hard to attain the same positions”
Do Jews count as minorities? Because they don’t seem to have a problem climbing the ladder. Far from it.
The use of the term ‘white’ is always questionable. Sometimes Jews, Arabs and Turks are included (e.g., in the US census), sometimes hispanics are (e.g., in the FBI perpetrators of crime data). Sometimes they are not. This redefining of ‘white’ as a person sees fit is a deliberate rhetorical device.
She also fails to consider the general issue of self-perpetuating social networks. That is, there are alternative explanations. The Baltimore and Washington DC transit systems, I am told, are an example of corporate entities where networks of blacks exclude members of other ethnic groups. Given that CEO appointments and board appointments are heavily network-driven (and given that these networks are resilient), it is not hard to see why you are going to have many white males in power in the corporate world.
Not that I am justifying cliquishness, nepotism and all the rest, but she excludes alternative hypotheses all too eagerly.
Thank you
Ovum and sperm of intended parents are combined to create embryos that are implanted into the uterus of the surrogate mother. In most states the names of intended biological father and intended biological mother are entered on the original birth certificate.
IVF & Egg Donation (IVF/ED) Program:
Ovum from a donor is fertilized with sperm of the intended biological father. Resulting embryos are implanted into the uterus of the surrogate. In most states the name of intended biological father and intended mother are entered onto the original birth certificate.
Become a Surrogate Mother - Compensation Up To $60,000 | creatingfamilies.com ($500 Signing Bonus Until December 1, 2017)
(and there is more:
What Does LGBT Friendly Surrogacy Include?
First agency to help a LGBT couple
51% of CSP clients are LGBT)
Thank you
IVF, Egg Donation, and Surrogacy, the technology of modern biological science (biology that trannys so vehemently deny) that allows that LGBT 51% of IVF, Egg Donor, Surrogate customers to “have children” without adopting. Would we have so many LGBT / same sex "families" without it? LGBT: Science using, science denying, society deconstructing.
The mind works with analogies. Eliminating them can only mean planned pauperization of the mind and ushering in of Newspeak.
The War on Thought, indeed.
1995
Your thank you is most appreciated.
IVF, Egg Donation, and Surrogacy, the technology of modern biological science (biology that trannys so vehemently deny) that allows that LGBT 51% of IVF, Egg Donor, Surrogate customers to “have children” without adopting. Would we have so many LGBT / same sex “families” without it? LGBT: Science using, science denying, society deconstructing.
Just because, blacks, women, white-nationalists and for that matter Jews, teenagers and 3-year old boys facing nap time are all complaining, does not mean they are all complaining about the same thing.
Blacks are complaining that whites done give them enough stuff. They want more stuff.
Women are complaining that men don't give them enough stuff. They want more stuff.
White nationalists are complaining Jews are looting and destroying their nations. They want Jews to leave them alone.
Finding the truth in oppression\exploitation narratives is not super complicated. There's a simple test: Does the "oppressor" actually need the oppressee? Does the oppressee need the oppressor? (Or are they willing and capable of making a go of it without the oppressor around.)
Feudal lords did actually need the labor of their serfs and would not let them go. The serfs were indeed oppressed.
Ante-bellum plantation owners did actually need the labor of their slaves and would not let them go. The slaves were oppressed. (How well they would do on their own is another question, but they were oppressed.)
In contrast, whites do not need or in any way shape or form depend on the labor of blacks. Blacks in fact are a huge dead weight loss on white society--higher taxes, crime, security for crime, AA spots, wasted cycles, major cities blighted. Whites would be fine--much better off--without blacks. In contrast, blacks show basically no sign of making a go of it without whites. With whites merely not immediately present--Detroit. Without them altogether--Africa.
Men and women is of course more complicated--we're biologically linked and don't survive without each other. Men clearly do need women--for sex, companionship and most of all for reproduction. But men do not need or depend much on the cash labor of women. Men would be absolutely fine without women engineers, corporate executives, bankers, lawyers, politicians, professors, scrientists, cops, firefighters (LOL), soldiers (LOL,LOL) or let's pretend generals. In fact, the economy might and society almost certainly would function better without women doing any of that. In contrast, women desperately need--are completely dependent upon--male labor and genius for the standard of living they have. If men didn't show up for work--keeping the lights on, the water clean, the sewers working, all the machines humming--society would within days be in the dark ages.
White nationalists argue that Jews are looting their nations and wrecking them with immigration. Right or wrong, the white nationalists are not asking the Jews to labor for them or give them stuff, they are asking the Jews to leave them alone. Evidence suggests that whites throw a pretty good nation without Jews around. Historically the most successful European nations seem to be ones that have had a low Jewish presence. England and France--expelled the Jews in the late middle ages and subsequently rose to become leading powers. In the modern era, Scandinavia which is Jew light is--or was pre-immigration--pretty nice and Jew light. Post-Holocaust Germany--very Jew light--is the leading economy in Europe and very (pre-Merkel) pleasant. White nationalists are clearly correct in thinking whites can make it own their own--in fact very, very well--without Jews.
In contrast if whites tell Jews to make it on their own--building your own damn country club ... it's the golfocaust! Jews do not want to go their own way, they insist on glomming onto whites. Now, it is obvious that Jews can make it on their own and do very well--as Israel demonstrates. But Israel--open and gladly accepting any Jews--demonstrates that most Jews prefer to stay in white nations. Trading, rent-seeking on top of and comfy sinecures within, a rich white nation is simply more lucrative and fun. The availability of "go your own way" Israel option suggests that if there's any oppression or exploitation going on between whites and Jews, it's Jews not whites doing the exploiting.
Again, none of this is rocket science. Who is dependent on whom is obvious from the nature of the complaints people have, how they behave and where they run to.
The bottom line is that white gentiles go somewhere and create a nice environment with their presence--law abiding, prosperous, pleasant. They go do that ... and other people run over and glom onto what they have built. That's just the reality we see.
I hope that I can remember the key dynamic of your argument. It is very good. I am half Jew and fully agree. I do think you give short shrift to the Jews being able to do it alone. Israel is unbelievably successful. Yes, they have received American aid, but the overall thrust of the nation is exceptional beyond belief (like China and S. Korea). A lot of Jews don’t want to be in Israel because the nation is small and if you dream big, then the USA is still the land of choice.
"Hello, fellow White American!"
Proclaims (((Sabril))), the Israeli citizen who's abandoned his homeland to live amongst evil racist Whites in America.
Yes when all else fails, personal attack.
But you kind of missed the point. I don’t think white misbehavior is an important factor in black problems, but enough exists to provide a hook for the scapegoaters. Same thing with Jewish nonsense. Sure Jews are overrepresented among prominent Leftists. But it doesn’t follow that Jews are to blame for white self-destruction.
That’s not the correct Girl Scout promise. This is:
On my honor, I will try: To serve God and my country, To help people at all times, And to live by the Girl Scout Law.
The Girl Scout Promise includes the word try, instead of do my best. They’re not as different from one another as you presented them.
"Girl Scout Promise
1927
On my honor, I will try:
To do my duty to God and my country,
To help other people at all times,
To obey the Girl Scout Laws."
And you missed the very point I was making. That the Girl Scout promise included the word "try" whereas the Boy's version didn't. Now reread my comment and the one to which I was replying. A little context will help clarify the issue under discussion.
Just because, blacks, women, white-nationalists and for that matter Jews, teenagers and 3-year old boys facing nap time are all complaining, does not mean they are all complaining about the same thing.
Blacks are complaining that whites done give them enough stuff. They want more stuff.
Women are complaining that men don't give them enough stuff. They want more stuff.
White nationalists are complaining Jews are looting and destroying their nations. They want Jews to leave them alone.
Finding the truth in oppression\exploitation narratives is not super complicated. There's a simple test: Does the "oppressor" actually need the oppressee? Does the oppressee need the oppressor? (Or are they willing and capable of making a go of it without the oppressor around.)
Feudal lords did actually need the labor of their serfs and would not let them go. The serfs were indeed oppressed.
Ante-bellum plantation owners did actually need the labor of their slaves and would not let them go. The slaves were oppressed. (How well they would do on their own is another question, but they were oppressed.)
In contrast, whites do not need or in any way shape or form depend on the labor of blacks. Blacks in fact are a huge dead weight loss on white society--higher taxes, crime, security for crime, AA spots, wasted cycles, major cities blighted. Whites would be fine--much better off--without blacks. In contrast, blacks show basically no sign of making a go of it without whites. With whites merely not immediately present--Detroit. Without them altogether--Africa.
Men and women is of course more complicated--we're biologically linked and don't survive without each other. Men clearly do need women--for sex, companionship and most of all for reproduction. But men do not need or depend much on the cash labor of women. Men would be absolutely fine without women engineers, corporate executives, bankers, lawyers, politicians, professors, scrientists, cops, firefighters (LOL), soldiers (LOL,LOL) or let's pretend generals. In fact, the economy might and society almost certainly would function better without women doing any of that. In contrast, women desperately need--are completely dependent upon--male labor and genius for the standard of living they have. If men didn't show up for work--keeping the lights on, the water clean, the sewers working, all the machines humming--society would within days be in the dark ages.
White nationalists argue that Jews are looting their nations and wrecking them with immigration. Right or wrong, the white nationalists are not asking the Jews to labor for them or give them stuff, they are asking the Jews to leave them alone. Evidence suggests that whites throw a pretty good nation without Jews around. Historically the most successful European nations seem to be ones that have had a low Jewish presence. England and France--expelled the Jews in the late middle ages and subsequently rose to become leading powers. In the modern era, Scandinavia which is Jew light is--or was pre-immigration--pretty nice and Jew light. Post-Holocaust Germany--very Jew light--is the leading economy in Europe and very (pre-Merkel) pleasant. White nationalists are clearly correct in thinking whites can make it own their own--in fact very, very well--without Jews.
In contrast if whites tell Jews to make it on their own--building your own damn country club ... it's the golfocaust! Jews do not want to go their own way, they insist on glomming onto whites. Now, it is obvious that Jews can make it on their own and do very well--as Israel demonstrates. But Israel--open and gladly accepting any Jews--demonstrates that most Jews prefer to stay in white nations. Trading, rent-seeking on top of and comfy sinecures within, a rich white nation is simply more lucrative and fun. The availability of "go your own way" Israel option suggests that if there's any oppression or exploitation going on between whites and Jews, it's Jews not whites doing the exploiting.
Again, none of this is rocket science. Who is dependent on whom is obvious from the nature of the complaints people have, how they behave and where they run to.
The bottom line is that white gentiles go somewhere and create a nice environment with their presence--law abiding, prosperous, pleasant. They go do that ... and other people run over and glom onto what they have built. That's just the reality we see.
To be sure blacks need whites while whites do not need Jews. But that’s a red herring. It doesn’t change the fact that white nationalists cannot accept white shortcomings (and thus scapegoat Jews) just as black activists cannot accept black shortcomings (and thus blame whites) and feminists cannot accept women’s shortcomings (and thus blame men).
In short, you are simply trying to change the subject.
What a joke of a statement. I am not an expert, but let's see what Western Euros have accomplished:
1. rule of law
2. patent law
3. advanced material science
4. rocket science and aviation
5. basketball, football, extreme skiing, classical music, movies, telephone, etc.
6. beautiful art and beautiful cities, wonderful operas, great singers great musicians
7. incarceration or execution of violent thugs thus removing their ability to reproduce
For fun, white people make this: https://youtu.be/rGDJqTDXgtg
If you don't know about F1, then you probably have little understanding of what gentile whites are capable of from an intelligence and sporting capability. F1 remains the pinnacle of human achievement in the public eye where competition is part of the bent. As someone who has worked in F1 and worked for top companies in the USA, there is zero comparison: F1 is on another planet. Extreme mechanical and physical engineering are among the most badass things on the planet and white people excel in these areas. Maybe the Japanese are better, but white gentiles are definitely amazing. The F1 engine, in the video above, has 50% thermal efficiency. If, given that astonishing figure (produced in a fun activity for basically shits and giggles) you still think that gentile white people need help or have "shortcomings", then you are likely just like the people who say that Apple, with a market cap of $868 billion would be much wealthier if it focused on diversity. Such a crock. To even begin to produce such an engine requires a society capable of making the venture possible (social order, low crime, high cohesion, patent law, a financial system, etc.).
I will give you that Jews are brilliant. I will give you that Jews have tremendous drive and energy. I will give you that Jews have contributed ~10x above their weight to the modern world. But it is ridiculous to say that white gentiles have short-comings wherein that term actually has significant meaning compared to the world at large. If in an all gentile society, progress lags 30 years, compared to a society of 95% gentiles and 5% Jews, then the slower pace is preferred, if the cost of a mixed society is Black on Blonde pron and the complete annihilation of social mores that is made possibly by the high energy and high intelligence of some Jews.
Wasn’t it Argentinians who bore the brunt of the recent Manhattan terror?
What shortcoming do Western Europeans have?
What a joke of a statement. I am not an expert, but let’s see what Western Euros have accomplished:
1. rule of law
2. patent law
3. advanced material science
4. rocket science and aviation
5. basketball, football, extreme skiing, classical music, movies, telephone, etc.
6. beautiful art and beautiful cities, wonderful operas, great singers great musicians
7. incarceration or execution of violent thugs thus removing their ability to reproduce
For fun, white people make this:
If you don’t know about F1, then you probably have little understanding of what gentile whites are capable of from an intelligence and sporting capability. F1 remains the pinnacle of human achievement in the public eye where competition is part of the bent. As someone who has worked in F1 and worked for top companies in the USA, there is zero comparison: F1 is on another planet. Extreme mechanical and physical engineering are among the most badass things on the planet and white people excel in these areas. Maybe the Japanese are better, but white gentiles are definitely amazing. The F1 engine, in the video above, has 50% thermal efficiency. If, given that astonishing figure (produced in a fun activity for basically shits and giggles) you still think that gentile white people need help or have “shortcomings”, then you are likely just like the people who say that Apple, with a market cap of $868 billion would be much wealthier if it focused on diversity. Such a crock. To even begin to produce such an engine requires a society capable of making the venture possible (social order, low crime, high cohesion, patent law, a financial system, etc.).
I will give you that Jews are brilliant. I will give you that Jews have tremendous drive and energy. I will give you that Jews have contributed ~10x above their weight to the modern world. But it is ridiculous to say that white gentiles have short-comings wherein that term actually has significant meaning compared to the world at large. If in an all gentile society, progress lags 30 years, compared to a society of 95% gentiles and 5% Jews, then the slower pace is preferred, if the cost of a mixed society is Black on Blonde pron and the complete annihilation of social mores that is made possibly by the high energy and high intelligence of some Jews.
But unfortunately they shoot themselves in the foot with ridiculous status competition.
So, for example, womens' suffrage. At the time, reasonable people knew it was a terrible idea. And yet every white country enacted it. Even today, you have countries competing to put more and more women in positions of power, pursuing careers, etc. Even as it destroys birth rates and leaves the West wide open to replacement by third world invaders.
I chose the example of womens' suffrage because it got started long before Jews had much influence in the West.
Gentile whites are great people yes, which makes the decline all the more tragic. But blaming the Jews is not consistent with observable reality and counterproductive.
Most everyone agrees that "The Empire Strikes Back" was better than "Star Wars". It was! It was great! Why didn't he continue on that path?
I take George Lucas as basically a failed genius. By contrast, Colin Kaepernick... is some guy I heard about in the newspapers. An outright buffoon.
Because the Hero With A Thousand Faces–both as ur-myth and ongoing epic map of both psyche and events–was about white men.
What a joke of a statement. I am not an expert, but let's see what Western Euros have accomplished:
1. rule of law
2. patent law
3. advanced material science
4. rocket science and aviation
5. basketball, football, extreme skiing, classical music, movies, telephone, etc.
6. beautiful art and beautiful cities, wonderful operas, great singers great musicians
7. incarceration or execution of violent thugs thus removing their ability to reproduce
For fun, white people make this: https://youtu.be/rGDJqTDXgtg
If you don't know about F1, then you probably have little understanding of what gentile whites are capable of from an intelligence and sporting capability. F1 remains the pinnacle of human achievement in the public eye where competition is part of the bent. As someone who has worked in F1 and worked for top companies in the USA, there is zero comparison: F1 is on another planet. Extreme mechanical and physical engineering are among the most badass things on the planet and white people excel in these areas. Maybe the Japanese are better, but white gentiles are definitely amazing. The F1 engine, in the video above, has 50% thermal efficiency. If, given that astonishing figure (produced in a fun activity for basically shits and giggles) you still think that gentile white people need help or have "shortcomings", then you are likely just like the people who say that Apple, with a market cap of $868 billion would be much wealthier if it focused on diversity. Such a crock. To even begin to produce such an engine requires a society capable of making the venture possible (social order, low crime, high cohesion, patent law, a financial system, etc.).
I will give you that Jews are brilliant. I will give you that Jews have tremendous drive and energy. I will give you that Jews have contributed ~10x above their weight to the modern world. But it is ridiculous to say that white gentiles have short-comings wherein that term actually has significant meaning compared to the world at large. If in an all gentile society, progress lags 30 years, compared to a society of 95% gentiles and 5% Jews, then the slower pace is preferred, if the cost of a mixed society is Black on Blonde pron and the complete annihilation of social mores that is made possibly by the high energy and high intelligence of some Jews.
To be sure, Gentile Whites have accomplished a lot.
But unfortunately they shoot themselves in the foot with ridiculous status competition.
So, for example, womens’ suffrage. At the time, reasonable people knew it was a terrible idea. And yet every white country enacted it. Even today, you have countries competing to put more and more women in positions of power, pursuing careers, etc. Even as it destroys birth rates and leaves the West wide open to replacement by third world invaders.
I chose the example of womens’ suffrage because it got started long before Jews had much influence in the West.
Gentile whites are great people yes, which makes the decline all the more tragic. But blaming the Jews is not consistent with observable reality and counterproductive.
I’m older than you. I remember the older version;
“Girl Scout Promise
1927
On my honor, I will try:
To do my duty to God and my country,
To help other people at all times,
To obey the Girl Scout Laws.”
And you missed the very point I was making. That the Girl Scout promise included the word “try” whereas the Boy’s version didn’t. Now reread my comment and the one to which I was replying. A little context will help clarify the issue under discussion.
Well Joe thats a nuanced morality ya got there, sometimes you get a Hanoi McCain or a bunch of negroes pretending they were something they were not, and ya gotta support the truth or soon there is no truth. Its actually your ilk with their sentimental simplistic thinking that allows most of the horrors of wars because your ilk makes facing hard facts impossible
I went to high school with both Ariel Capital Management founder John Rogers and Obama’s Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan (Duncan was a weird kid, his very old mom used to follow him around/us – Freshman Sophomore basketball team) when he was in 7th grade. I was 3 years behind John Rogers and 3 years ahead of Arnie Duncan. John Rogers was a very sensible young man and his mother a nice, practical Black AA Republican. I have some classmates that work for Ariel Capital.
John Rogers and Ariel Capital weren’t originally very racial, or PC Lib Left Democrat but they most certainly are now. And frankly it’s pretty much that way everywhere in the top Ivy League college, Hollywood $ affiliated financial corporations.
Mellody Hobson is frankly a very mean, hate White people Black bitch and she uses her muscle to abuse perfectly decent Midwest guys with solid MBAs from places like the University of Chicago. She and sadly, John Rogers use their muscle to dictate things at my former excellent private school.
The northern European et al have been abjectly apologizing and attempting remediation for these things to a level of historical uniqueness.
It all just has become a club with which to beat them over the head.
The best the other side can seem to do is become a parasite class. Not much morality in that.
But unfortunately they shoot themselves in the foot with ridiculous status competition.
So, for example, womens' suffrage. At the time, reasonable people knew it was a terrible idea. And yet every white country enacted it. Even today, you have countries competing to put more and more women in positions of power, pursuing careers, etc. Even as it destroys birth rates and leaves the West wide open to replacement by third world invaders.
I chose the example of womens' suffrage because it got started long before Jews had much influence in the West.
Gentile whites are great people yes, which makes the decline all the more tragic. But blaming the Jews is not consistent with observable reality and counterproductive.
Definitely hard argue that women’s suffrage is the result of some pathology found in white people. I will give you that and give you that my argument missed that giant door of obviousness. Maybe it is possible that gentiles would have invited the entire world into their homelands without Jews (and really this is the big issue because it is fundamental to all others)? It is hard to say because the immigration restrictions came after women’s suffrage in the USA so maybe that is some self-correction at play? I do know, however, that there is not enough shaming of Jews by other Jews for wanting to bring countless low-IQ people into the West. There is not enough among gentiles either, but that still doesn’t put Jews off the hook. If Jews are smarter and have more energy and drive for these issues, then maybe they are the turbocharger to the entire process. Then you must consider that people are herd animals and that social conformity is real. So if you get some supersmart people beating drums that its wrong not allow Somalians into MN, then most people will naturally fall in line during economic times. Just watch those conformity videos on Youtube with Milgram and others; people do what they are told. There is nuance on this issue related to Jewish intelligence and drive, social issues, white people altruism and social conformity. It’s there, you should try to see it, then you can add context. With regards to my own Jewish father, he loves immigrants live Muslims in Paris. It’s insane. He is a wonderful man, so I do not know if this love comes from a good place or comes because maybe he feels Jews were persecuted and so watching Paris filled with a bunch of foreigners is the corrective action. I mention that because he often brings up Jews weren’t allowed to sit at the lunch counter at Woolworths. Such a crock of shit but he has brought it up probably 10x in my life so it must resonate.
Where do you get the intern chatter? Is there a site for that?
Ovum and sperm of intended parents are combined to create embryos that are implanted into the uterus of the surrogate mother. In most states the names of intended biological father and intended biological mother are entered on the original birth certificate.
IVF & Egg Donation (IVF/ED) Program:
Ovum from a donor is fertilized with sperm of the intended biological father. Resulting embryos are implanted into the uterus of the surrogate. In most states the name of intended biological father and intended mother are entered onto the original birth certificate.
Become a Surrogate Mother - Compensation Up To $60,000 | creatingfamilies.com ($500 Signing Bonus Until December 1, 2017)
(and there is more:
What Does LGBT Friendly Surrogacy Include?
First agency to help a LGBT couple
51% of CSP clients are LGBT)
Makes me wonder how choosy the surrogate mother can be about who gets to use her womb?
How long before the there is a discrimination lawsuit, and the most intimate place in the world, a woman’s womb, is declared a “public accommodation”?
It doesn't take a genius to make a buy-and-hold strategy work when the entire market has been booming, for the most part, since the 1980s. In the 1980s, the S&P was in the 100-value range. Yes, the S&P went down to the 600-range in the big crash around 2008-2009, but it recovered a lot of its drop in 1 year, and it's being hurtling along ever since. Every investment adviser from Warren Buffett on down will tell you that buy and hold long-term works. It doesn't take genius to sit on your hands and just watch your money grow.
The important thing about Hobson is that she's Lucas' girlfriend. The whole point of her employment is to attract a lot of dumb Hollywood capital into Ariel. If no one's investing, then Hobson can't pay herself fat fees out of Ariel's profits. Becoming Lucas' girlfriend was a career move for her in more ways than one.
Of course, Lucas' picking Hobson as a girlfriend was also a good financial move for him. He doesn't have to pay any fees if she's investing 'the family money' for him for free. Any other company would make him cough up. If you're a billionaire, your broker/adviser/management fees are huge. As his girlfriend and potential heir, she also has an incentive not to steal his billions from him.
But you never know.
Agree, but I don’t think Lucas is attracting much Hollywood capital to Ariel. Hollywood and Lucas hate each other.
It all just has become a club with which to beat them over the head.
The best the other side can seem to do is become a parasite class. Not much morality in that.
I basically agree, my point was that there are always things you can point to if you want to scapegoat a group.
This doesn't seem like a trophy wife situation at all, more like two exceptionally driven people forming a sensible union. Despite her sweetly pretty looks, Hobson gave one of the least sentimental interviews in Porter magazine that I have ever come across in a women's interest magazine or newspaper section. You even got the sense that George Lucas has taken on a role more conventionally fulfilled by the wife in a marriage. She sounds very resilient, hard-nosed, and self-accountable, an atypical advocate for diversity-guided corporate employment.
Hobson said that there are plenty of white men in high-status jobs who weren't hired based on merit, and that minorities have to work ten times as hard to attain the same positions, so it isn't true that diversity quotas diminish the quality of candidates. To be fair to her, she probably expressed her opinion better than I've paraphrased, but unfortunately the interview is not online.
“Hobson said that there are plenty of white men in high-status jobs who weren’t hired based on merit, and that minorities have to work ten times as hard to attain the same positions, so it isn’t true that diversity quotas diminish the quality of candidates.”
The conclusion does not follow. I don’t doubt at all that many white men in high-status jobs were not hired on merit. Indeed, I don’t doubt that it is true. As for the second premise, it may be true that “minorities” have to work harder to get the same unmerited bonus points, but many get bonus points just for being “minorities”. Actually, the vast majority do, today. But in any case the second premise is irrelevant: how hard you have to work says nothing about your merit. What makes this a poor argument is that the fact that very often the wrong white men are hired does not at all entail that diversity quotas don’t weaken the quality of candidates.