October 11th, 2018 9:46 PM
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
The Power of Personality: The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits, Socioeconomic Status, and Cognitive Ability for Predicting Important Life Outcomes
Brent W. Roberts, Nathan R. Kuncel, Rebecca Shiner, …
First Published December 1, 2007 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
Abstract
The ability of personality traits to predict important life outcomes has traditionally been questioned because of the putative small effects of personality. In this article, we compare the predictive validity of personality traits with that of socioeconomic status (SES) and cognitive ability to test the relative contribution of personality traits to predictions of three critical outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Only evidence from prospective longitudinal studies was considered. In addition, an attempt was made to limit the review to studies that controlled for important background factors. Results showed that the magnitude of the effects of personality traits on mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment was indistinguishable from the effects of SES and cognitive ability on these outcomes. These results demonstrate the influence of personality traits on important life outcomes, highlight the need to more routinely incorporate measures of personality into quality of life surveys, and encourage further research about the developmental origins of personality traits and the processes by which these traits influence diverse life outcomes.
—“Hi Curt, it looks like you were quoted in the NY Post.”– John Mark
https://nypost.com/2018/10/09/wheres-the-outrage-over-hillarys-call-for-a-civil-war/
CONTENT HERE:
Two events from the last two days stand out. The first came Monday night with President Trump’s forceful yet compassionate speech at the swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
The president opened with an extraordinary apology on behalf of the country to Kavanaugh and his family“for the terrible pain and suffering” they endured during the historically brutal confirmation process. He said the unfounded allegations violated fairness and “the presumption of innocence.”
Trump also tenderly addressed Kavanaugh’s young daughters, telling them “your father is a great man, a man of decency, character, kindness and courage.”
The event was something of a spike-the-football moment in front of a cheering White House audience and as such was a clever piece of stagecraft, where Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell, Charles Grassley, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins were saluted.
But the ceremony was much more than mere boosterism. With the eight other Supremes sitting in the front row, Trump aimed to restore dignity to the judiciary at a time when the dirtiest tricks of politics have buried the court in a mountain of mud.
The president is right to worry that the character-assassination attempt on Kavanaughmay turn out to be a seminal moment in American political and cultural history. The ideas that the court is just another political branch and that the presumption of innocence no longer applies if you are on the other team represent a seismic shift in how we look at each other and the nation as a whole.
If those ideas stick, we are in more trouble than we can imagine.
And while Trump has at times unnecessarily contributed to the rancor, he was terrific Monday in trying to repair what Senate Democrats and their media handmaidens tried to destroy.
Which brings me to the second event of note: Hillary Clinton’s statement Tuesday that Democrats “cannot be civil” as long as Republicans hold the White House and Congress.
“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton told CNN. “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”
There you have it — a declaration of war and a license for violence. Where is the media outrage?
Clinton knows we are already in the danger zone when it comes to the political temperature. Her comments, then, are as reckless as bringing a can of gasoline to a bonfire.
She’s stoking trouble to gain a foothold in the 2020 race — and damn the consequences.
Her claim that civility can return when Dems have power is an admission that the ends justify the means.
Then again, she never fails to disappoint. As I wrote Sunday, she has spent the last two years casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Trump presidency because the election didn’t go her way. That makes her guilty of the very thing she found “horrifying” when Trump suggested he might not abide by the results if he thought they were rigged.
“He is denigrating — he is talking down our democracy. And I am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that position,” she said in their final debate, in October 2016.
She added, “That is not the way our democracy works.”
But it does work exactly that way when Democrats are denied what they feel entitled to. They should be careful what they wish for.
For if the Kavanaugh experience revealed anything, it is that Trump’s GOP knows how to fight back and win. It is hard to imagine that Kavanaugh would have survived such an onslaught under any other recent Republican candidate or president.
There were so many reasons, and so much media pressure, that it would not have been surprising if a bloc of senators called the allegations a “distraction” and waved a white flag. They didn’t because Trump and Kavanaugh didn’t back down.
Still, there is danger when two sides both think they can outlast the other. Responding to my concern that America might be sleepwalking into a second civil war, a number of readers agreed. Some said they welcomed it.
Curt Doolittle wrote this: “We aren’t sleepwalking into it, we know exactly what we’re doing and why. The hard right and hard left are planning on it, ready for it, and looking for an opportunity.”
He said the pressure has been building and that “the only reason it hasn’t turned hot is the outlier of Trump’s election. If Clinton had won, we’d already be there.”
City Hall in the X-treme
The City Hall press release was overflowing with superlatives. The action was “historic,” a “landmark” and “groundbreaking.”
Did Mayor Putz find a cure for homelessness? Did he solve the problem of failing schools? Did he fix public housing or the subways?
Nah, the small stuff is beneath him. His “stop the presses” accomplishment was signing legislation putting a third gender on city birth certificates.
As his office described it, “In addition to the ‘male’ and ‘female’ designations, birth certificates will also show an ‘X,’ allowing gender non-binary people who identify neither as men nor women to have a birth certificate that more accurately reflects their identities.”
The law takes effect Jan. 1 and removes the requirement that a medical or mental health professional affirm an individual’s gender to change the certificate.
The effect is that anyone can simply demand a new birth certificate and choose a new gender. It’s not clear if there are age requirements or limits to the number of times an individual can make changes.
To the roster of activist groups hailing the action, the change is something of a Holy Grail. First lady Chirlane McCray suggested it was just a first step, saying, “We will not stop there — we strive to extend that dignity to every aspect of life.”
I don’t doubt that gender identity is a serious, complex issue for some people. But I do wonder about the impact of this dramatic change on society, including gender roles in everything from sports to toilets, and about the priorities of the mayor and City Council.
Do they have the same passion for public safety and good schools? Do they care as much about the unfairness of the tax system?
My fear is that they don’t, and that their intensity about narrow issues is a fig leaf hiding their surrender on broad ones. There are superlatives for that, too.
Disgraceful, cowardice and shameful come to mind.
October 11th, 2018 9:46 PM
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
The Power of Personality: The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits, Socioeconomic Status, and Cognitive Ability for Predicting Important Life Outcomes
Brent W. Roberts, Nathan R. Kuncel, Rebecca Shiner, …
First Published December 1, 2007 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
Abstract
The ability of personality traits to predict important life outcomes has traditionally been questioned because of the putative small effects of personality. In this article, we compare the predictive validity of personality traits with that of socioeconomic status (SES) and cognitive ability to test the relative contribution of personality traits to predictions of three critical outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Only evidence from prospective longitudinal studies was considered. In addition, an attempt was made to limit the review to studies that controlled for important background factors. Results showed that the magnitude of the effects of personality traits on mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment was indistinguishable from the effects of SES and cognitive ability on these outcomes. These results demonstrate the influence of personality traits on important life outcomes, highlight the need to more routinely incorporate measures of personality into quality of life surveys, and encourage further research about the developmental origins of personality traits and the processes by which these traits influence diverse life outcomes.
The problem here is that it’s crucially important what values you’re acting (or fighting, or kicking teeth) FOR.
There is no virtue in combat for the sake of combat. That’s for Fight Club and everyone knows what the first rule of Fight Club is.
So, everyone fights. Everyone has a degree of blood lust. Everyone wants to kick in the teeth, bash heads and…
“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.” â H. L. Mencken
But for what? Let’s be somewhat explicit in dialectic fashion: thesis â> Antithesis â> Synthesis.
REPUBLICAN THESIS (loosely, not all-inclusive)
– Traditional American Dream
– Traditional American Values including core familial values
– Traditional forms of child learning, typically including light religious indoctrination
– Raising sons and daughters to embrace traditional familial male and female roles
– Know-How, Do It Yourself Self sufficiency, including pride as a virtue to be reluctance to ask for help
– Business, productivity, entrepreneurship, wealth building
– Minimal government interference
– Tough on true crime (murder, kidnapping, rape, theft, fraud, etc.)
– Charity and missionaryism
– Closed borders; be selective and cherry pick immigrants
DEMOCRAT ANTITHESIS
– The American Dream leaves too many poor, uneducated, and genetically IQ handicapped behind and you should feel ashamed of that
– Traditional family values hold down girls and women from reaching their true potential intellectually, academically, and independent financially
– Traditional child rearing tends to empower male children and handicap female children such that they are dependent on males
– Self sufficiency, know-how, and self dealing, etc. in the trades disadvantages the poor, uneducated, IQ handicapped and so collective bargaining through unions on the private and public levels are necessary, as is affirmative action to award the less fortunate at the expense of penalizing the naturally selected
– Capitalism in general places the means of production and prosperity in the hands of entrepreneurs who may not be market driven but politically driven, so fascism is necessary (quibbles I’m sure, but state control through vast regulation of quasi-private enterprise IS what fascism IS)
– Maximum governmental regulation (fascism) is necessary and the best means of producing that outcome is through political rent-seeking behavior, turning market entrepreneurs into political entrepreneurs
– Criminal prosecution is a tool used by the right to control the underclasses
– Grassroots charity comes with ideological strings attached, usually religious and so, this too ought to be a secular and state team effort with corporate charity and United Nations oversight rather than individuals and small groups seeing a need and assuaging it to their abilities
– Open borders; lift the poor and underprivileged
…Not all-inclusive, such as, strong feminist activism, queer agenda, transgender stuff, etc.
In terms of the dialectic synthesis, that’s libertarianism. Strong on markets, self-sufficiency, entrepreneurship, minimal government interference, private charity…but also live and let live on the social issues.
The question is, without the Republican and Democrat labels, the memes, the Media, entertainment, and Hollywood narrative crafting either way, which set of values do you more viscerally identify with that the other?
Hey, Curt Doolittle, your stream of consciousness and/or sweat and tears lists are always more comprehensive than mine. Anything to add, retract, nuance, etc?
—“Hi Curt, it looks like you were quoted in the NY Post.”– John Mark
https://nypost.com/2018/10/09/wheres-the-outrage-over-hillarys-call-for-a-civil-war/
CONTENT HERE:
Two events from the last two days stand out. The first came Monday night with President Trump’s forceful yet compassionate speech at the swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
The president opened with an extraordinary apology on behalf of the country to Kavanaugh and his family“for the terrible pain and suffering” they endured during the historically brutal confirmation process. He said the unfounded allegations violated fairness and “the presumption of innocence.”
Trump also tenderly addressed Kavanaugh’s young daughters, telling them “your father is a great man, a man of decency, character, kindness and courage.”
The event was something of a spike-the-football moment in front of a cheering White House audience and as such was a clever piece of stagecraft, where Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell, Charles Grassley, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins were saluted.
But the ceremony was much more than mere boosterism. With the eight other Supremes sitting in the front row, Trump aimed to restore dignity to the judiciary at a time when the dirtiest tricks of politics have buried the court in a mountain of mud.
The president is right to worry that the character-assassination attempt on Kavanaughmay turn out to be a seminal moment in American political and cultural history. The ideas that the court is just another political branch and that the presumption of innocence no longer applies if you are on the other team represent a seismic shift in how we look at each other and the nation as a whole.
If those ideas stick, we are in more trouble than we can imagine.
And while Trump has at times unnecessarily contributed to the rancor, he was terrific Monday in trying to repair what Senate Democrats and their media handmaidens tried to destroy.
Which brings me to the second event of note: Hillary Clinton’s statement Tuesday that Democrats “cannot be civil” as long as Republicans hold the White House and Congress.
“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton told CNN. “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”
There you have it — a declaration of war and a license for violence. Where is the media outrage?
Clinton knows we are already in the danger zone when it comes to the political temperature. Her comments, then, are as reckless as bringing a can of gasoline to a bonfire.
She’s stoking trouble to gain a foothold in the 2020 race — and damn the consequences.
Her claim that civility can return when Dems have power is an admission that the ends justify the means.
Then again, she never fails to disappoint. As I wrote Sunday, she has spent the last two years casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Trump presidency because the election didn’t go her way. That makes her guilty of the very thing she found “horrifying” when Trump suggested he might not abide by the results if he thought they were rigged.
“He is denigrating — he is talking down our democracy. And I am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that position,” she said in their final debate, in October 2016.
She added, “That is not the way our democracy works.”
But it does work exactly that way when Democrats are denied what they feel entitled to. They should be careful what they wish for.
For if the Kavanaugh experience revealed anything, it is that Trump’s GOP knows how to fight back and win. It is hard to imagine that Kavanaugh would have survived such an onslaught under any other recent Republican candidate or president.
There were so many reasons, and so much media pressure, that it would not have been surprising if a bloc of senators called the allegations a “distraction” and waved a white flag. They didn’t because Trump and Kavanaugh didn’t back down.
Still, there is danger when two sides both think they can outlast the other. Responding to my concern that America might be sleepwalking into a second civil war, a number of readers agreed. Some said they welcomed it.
Curt Doolittle wrote this: “We aren’t sleepwalking into it, we know exactly what we’re doing and why. The hard right and hard left are planning on it, ready for it, and looking for an opportunity.”
He said the pressure has been building and that “the only reason it hasn’t turned hot is the outlier of Trump’s election. If Clinton had won, we’d already be there.”
City Hall in the X-treme
The City Hall press release was overflowing with superlatives. The action was “historic,” a “landmark” and “groundbreaking.”
Did Mayor Putz find a cure for homelessness? Did he solve the problem of failing schools? Did he fix public housing or the subways?
Nah, the small stuff is beneath him. His “stop the presses” accomplishment was signing legislation putting a third gender on city birth certificates.
As his office described it, “In addition to the ‘male’ and ‘female’ designations, birth certificates will also show an ‘X,’ allowing gender non-binary people who identify neither as men nor women to have a birth certificate that more accurately reflects their identities.”
The law takes effect Jan. 1 and removes the requirement that a medical or mental health professional affirm an individual’s gender to change the certificate.
The effect is that anyone can simply demand a new birth certificate and choose a new gender. It’s not clear if there are age requirements or limits to the number of times an individual can make changes.
To the roster of activist groups hailing the action, the change is something of a Holy Grail. First lady Chirlane McCray suggested it was just a first step, saying, “We will not stop there — we strive to extend that dignity to every aspect of life.”
I don’t doubt that gender identity is a serious, complex issue for some people. But I do wonder about the impact of this dramatic change on society, including gender roles in everything from sports to toilets, and about the priorities of the mayor and City Council.
Do they have the same passion for public safety and good schools? Do they care as much about the unfairness of the tax system?
My fear is that they don’t, and that their intensity about narrow issues is a fig leaf hiding their surrender on broad ones. There are superlatives for that, too.
Disgraceful, cowardice and shameful come to mind.
– Closed borders; be selective and cherry pick immigrants
DEMOCRAT ANTITHESIS
– The American Dream leaves too many poor, uneducated, and genetically IQ handicapped behind and you should feel ashamed of that
– Traditional family values hold down girls and women from reaching their true potential intellectually, academically, and independent financially
– Traditional child rearing tends to empower male children and handicap female children such that they are dependent on males
– Self sufficiency, know-how, and self dealing, etc. in the trades disadvantages the poor, uneducated, IQ handicapped and so collective bargaining through unions on the private and public levels are necessary, as is affirmative action to award the less fortunate at the expense of penalizing the naturally selected
– Capitalism in general places the means of production and prosperity in the hands of entrepreneurs who may not be market driven but politically driven, so fascism is necessary (quibbles I’m sure, but state control through vast regulation of quasi-private enterprise IS what fascism IS)
– Maximum governmental regulation (fascism) is necessary and the best means of producing that outcome is through political rent-seeking behavior, turning market entrepreneurs into political entrepreneurs
– Criminal prosecution is a tool used by the right to control the underclasses
– Grassroots charity comes with ideological strings attached, usually religious and so, this too ought to be a secular and state team effort with corporate charity and United Nations oversight rather than individuals and small groups seeing a need and assuaging it to their abilities
– Open borders; lift the poor and underprivileged
…Not all-inclusive, such as, strong feminist activism, queer agenda, transgender stuff, etc.
In terms of the dialectic synthesis, that’s libertarianism. Strong on markets, self-sufficiency, entrepreneurship, minimal government interference, private charity…but also live and let live on the social issues.
The question is, without the Republican and Democrat labels, the memes, the Media, entertainment, and Hollywood narrative crafting either way, which set of values do you more viscerally identify with that the other?
Hey, Curt Doolittle, your stream of consciousness and/or sweat and tears lists are always more comprehensive than mine. Anything to add, retract, nuance, etc?
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/43684184_10156700426027264_4242096158391926784_o_10156700426017264.jpg —“Hi Curt, it looks like you were quoted in the NY Post.”– @[100024151412040:2048:John Mark]
https://nypost.com/2018/10/09/wheres-the-outrage-over-hillarys-call-for-a-civil-war/?utm_source=maropost&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nypdaily&utm_content=20181010&tpcc=morning_report&mpweb=755-7363293-719682113James SantagataNot surprising to see Curt quoted at all. It is actually brilliant by Goodwin, because he can surface this with a great quote/insight without mentioning Propertarianism, etc. yet Curt is a Google away. At same time, in typical Leftie bastion, I have been shocked to see the impact we are all having with them having to reconsider or try to counter “racism” as simply an outcome of “patterns and priors/probabilties”, and their introducing “natural law” — they use “” to show that they are not comfortable with it. But it is there.Oct 11, 2018, 6:43 PMJames SantagataMy view from Google……The people that matter, Left, Right, Center, will Google Curt, without “”….. and what they will find….. twitter, propertarian website and a couple youtube videos, and then pandora’s box is wide open.Oct 11, 2018, 6:45 PMAndrew ClaytonIt’s a pretty good quote :)Oct 11, 2018, 6:49 PMJon JonathanPretty on point for the NY CompostOct 11, 2018, 7:08 PMJohn MarkCurt should be quoted extensively by our descendants throughout their schooling.Oct 11, 2018, 7:16 PMCurt Doolittleit’s different in the USA. I’m an intellectual. We don’t arrest intellectuals. We arrest activists and organizers and people who do things.Oct 11, 2018, 7:31 PMSteve SlonkyI’d like to see your trial CurtOct 11, 2018, 7:37 PMCurt Doolittle( I have been told by multiple lawyers over the decades “The last thing I will do is put you on the stand just so you can make a circus of the courtroom.” Or “There is no way I’m putting you on the stand.” )Oct 11, 2018, 7:44 PMAndrew ClaytonGutless lawyers hahaOct 11, 2018, 7:47 PMCurt DoolittleI’m bad enough in deposition. Mostly because the attorneys can’t believe I won’t result to practicalities. I mean, last big suit I had, I said I was willing to take it to a jury and lose. If you maintain the moral high ground it is very difficult to use the system against you. I trust the jury. That’s what scares people. Juries are random numbers. Law may be law but juries will go with the moral high ground.
Only reason I got screwed in my divorce was that they forced me to choose between cancer surgery or holding out for six months to a year until I could have it. I was so sick you can’t imagine. I couldn’t stay healthy and ‘clear minded’ for more than two weeks at a time. The fact that the court tolerated using that tactic is one of the reasons I’m determined to revolt and reform the system so that such nonsense doesn’t happen to anyone else.Oct 11, 2018, 7:50 PMJon JonathanI picture it going like the time Evola was on trial.
“During his trial in 1951, Evola denied being a fascist and instead referred to himself as a “superfascist”. “Oct 11, 2018, 7:50 PMCurt Doolittlenot gutless. smart.Oct 11, 2018, 7:50 PMIgor RogovFamily courts are totally parasitised by the Left waging their war against “entitled white male”, even more here in Australia, and the lawyers are generally complicit in it, with few notable exceptions. Application of adversarial court system, feminist agenda and government oversight in shape of social workers and various government – affiliated agencies to family law is a true goldmine for the judiciary, social worker’s bloated bureaucracy, mediocre psychologists and billion dollar “Duluth model” industry. And it is absolutely ruinous for the nation, and for many individuals.Oct 11, 2018, 8:20 PMChristopher HallMost recently the good people at RAMOct 11, 2018, 8:39 PMHoward Van Der KlauwIgor Rogov exactly and completely trueOct 11, 2018, 8:40 PMJoe Boyumboxed wine resistance versus AR-15 nationalismOct 11, 2018, 10:58 PMAnjin BodhisattvaIs it ok to like both?Oct 12, 2018, 1:52 AMJoe FossReminds me when Styx pointed out MSM figures probably keep an eye on guys like him. Looks like you’re on their radar, tooOct 12, 2018, 8:03 AMMurphy CellNice to see an old Connecticut boy making waves with the Normies!Oct 12, 2018, 10:21 AMKevin CoxFranzia and SSRIs = hardened revolutionaries.Oct 13, 2018, 1:49 AM—“Hi Curt, it looks like you were quoted in the NY Post.”– John Mark
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/43684184_10156700426027264_4242096158391926784_o_10156700426017264.jpg —“Hi Curt, it looks like you were quoted in the NY Post.”– @[100024151412040:2048:John Mark]
https://nypost.com/2018/10/09/wheres-the-outrage-over-hillarys-call-for-a-civil-war/?utm_source=maropost&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nypdaily&utm_content=20181010&tpcc=morning_report&mpweb=755-7363293-719682113James SantagataNot surprising to see Curt quoted at all. It is actually brilliant by Goodwin, because he can surface this with a great quote/insight without mentioning Propertarianism, etc. yet Curt is a Google away. At same time, in typical Leftie bastion, I have been shocked to see the impact we are all having with them having to reconsider or try to counter “racism” as simply an outcome of “patterns and priors/probabilties”, and their introducing “natural law” — they use “” to show that they are not comfortable with it. But it is there.Oct 11, 2018, 6:43 PMJames SantagataMy view from Google……The people that matter, Left, Right, Center, will Google Curt, without “”….. and what they will find….. twitter, propertarian website and a couple youtube videos, and then pandora’s box is wide open.Oct 11, 2018, 6:45 PMAndrew ClaytonIt’s a pretty good quote :)Oct 11, 2018, 6:49 PMJon JonathanPretty on point for the NY CompostOct 11, 2018, 7:08 PMJohn MarkCurt should be quoted extensively by our descendants throughout their schooling.Oct 11, 2018, 7:16 PMCurt Doolittleit’s different in the USA. I’m an intellectual. We don’t arrest intellectuals. We arrest activists and organizers and people who do things.Oct 11, 2018, 7:31 PMSteve SlonkyI’d like to see your trial CurtOct 11, 2018, 7:37 PMCurt Doolittle( I have been told by multiple lawyers over the decades “The last thing I will do is put you on the stand just so you can make a circus of the courtroom.” Or “There is no way I’m putting you on the stand.” )Oct 11, 2018, 7:44 PMAndrew ClaytonGutless lawyers hahaOct 11, 2018, 7:47 PMCurt DoolittleI’m bad enough in deposition. Mostly because the attorneys can’t believe I won’t result to practicalities. I mean, last big suit I had, I said I was willing to take it to a jury and lose. If you maintain the moral high ground it is very difficult to use the system against you. I trust the jury. That’s what scares people. Juries are random numbers. Law may be law but juries will go with the moral high ground.
Only reason I got screwed in my divorce was that they forced me to choose between cancer surgery or holding out for six months to a year until I could have it. I was so sick you can’t imagine. I couldn’t stay healthy and ‘clear minded’ for more than two weeks at a time. The fact that the court tolerated using that tactic is one of the reasons I’m determined to revolt and reform the system so that such nonsense doesn’t happen to anyone else.Oct 11, 2018, 7:50 PMJon JonathanI picture it going like the time Evola was on trial.
“During his trial in 1951, Evola denied being a fascist and instead referred to himself as a “superfascist”. “Oct 11, 2018, 7:50 PMCurt Doolittlenot gutless. smart.Oct 11, 2018, 7:50 PMAmir MetzgerSome lawyers are the most fucked up people in existence, no questionOct 11, 2018, 7:52 PMIgor RogovFamily courts are totally parasitised by the Left waging their war against “entitled white male”, even more here in Australia, and the lawyers are generally complicit in it, with few notable exceptions. Application of adversarial court system, feminist agenda and government oversight in shape of social workers and various government – affiliated agencies to family law is a true goldmine for the judiciary, social worker’s bloated bureaucracy, mediocre psychologists and billion dollar “Duluth model” industry. And it is absolutely ruinous for the nation, and for many individuals.Oct 11, 2018, 8:20 PMChristopher HallMost recently the good people at RAMOct 11, 2018, 8:39 PMHoward Van Der KlauwIgor Rogov exactly and completely trueOct 11, 2018, 8:40 PMJoe Boyumboxed wine resistance versus AR-15 nationalismOct 11, 2018, 10:58 PMAnjin BodhisattvaIs it ok to like both?Oct 12, 2018, 1:52 AMJoe FossReminds me when Styx pointed out MSM figures probably keep an eye on guys like him. Looks like you’re on their radar, tooOct 12, 2018, 8:03 AMMurphy CellNice to see an old Connecticut boy making waves with the Normies!Oct 12, 2018, 10:21 AMKevin CoxFranzia and SSRIs = hardened revolutionaries.Oct 13, 2018, 1:49 AM—“Hi Curt, it looks like you were quoted in the NY Post.”– John Mark
