#I think I’m just comprehensively anti-psych at this point

[communistkenobi]

idk it’s just really disheartening sometimes seeing liberals and progressives champion trans rights but justify their support by citing psychiatric and medical institutions

[razieltwelve]

The Faunus Conclave and the Human Union (Final Effect)

One of the more unusual conflicts in the distant future was the long-running conflict between the Faunus Conclave and the Human Union. Both of these factions held supremacists position, and both sought to carve out their own territory in the Remnant Galaxy.

The Conclave and Union were both founded at roughly the same time in the aftermath of one of the largest Grimm swarms in recorded history. This allowed them to settle uncolonised worlds free of interference from the greater galactic powers who were otherwise occupied with rebuilding and rearming. Furthermore, it was long-standing policy for the greater powers to remain largely neutral toward independent factions. This stance was at least partially influenced by their own histories in which they were attacked by the dominant powers of the past.

The Conclave and Union proceeded to expand over the next several decades. With funding from their members, they were able to terraform several worlds while also laying claim to more inhospitable worlds for the purposes of mining and resource acquisition. Although relatively far from the galactic centres of power, they both managed to locate valuable nodes of resources to further fund their ambitions.

Despite their anti-human and anti-Faunus rhetoric, they continued to be largely ignored by the greater galactic powers. In essence, their position was that as long as it remained rhetoric and confined to within their own borders, they were reluctant to go to war. Indeed, the civil war waged by the Empire, Alliance, and Federation against the Four Great Kingdoms had left an indelible mark on their collective psyche. The Children of Remnant were supposed to turn their wrath on exterior foes, not on each other.

Nevertheless, over the coming decades, the Conclave and Union would ramp up the hostility of their rhetoric while continuing to expand. Events would finally come to a head when the Conclave and Union finally laid claim to adjacent star systems that contained extremely valuable mineral resources. This led to a war of words that eventually spilled into actual combat when both factions caught wind of each other’s plans to strike at the other.

The initial conflict involved corvettes and frigates but rapidly escalated to the deployment of destroyers and cruisers. To the horror of the galaxy at large, even dreadnoughts and carriers eventually took the field as both sides struggled for dominance.

It was at this point that the greater galactic powers began to, put it bluntly, get pissed off. Their forbearance had always been contingent on the Conclave and the Union playing nice. What little patience they had evaporated when the Conclave shot down a transport carrying civilians. However, the Union promptly erased any moral high ground they might have had by bombing a Conclave settlement into oblivion. 

Simply ignoring the problem or attempting a diplomatic solution was no longer possible. Since the Union and Conclave were closer to the Empire’s territory, it was left to the emperor of the time, His Imperial Majesty Erik IV to deal with the situation.

In his own words, the Erik IV was ‘done with their shit’. Although not the most eloquent response, the emperor chose instead to let his actions speak for him. An Imperial suppression force was assembled comprised of a full ten thousand ships. Their orders were simple. They were to enter the warzone broadcasting a simple message, and they were to carry out the orders conveyed in that message.

The message was as follows:

“If any of you Conclave or Union sons of bitches so much as powers up a weapon, never minds shoots, we’ll blast you back into the fucking Stone Age. You can either go home, or we can send you back in boxes. Your choice, assholes.”

Now, Erik IV, was notable for his heavy use of profanity, which many attribute to the constant interruption of his agenda by Grimm swarms. Although these Grimm swarms were not large enough to pose an existential threat to the Empire, they appeared frequently enough and in sufficient size that his attempts to expand the Empire through a comprehensive terraforming program to settle previously inhospitable worlds were way, way, way behind schedule.

As a result, Erik IV became increasingly aggravated, and this was reflected in his orders to the suppression fleet.

Not surprisingly, the Conclave and Union both decided to retreat to their respective territories. Knowing full well that they would likely return to their warring the moment the suppression fleet left, Erik IV left the following message upon withdrawing the fleet.

“If I have to come back, I am going to find out who ordered you idiots to restart the war, and then I am going to kill them in the most awful way the Dia-Farron can think of them. If that doesn’t work, I’m going to start burning your worlds at random. I’ll use a bloody dart board to work out which ones to blast. Think I won’t do it? Try me. Go ahead. Do it. See how long you live.”

His threat served its purpose with no military commander or civilian leader on either side willing to risk death to continue the battle.

This peace would hold for the remainder of Erik IV’s life, allowing him to spend the rest of his reign and his retirement on his terraforming agenda. Thanks to his tireless hard work, the Empire would terraform thousands of additional worlds, providing homes for trillions of citizens.

Naturally, once word was received of Erik IV’s death, the Conclave and Union would resume their conflict.

This would lead to the incident famously known as “Cathal III stops giving a fuck” in which Erik IV’s grandson would famously order the capture and seizure of the Conclave and Unions fleets. He would then order those ships scrapped and recycled for Imperial use before sending the Conclave and Union a staggering bill for the cost of doing so.

- Excerpt from “The Remnant Galaxy Has A Crazy History, Volume II”

X    X     X

Author’s Notes

Sometimes, history is just crappy. 

If you’re interested in my thoughts on writing and other topics, you can find those here.

I also write original fiction, which you can find on Amazon here or on Audible here.

[jurornumber59]

A Very Long Rant that you do not want to read.

I am always incredibly wary of reading a new fic, because I have an almost pathological need to finish what I start to get that sense of completion. Unfortunately, this comes in to play even if the fic turns out to be poorly written, with wildly OOC renderings of the characters. 

(I get everyone’s interpretation is different and some characters can be more ambiguous than others and also that you’re allowed to subvert tropes/make dark versions of characters/imagine a world where the critical thing that made-them-who-they-are never happened, but if you’re going to do that, you have to at least demonstrate that you understand what you’re subverting in the first place and my problem comes when these fic writers very clearly show they have neither the skill nor the comprehension to execute it effectively)

It’s why I avoid WIPs entirely, because I got burned being left hanging by abandoned fics so many times over the years. It’s why I am so specific about filtering out things I’m not interested in, not because I fear being upset or triggered, but because I know certain things in certain fandoms often means an interpretation that doesn’t reflect any sense that the writer understands the characters at all which just wrecks my head. 

I really, really try to be very live and let live about it. I know my tastes are my own and if I don’t like something, I’m not going to attack a writer for it. And besides, other people may love it so what’s the big deal, it’s fic. It’s supposed to be enjoyable. I don’t like certain themes, I don’t like feeling like I’m being lectured by the purity police so I fucking curate the shit out of my experience.

However, it means I’ve got a bit conservative in my old age. I often return to favs again and again rather than try something new. I stick with fandoms I know and love because I’m familiar with the places/themes to avoid, rather than starting a new fandom where the territory is uncharted. But some fandoms are getting old and the new stuff is thin on the ground, or maybe the fandom is smaller and I’ve run out of options so I’m having to think about lowering my standards to open up to fic that I hadn’t tried before so things get precarious. Most of the time, if it’s sometihing that bothers me, I catch it quickly, before I get invested and slam that back button. Make a little note for myself, ‘avoid that’, no harm done. But I don’t always succeed, and that’s where that pathological need to finish what I start becomes A Problem.

So of course I am currently stuck reading an abosolutely GARBAGE 100K fic right now, that’s one of the top kudos rated fics for the fandom. It had a couple of what I would call personal ‘red flags’ (well, let’s not be dramatic, maybe orange flags... ones that make me go hmmm), but I reasoned, it’s got this many kudos for a reason... Oh I was wrong. It is a tyre fire. Look, I’m not one of those antis that requires everything to be morally pure, and if there is sketchy behaviour, it doesn’t have to labelled as Teh Pyoor Ebil and the character rendered into an unrecognisable caricature-ish cartoon villain so that we ALL KNOW THIS IS BAD. Things are allowed to be morally grey, it’s more interesting for me personally that way.

BUT FOR THE LOVE OF JEEZY CHREEZY not to have the character acknowledge when obvious emotional AND physical abuse is being done to them, particularly if the source material has that character point out that shit ALL the time just.... AAAAhhhh. This is just BAD WRITING. What I’m reading is just bad writing. You have fundamentaly misunderstood the MO of this character. Think, Steve Rogers is now a Nazi, goes hard for Vladimir Putin, thinking of renaming himsef Captain Russia, and thinks it’s okay for the strong to pick on the weak and disenfranchised. Like, that’s how wrong this fic has gone on these characters.

What I am reading at the moment is like the Twilight version of this fandom. This is me screaming at Stephanie Meyer’s abomination again ‘BELLA HE TOOK YOUR CAR ENGINE APART TO CONTROL WHO YOU’RE ALLOWED TO SEE THAT IS NOT LOVE IT’S ABUSE’ before throwing the book across the room.  Reading the comments to this fic made me thump my bed so hard I pulled a muscle in frustration. Also there is a nauseating cis-hets cure transphobia/homophobia moment. This person has subsumed everything that made these characters unique and instead replaced them with text from a tumblr teenaged-SJW, crowd-sourced LGBTQ+ resource page which offers no help but makes you wonder has anyone ever met another single human being in their lives. Meaningless faux-rep nonsense. Diversity in the way a committee of TV execs would understand diversity and representation, unreflective of actual real people with sometimes messy lives.

And then, NOTHING HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR 10 CHAPTERS. This bloated bag of shite reads like someone vomited their first pop-psych lecture notes onto the page and tried to novelize it with the faces of [insert shipt name] but like a bad knock-off version of these characters with the serial numbers filed off so they coud be anybody.

AND I AM STILL READING THIS SHIT BECAUSE I AM SICK IN THE FUCKING HEAD.

[tedfashionski]

Finking, Finking.

Hi, welcome to my ted talk. (That is the only time I will ever make that joke. This is Fashionski Finks. Expect radically low standards of self-involved rantiness with zero research or accountability from here on out). For a while there I seriously thought that the covid-19 quarantine was going to result in people being increasingly placid and accepting of creeping extensions of the police state. But here I am, getting depressed again, not about the protests, which I love, but more about my relationship to in-group pressure dynamics. One of the problems with being a relentless contrarian is the discomfort of my impulse to rebel against groups even when they’re championing the right thing. I have to find my own way to fight against the system as an outsider. No gods, no masters, no fucking peer pressure.  I’ll never be happy joining a chorus line. I don’t sign fucking petitions (they’re just lists for the NSA). I do donate, but like fuck will I do it performatively. I can’t go to protests cus I get panic attacky in crowds. I empathise pretty strongly with outsiders of all stripes but believe ridiculously excessively in the public good of criticism, and have a nostalgic love of trolling (I like to think I’m gentle with it though). Bring back the troll! We need that fucker, he’s a sign of a healthy internet. I’m writing this blog thing as an extension of my need to vent my extreme negativity. TBH I never expected to get any followers with ted twitter and the bizarre welcomingness of the hf twitter community totally wrongfooted me. I’m not nice. Ted isn’t meant to likable. He’s my dark side. I was meant to be using this alt as a way to terrorise the nice nice (secretly cruel) fashion people. I’m gunna try and up that aspect more. Just bear in mind, my complaints are largely about the system, but if I see you perpetuating fashion’s entrenched anti-intellectualism or its insidery bullshit, I’ll come for you with a little meta-bomb with your name on it. Maintaining my misanthropic tone does take work tho, like, deep down in some twisted part of my psyche, I guess I do actually want to be liked. It’s fucked up.

I suppose it’s only fair to explain this Ted fursona. Like, new concept, who dis? Why all the furry porn? …..because I just think it’s hilarious. Every time I think about the furries I cackle (not at them, mind). I just love the mad corruption of pure Disney aesthetics into hardcore pornography. That’s anti-authoritarian as fuck. I love the sincerity of their culture. The way the crazy fetish aspect means they’ll never be fully blandified by mainstream acceptance. The way it’s so cringe but so delightful. And more seriously, I’m interested in how a culture of mostly gay male nerds developed to the point where they’ll invest 10k in custom fursuits and support eachother’s independent businesses in ways that the fashion community completely fails to do. The fashion world sucks. There’s so many correlations there that I want to investigate: the newness (furries date from around the 70s, fashion culture in its self-aware state dates from the late 19th C – both very young fields); the centralisation/decentralisation; the hierarchy (furries can be pretty catty, I have discovered in my research, and we all know what fashion people are like); the adoption of new identities; the cis-boy gayness aspect (I’m increasingly tired of the extreme nasty hierarchy of certain CSM queens. It’s all very UGH. Just, fuck those particular bitches.) There’s more to the furry love, but I’ll explore it in future posts.

More importantly, why Ted fucking Kaczynski? I’m not like, actually a terrorist. (….yet. tehehe. NO, seriously I like non-maiming violence. Fuck yeah to property damage. Fuck yeah to disabling the system in extreme way. But no to wooden IEDs. Think of my shitty jokes that fail to land as my hand-crafted bombs). I think I like the shitness of Ted. He was just an epic fail of a terrorist. I’m a little white girl living in London. I’m not actually a primitivist, as much as I crave a hut in the woods. I did go to an elite school though. I had some really shitty experiences in the fashion industry in my early 20s, and I watch my friends who are relatively successful in that system and I get so angry on their behalf at their poor treatment. They think I’m too angry. Fuck that. They should be more angry, and the fact that they can’t be angry at their extreme precarity and the fact they’re still insecure and terrified of being ejected by the system after all their investment and skills they’ve built up is BULLSHIT. I’ll be double angry for them, I’m not invested in that system. I don’t need it to pay my rent. I’m free, motherfuckers, and I’m coming for the abusers and exploiters. If you’re a complacent industry figure not fighting hard from within, uggghhhhh fuck you. Yes, YOU. Soooo, I relate pretty hard to the MK ultra stuff. (go look him up, he was basically tortured and experimented upon by the elite). But there’s a pretty big chasm between my views and his, and I’ll try to be clear about the extent of my interest in his extreme beliefs. I haven’t even finished reading the manifesto. Basically, I watched that shitty show on Netflix with sam worthington around the same time I watched Joker (that movie fucked me up) and thought it’d be a good outlet to larp online as a terrorist. There’s the angry white alt-right school shooter aspect, which I’m still figuring out, cus I’m non-binary and I was raised by nutso trumpy right-wingers, who I barely speak to anymore, and I struggle to get along with people generally. There’s sad, self-pitying rage here. I empathise with the angry white dudes too much. I feel guilty about it. That’s good ground for artmaking (yes, shamefully, this…is…art. Sorry). I modelled this fursona a little after my brother, who I spent years living with and arguing with and trying to lift out of his scary racist youtube rabbit holes. This is actually quite an emotional thing for me, cus I did the ‘talk to your fascist family’ thing. And I completely failed. I realised his right-winginess wasn’t lessening, I wasn’t gaining ground, and in fact my excessive empathy and desire to reach out to the relative most similar to me in character meant his extremism was rubbing off on me. Making me more resentful and depressed. Feeling powerless. I was being too kind-hearted and forgiving of his masculine impotence. So I’m exploring some personal shit here. But Ted is also a cute lil fuzzball teddy bear. He means well, but me being super autistic and faily at social skills means he’s kind of a dick, cus I am. I’m going to try and further develop this character, this POV, and this post is the only time I’ll explain the divide between him and his creator (moi). The ‘I’ on the twitter and here is Ted Fashionski, I need that space between me and him. Masks give us this freedom to be more ourselves. Internet culture has lost a lot of its wild brutal anonymity in the last decade or so, now everyone’s afraid of making mistakes. How the hell do you grow if you’re not allowed to fuck up? This is a vital outlet. He’s become an important part of my life and I have to say, I love being Ted Fashionski. He’s like Paddington Bear who just escaped form Guantanamo or something.

I get pretty fatigued as a matter of course. I’m a long-term depressive since childhood. I have a difficult time keeping my hard-on for living. I don’t get suicidal really but I do struggle with extreme fatigue. I sleep a lot. I often fall into spirals of self-hate. And as someone who utterly believes in revolutionary leftist politics, I beat myself up about not doing enough. I’m so middle class and english and white. I was raised in such a chauvinistic and complacent culture; I don’t even know where to start. I’m wading my way through post-colonial literature and beating myself up for finding it boring and uncomfortable. It’s hard to force yourself to acknowledge your culture is The Bad Guys. It’s easier to fall into fanstasies of supremacy and butthurt misunderstoodness. And it’s not like my depressive brain needs any encouragement to hate me. My trajectory is ever leftwards, but I remember the righteous fury of being right-wing. I get it, that was me. We need more paths back from fascism, more comprehension of why people are that kind of shitty. I talk less, and less well, the more depressed I am. If I’m talking, it means im feeling a lot better. Just, fyi.

Give me a minute to be critical here. With the George Floyd protests, a lot of the cool guys on fashion twitter has gone blazingly hardcore on the political side. But there’s this troubling rhetoric about ‘no return to normal content’ or ‘this isn’t the time for fashion’. Like fuck it isn’t. This is a key problem with fashion culture right here, we have this received perception of fashion as empty escapism. Escapism matters in fashion, yes. But seriously, talking about the surfaces of things does not equal not caring about deeper meaning. What the fuck. Clothes are a connective tissue, a membrane between us. They’re emotional and powerful. We can talk about things that matter THROUGH clothes. I speak fashion, pretty fucking well. Most people who work at fashion magazines are morons with no understanding or respect for their subject. They’re incapable of doing it justice, and that’s deliberate. On this tumblr you’ll see rants and reviews of fashion and other artforms, always interpreting through a fashion lens. cus it matters, cus it’s a vital part of the culture, cus just because something has a glittery, seductive surface doesn’t mean it doesn’t communicate or contain depth. There’s no going back to ‘normal fashion content’, yes. Normal fashion content is a fucking psyop to divert legitimate interest in aesthetics amongst largely non-academic dyslexic visual types away from careful thought/feeling and towards empty consumerist commericiality. The traditional fashion media wants you to express yourself and your interest in the zeitgeist through buying more shit. Another fashion world is possible. Let’s destroy the old and build a new one, one where surface and spirit are connected and true and fashion can’t be abused in service of evil industrial monopolists.

/end rant. TLDR: angry fictional teddy bear with tin-foil hat and an eco-anarchist fetish says no to stupid fashion and yes to the renewal of conceptual fashion. Also, Fuck White People.

[captainsjack]

i think you misunderstood my point.

never once did i say “it’s racist not to ship shus.” this post isn’t about ships. it’s about headcanoning shawn as bi. the post lists all of the men he’s had crushes on. it’s not about specific ships. it’s an objective viewpoint on shawn and his crushes.

regardless of whether or not you ship shus, it’s objectively clear that shawn flirts with gus. take it or leave it, that’s your choice. but this post points out every man shawn has flirted with. other than gus. that is what i pointed out. i didn’t say “this post is dumb because shawn ONLY likes gus.” i simply said gus should have been added to the list.

i also very clearly said “i’m not trying to diminish this list, because i agree that shawn was crushing on all of these men, and i love bi shawn, and it’s great that this has been pointed out and articulated well.” which you seem to have ignored.

i praised op for making the list in the first place.

the only thing i did was criticise why gus was left out.

i also very clearly said i was not calling out op specifically, but rather the general theme in psych fandom of gus and shawns relationship being overlooked because of anti-blackness.

i’m confused on how i’m “trashing this content creator’s celebration of her own personal headcanons for Bi!Shawn with your virtue signaling.”

gus is almost always left out of any psych post in regards to ships. i was pointing out this recurring theme on this post, because this post did it too. how is that trashing ops celebration? i was critiquing it, while at the same time praising op for making it in the first place.

how exactly am i virtue signaling? in no way did i say that i was better than everyone else. and i apologize if i came across that way. it’s not virtue signaling to critique someone’s actions/words.

when you say “calling out actual racist, bigoted, or abusive behavior in fandom is so so important, but interpreting the relationship between Shawn and Gus as platonic, or even brotherly, is not that,” it implies that the erasure of characters of color isn’t real racism. that’s false. maybe it’s not as overt as other things, but it’s still racism and still something that should be talked about. you’re diminishing important problems in fandom by saying this. there are hundreds of posts that talk about this aspect of fandom racism, i suggest taking some time to look into them.

i’m confused on how the meme you included applies to this situation. first of all, i don’t know ops or your race. so if i did, i’m sure that would play into the situation.

second, the meme is about posts that are vague and incapable of being all encompassing. that does not apply here. ops post was a person made list, that included research. it was clearly in depth. therefore, there’s no reason to exclude one of the main characters. if ops post was just like “oh shawn was crushing on lassie and despereaux he’s so bi!” and that’s ALL, then of course i wouldn’t have said anything. i explained in my addition that the fact that op took the time to point out characters in literally one episode and then never mentioned again, while excluding a main character, was concerning.

maybe this is just my ignorance, but, although i do know what white fragility is, i’m not sure how it applies here.

i also disagree that i needed to make my own post. ops post is not just a general “shawn was crushing on lassie!” post or a “shawn is bi!” post or a “shawn and despereaux should’ve been a thing!” post. if it WAS, then i would agree with you and i would not have said anything. but like i said before, this was a detailed, comprehensive list, giving evidence for bi shawn. i think i have a right to criticise when that list leaves out a main character who is black.

lastly, i’m going to say this once more. i was not criticising ONLY op. i was commenting on the very prevalent erasure of gus and of shawn and gus’s relationship in psych fandom. if that was not a main issue in psych fandom, and this was the only post that did so, then i would not have said anything. but it is a very constant thing that happens. so i said something about it on ops post, because op partook in it.

Men that Shawn have crushes on

1. Pierre Despereaux

This one is one of the more obvious ones in the show. Shawn’s face lights up whenever he sees him and when Shawn thinks Despereaux is dead he is very devastated .

2. Clive Noble

From the episode Neil Simon’s Lover’s Retreat. Shawn and Juliet meet the couple Clive and Barbie. During dinner with the couple Shawn and Clive feed each other cake and joke with each other. 

Clive:“What two men can’t share dessert?” 

Shawn:“And then go dancing… like gentlemen.”

3. Tommy Nix

From Shawn and Gus do Drag (Racing) Shawn is instantly taken with Tommy when he comes through the door and tosses his keys perfectly on the hook. 

Shawn: “You are a thief and you are a murderer… and you almost managed to bamboozle me with your incredible awesomeness.”

Gus: “Almost?”

4. Mayor Gavin Channing 

Gus: “Dude, stop crushing on the Mayor.”

Shawn: “I’m not crushing on him. I like him.”

The Santabarbarian Candidate is not one of my favorite episodes to be honest. I do like the smear campaign Gus runs against Shawn, but most of it is Shawn and Juliet’s relationship mixed with a pretty boring case. But we’re not talking about me, we are talking about Shawn, and his love for men.

5. Carton Lassiter

[withasmoothroundstone]

The Lanterman Act is not the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.  Don’t confuse them.

The Lanterman Act, or the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Act, is an act governing the rights of and services for people with developmental disabilities in the state of California.  Under the Lanterman Act, people are supposed to be guaranteed the right to live in their own homes regardless of degree of disability.  This doesn’t always play out in practice, but it’s supposed to, and it gives people the leverage to do so.  And that’s just one of many important things it does.

The Lanterman-Petris-Short act is about involuntary commitment for people with psychiatric disabilities in the state of California.  It deals mostly with 72-hour involuntary holds (a.k.a. 5150), 14-day involuntary holds (a.k.a.5250), and temporary conservatorship.

I was once dealing with an... interesting... psych survivor/ex-patient group in California.  The woman who ran it seemed so desperate to find any ally anywhere, and any foothold anywhere, that it didn’t actually matter whether the ally or the foothold made sense.  

For example, she was always carrying around Scientology posters at protests.  Scientology has always regarded psychiatry as competition, which is their original reason for being anti-psychiatry.  Before Scientology was made into a fake religion, the basics of Scientology were touted as an alternative to psychiatry.  Psychiatry was in direct competition with them.  After they became a full-on cult, they turned on psychiatry as systematically as they turned on their detractors, the IRS, and anyone else they hated.  They didn’t care about the human rights abuses of psychiatric patients, they just saw those human rights abuses as a means to make psychiatry look bad.  If the human rights abuses weren’t there, and psychiatry was some kind of miracle wonder science free of any serious ethical problems, they’d have just made something up, just like they randomly try to make their high-profile detractors look like pedophiles.  Scientology does things to its own members that are just as bad as the worst things in psychiatry.  And the likelihood of terrible and even deadly things go up if they basically identify someone as crazy.  Here’s an example of what they call the “Introspection Rundown”, a response to a “psychotic episode” or “complete mental breakdown”:

Declaration of Roxanne Friend, a former Scientologist, declaration given under penalty of perjury, references depositions.  Read that over and tell me how it differs from the general range of fucked-up things involuntary psychiatry will often do to someone they deem to be psychotic or having a mental breakdown. And if you want for some reason to hear about a more nightmarish Introspection Rundown, google Lisa McPherson. (Spoiler: She died as a direct result of the Rundown.)

I’m sorry -- I know politics makes strange bedfellows, but I refuse to be bedfellows with a destructive cult just because it happens to think that a very destructive industry is competition.  And I refuse to believe anything I hear about psychiatry from Scientology unless i’ve heard it from another source that isn’t a Scientology front group.  (The Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights is a Scientology front group.  Just so everyone’s clear.)  

Also to make it perfectly clear:  Scientology has not helped the psychiatric survivor/ex patient/mad pride sort of movements.  All it’s done is make everyone convinced that former psychiatric patients criticizing psychiatry are actually just a bunch of Scientologists and safely ignored.  Pretty much every time I express a view critical of psychiatry as a whole, someone tries to tell me -- or anyone around who will listen -- that I must be a Scientologist.  Between Scientology and the so-called dissident psychiatrists, it’s very hard for actual crazy people to criticize psychiatry and be taken seriously.  Like, it’s bad enough that being crazy is enough to discredit us in a lot of people’s eyes -- I’ve heard psych survivors described collectively, by psychiatrists, as everything from “psychotic people who have unfortunately never let go of their paranoid process” to “borderline personalities who like drama and attention”.  But even if we get past that stage, we’re going to be associated with L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, Peter Breggin, and R. D. Laing, whether we like it or not.  And that’s only the start of the misconceptions about us and what our actual views are.  We pretty much can’t get a word in edgewise because everyone already things they know what we’re thinking.  

And bottom line-- Scientology/the CCHR make this all worse, not better.  They hinder our ability to get human rights abuses exposed and dealt with.  And then they try to recruit people into what’s basically one giant human rights abuse disguised as a religion for a combination of tax-evasion and recruiting purposes.

But to her, they didn’t like psychiatry so she was on board 100% and didn’t care what anyone said about the hellish things that happened in Scientology.  (And yet wanted people to listen to her about the hellish things that happens in psychiatry.)

So on that note...

One day I was grumbling about the governor.  He was threatening to repeal the Lanterman Act to save money.  (It was unclear that this would actually save money, but even if it would, that’s not an acceptable reason to remove people’s right to live in our own homes.)  I was legitimately afraid, because I was getting Supported Living Services through the Regional Center system and all that could fall apart and I could end up in an institution permanently, or on the streets, depending on whether the system chose abuse or neglect as their basic response.

Her response? “The Lanterman Act is what makes involuntary commitment possible.  They should repeal it.”

I was like... “I’ve read the entire thing.  I didn’t see that there.”

She insisted it was, in fact, there.

I do have reading comprehension issues.  I concluded I must’ve missed it.  I told her that removing the Lanterman Act would likely land me in an institution.

She started yelling at me about how I was -- this is almost a direct quote -- “just like the people in the concentration camps who were willing to sell out their fellow inmates because they got a few favors from the Nazis”.  Which... seemed pretty harsh for a brief conversation about a topic we both seemed fuzzy about the details of.  And she decided to support the governor because of his desire to repeal the Lanterman Act.

I later scoured the Lanterman Act and couldn’t find any of the shit she talked about.  I had little enough self-confidence that I assumed I must be totally misunderstanding something major.  

Much later, almost by accident, I learned two things.

One, I was right.  The Lanterman Act is not the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, and the governor had no plans on repealing the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.

Two, even if it had been the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, I don’t think she was thinking it through.  Because... the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act sucks.  In huge ways.  It allows for things that are quite dangerous to people.  I’ve been 5150ed and 5250ed more times than I can count.  

The local adult psych ward was a death trap I was lucky to escape alive without getting snagged into a hold cycle until something happened I couldn’t get out of (I have a deadly reaction to one of their favorite meds, and both psych professionals and ER professionals are trained to be cynical about anyone who says they react to them, even though my reaction was originally witnessed and documented by a gaggle of professionals).  They routinely drugged people until their throats tightened up enough they had trouble speaking, and then took them to their commitment hearings in that state to be talked about in the third person and made to look as incompetent as possible while unable to talk back.  One thing our group did was visit to keep an eye on patients who didn’t have anyone else looking out for them.  And they did everything in their power, including spontaneously changing visiting hours the moment they saw us, to keep us out of there.

So I’m no fan of California’s involuntary commitment policy or the fact that people could be stuck in places like that particular psych ward.

But repealing the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act would not actually get rid of involuntary commitment, nor would it improve the conditions for people under involuntary commitment.  What people don’t all seem to realize is that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was put into place to limit indefinite commitment times and to limit the reasons for involuntary commitment.  It didn’t do enough, obviously.  It didn’t end it.  But before the L-P-S Act, you could commit people indefinitely and for incredibly vague reasons.  So the L-P-S act overall reduced commitment times and made it harder to commit people.  People who want commitment to be easier are always complaining about how hard it’s been made to commit people.  It’s not that hard, in my experience, but it’s still harder than it could be.  Harder than it used to be.  Harder than it would be without it.

If they want to do away with involuntary commitment, that doesn’t take repealing the L-P-S Act, it takes writing new law to govern what would actually happen instead, and then repealing or replacing or amending it or however that kind of thing works.  It would, in fact, probably very similar to parts of the actual Lanterman Act, at least at first.  The Lanterman Act didn’t do away with institutionalization of people with developmental disabilities, but it took huge steps in that direction and made alternatives to institutions part of the new way things were structured.  

And it is really inappropriate to ask someone to risk backsliding into institutions after progress has been made in doing away with those institutions, just because you think it might make it harder to put you in an institution for 3 to 14 days.  And to gratuitously call them a Nazi collaborator if they don’t instantly agree with you -- on a point of view that in this case didn’t even turn out to be based on something real.  So for all I know this lady is still out there trying to get people with developmental disabilities put in institutions permanently so that (as she imagines things) it’s harder to put her on a temporary hold in an institution.  This is why it’s important to actually look up a law and its history as best you can, before throwing resources into changing it.  Because whether she hit the right law or the wrong one, getting it repealed would in either case result in long-term, even indefinite or permanent, involuntary institution stays for a lot of people.

Mistaking Lanterman for Lanterman-Petris-Short makes sense, but it’s a hell of a mistake to make and all the reason to be more careful.  And I wouldn’t put it past some law somewhere to give rights to one group of disabled people and take that same right away from another group of disabled people simultaneously, but you can’t just yank the rights out from under that first group of people without replacing it with something else, or you’re just reversing the situation.

[zenosanalytic]

Reply-Replies to Purified-Zone: Wonder Woman Replies

purified-zone said:

I don’t think her destroying a church was necessarily pro-pagan or anti-church, it was just a casualty of warfare like any other because the setting was that: everything is being destroyed anyway. This is why I was fine with there being so much killing unlike in BvS where it’s not really “justified” at all  

Yeah they probably didn’t mean it that way but I just got a bevy of chuckles out of the sheer preponderance of imagery in that direction. I mean: sniper hiding in a church being a danger to the whole community, literal(in the movie at least, I’m pretty sure she’s not in the comics though I don’t really follow them) Olympian goddess smashing said church to rid the community of danger, then standing atop ruins of said church as the towns people cheer her and heavenly light streams down from behind her. That’s bordering on heavy-handed.

all the Olympians being “dead” (or better—never actually existed, the TRUE mythology being a mystery instead) would be more interesting than Ares being responsible for WW1

Ehh. Though, yeah, I agree with the idea of Ares being responsible for WWI being pretty asinine. Though the movie’s a bit confused here too: he says he’s not responsible for the war and he’s not making people fight, only suggesting weapons and tactics that they can choose to use to make it more horrible, but then the moment he’s dead those German soldiers pull off their masks, surrender, and everyone stops fighting. So which is it: was Ares just capitalizing on human nature to suggest ways people who’ve already decided to do terrible things can be worse, or was his influence actually causing people to fight, and by defeating him Diana ensured the armistice would succeed? Diana’s conclusion is that people suck but they can also be pretty great too, and you’ve just got to believe in that pretty greatness, and work to promote it, not that Ares was behind it all and that without him the war wouldn’t have existed. Like I said, I think they could have done something more interesting with an Ares storyline, but the movie would have been more consistent if there was no Ares, or if “Ares” as just war-itself, was the real villain, and preserving the armistice that allowed WWI to finally end the real victory she achieves. I get that Ares is her actual nemesis in the comics series, but how they included him here just didn’t work for me, and he looked just silly in that final fight.

Speaking of the brainspace part, the entire time I was hoping for a Nolanian (for lack of a better word, I don’t know film very well. Insert appropriate synonym for psyche-out) mindfuck where it turns out the entire battle was a hallucination. I was hoping Ares was a hallucination the moment he disappeared from the window in that one scene

I don’t think him being a hallucination would have worked, but that fight did feel kinda weird and off. Like, nobody but Steve and his team seemed to be paying any attention to it and they’re setting off these massive explosions and tearing the place apart. I kinda felt like the Germans were interpreting it as a bombing raid or sabotage or something, which how could you do that when there’s two people flying around flinging stuff at each other and telekineting the runway into projectiles? So the idea of it being not entirely physical, or something slightly outside mortal comprehension which people not in the know couldn’t entirely perceive almost seemed a bit implied with how it played out, to me. Who knows, maybe they batted around an idea like that but then decided to go for a conventional superhero final showdown, or maybe that sort of reaction was just convenient plot-wise.

I don’t enjoy there being One True Pantheon (the greek one) because that’s less interesting than a world where all religious beliefs have some chance of being considered. it’s less interesting than a world where it is still a mystery where Themyscira REALLY came from 

similar to how it is more interesting for us not to know where the Space Jockey came from rather than they inexplicably making the Alien universe infinitely smaller by making them the creators of humanity                            

I’m not saying “One True Pantheon”. Never at any point in their history did the Greeks ever say their gods were the “only REAL” gods, and including them in a fictional setting doesn’t bar you from including any other god you like, or even making them something other than divine(or “top tier” divine) beings(ala Marvel’s Asgard... And their Olympus and Olympians, to be honest), so that you can leave space for an ultimately ambiguously Abrahimic/atheistic universe like DC and Marvel have conventionally done. I’m just saying I didn’t feel like having them killed off served any purpose storywise for the movie(and I’d add it also hurts her chances for solo sequels, since most of WW’s enemies are associated with myth, Ares, and the Olympian pantheon in someway or another). The same effect could have been accomplished in other ways, and the path they chose -getting close enough to WW canon to preserve aspects of her origin, throw others into doubt(like her fabrical creation), but veering away from it where it might suggest something other than a currently monotheistic cosmology- was just... Meh. And I fully realize that this is the sort of complaint very few people are going to have, so no surprise that the filmmakers didn’t give consideration for this particular sensibility pride-of-place in their decision making.

I forgot to finish my thought on the hallucination part! Whoops! The point I was trying to get to was that one part where Diana rewinds her memories mid-battle to what Steve said—I was hoping so hard that was a psyche-out retconning the battle as something of a mental projection by Diana meant as a mental battle of ideas To Learn A Lesson so as to change the outcome of Steve Dying

Oh! Ok. HHHHHHMMMMMMmmm idontknow. I feel like that would have been super gimmicky and led to a lot of “it was all a dream” complaints. And -though I guess this undercuts all such psychedelic conclusions like the one I mentioned- I don’t think the movie really established its world and setting as the sort of place that kind of thing would happen in.

also why did Steve have to die I don’t understand why that was necessary 

Honestly, I think it’s because Steve Rogers “died” heroically flying a plane away from where it could do any harm in First Avenger. It was such a callback. Like really, the whole ending was pretty superfluous, but that aspect was especially bad. Like, if the flammability of the gas allows them to blow it up safely with no poison possibility, then why couldn’t they just blow it up on the ground with a grenade? Why couldn’t he just jump out with a parachute after flying it high up? If it’s effective range of threat was 50 miles centered on the point of release, then why didn’t they all die anyway considering the atmosphere does not extend 50 miles up? Like I said, I feel like you cannot make a WWI movie that doesn’t deal with loss since SO MANY PEOPLE died in that war and the sheer volume of the dead was probably its most remembered impact, and in that context I can see justifying Steve’s death, but having him die a heroic martyr, and therefore a war-glorifying one, like he did in the movie wasn’t necessary, and also undercut his character. Like, the whole point of it was just to include your conventional war-story sacrifice glorification, and it’s premise is literally an anti-war one, so that’s kinda ill-done.

But, having said all that, I still liked the movie. It wove action and humor together excellently, and I enjoyed the sensibility of it a heck of a lot more than that found in most action blockbusters. It wasn’t a cruel movie in anyway, it didn’t make fun of or belittle people and, while I did feel the treatment of them was rushed through, it acknowledged the downsides of violence and conflict through Charlie, Chief, Sameer(I mean, it’s not stated, but he’s probably North African and in Europe because of how inhospitable colonialism made his homeland), and the suffering of the civilians we see. The camera work was non-skeezy, the bath scene with Steve was So Good, playing on the humor and awkwardness in the situation, and in Diana’s curiosity&lack of physical shame(and thus obliviousness to Steve’s), without being objectifying or creepy; presenting Steve as vulnerable without being creepy or denigrating or acquisitive about it(again, most other action movies when it comes to women).

It’s a good, entertaining movie it’s just that philosophically, and aside from its a++ peopleing and gender politics, it left me a bit dissatisfied.

[bondsmagii]

I have never read something more stupid than your examples lol what do burn wounds even have to do with it?? Also therapy HELPS stop spreading anti-recovery bullshit oh my godd... Ur point still stands but ur examples were baaad. A better one is that since ur not a psych you may not know how slowly to try to change someone's behaviour and you might make them feel even worse by reminding them they can't do certain things.

the question was “how can well-meaning advice cause harm/be dangerous?”. my answer was “well, in this example, someone told me to do something to a physical injury that would have made it worse”. I think that answers the question and was relevant. 

the question was “how can well-meaning advice cause harm/be dangerous”. my answer was “well, in my case, I have trauma related to the psychiatric community and therefore therapy would hurt me, yet people insisted I go to therapy”. I think that answers the question, and as it’s talking about me specifically. actually, I think I said that! let me check – apologies, as I’m sure you read my post thoroughly and so already know this, as it was right in front of your face and as someone with what I’m sure is basic reading comprehension you must have seen it – ah, here we go: “I have negative associations of the psychiatric community and being involved with any aspect of it would have severely worsened my illnesses and set back the progress I was making privately.”

I’m not going to talk about instances I have no experience with – that would be ironic, considering what I was talking about. someone asked me how well-meaning advice can cause harm, and I provided three solid examples I have personal experience with, where advice would have caused me harm. I’m not sure why you’re calling them “stupid” when they’re directly relevant, and when you agree with my point. if my examples were that absurd, surely they would have been detrimental to my point? 

I think, personally, you’re just annoyed because you mistakenly thought that I was being anti-recovery, and it angered you. I’m not. if therapy helps you, go for it. but remember that everyone doesn’t have the same associations. you say “therapy HELPS” and yes, for some people it does. but for some it doesn’t, so don’t come to a person with trauma related to psychiatric abuse and yell at him that therapy HELPS, and that he’s full of “anti-recovery bullshit” for saying that in his personal experience, personally, based on personal things that personally happened to him personally, therapy would not help. therapy would harm me, but that’s not to say I don’t fully support others seeking it if they think it will help. it’s just, in my person experience, people talking over me and insisting therapy will help me was well-meaning advice that would have been dangerous. I was never speaking about anyone other than myself there, which I stated. at no point did I tell people not to seek out therapy. also, to draw your attention back to the point where I said “the progress I was making privately” – how is that anti-recovery? I was working towards recovery then and I still am now. just because I’m not doing it through therapy doesn’t mean I’m not taking steps to improve myself and my mental health every day. I have come a very long way over the last few years.

please, read closely and use a little critical thinking before you burst in with opinions. this is exactly what I meant when I talked about context being important. all of this would have been evident if you’d just read closely and thought about what I was saying before you skipped over here to call me stupid and anti-recovery.

[giancarlonicoli]

After a wild 2018, Mark Orsley - Head of Macro Strategy for Prism (and formerly with RBC), is out with a review of his 2018 "Costanza Trades," while offering his comprehensive thoughts for next year.

***

It’s that time of year again. Stockings, dreidels, Festivus poles, and, of course, the inevitable truckload of bank “2019 Year Ahead” pieces cluttering your inboxes which are about as attractive as getting coal in your stockings.  However, these pieces are useful in some regards, as they are very good at nailing the consensus themes and are excellent counter-indicators.  Long time readers will know that The Macro Scan takes another twist at year end, to present next year’s top “Costanza Trades.”

For those of you not familiar with George Costanza, his character on the sitcom Seinfeld could do no right when it came to employment, dating, or life in general.  In one episode, George realizes over lunch at the diner with Jerry that if every instinct he has is wrong, then doing the opposite must be right.  George resolves to start doing the complete opposite of what he would do normally.  He orders the opposite of his normal lunch, and he introduces himself to a beautiful woman that he normally would never have the nerve to talk to. "My name is George,” he says, “I'm unemployed, and I live with my parents." To his surprise, she is impressed with his honesty and agrees to date him!

I find employing the Costanza method to trading an interesting exercise.  Ask yourself this: what are the trades that make complete sense and all your instincts say are right? Now consider the opposite. Basically what you end up constructing is an out of consensus portfolio.

Employing the Costanza method can identify interesting, non-consensus trade ideas that could kick in alpha. Last year’s top 7 Costanza trades netted 5 of 7 WINNERS (some with huge gains), and past years have all been successful: 2017 had 5 of 6 winners (and 1 tie), 2016 had 7 of 10 winners, and 2015 had 7 of 10 winners.  Let’s quickly review last year’s trades…

2018 Costanza Trades:

Long UST 10yrs = trying to work now but a loser as yields were 35bps higher

Long Bunds = winner as yields were 18bps lower

Long EUR/USD = worked early in the year but turned loser, -5%

Short EEM = huge winner, EM crushed 19%

Long IG protection (IG spread wideners)/Short LQD = another huge winner, IG CDX 44bps wider (doubled)

Short Euro Stoxx and Nikkei = both big winners; each index was down 15%

Short Bitcoin vol = worked well all year but has risen recently, still 50-day is 22 vols lower

Bonus: Long active/short passive = going to put this as a tie.  Passive won out most of the year, but is currently getting crushed/about to get absolutely rinsed.  Also, in a classic bottom signal, active Hedge Funds/PM’s were shuttered around the street in Q4 at the absolute worse time.  Active is now starting to have its day, and the passive tsunami is receding.  

Last year’s list was one of the most difficult to develop.  Going into 2018, the market was divided between those who thought risk assets had gone too far and were due for a correction, and those who believed the economy is booming so let the good times roll.  To be fair, both turned out to be true at different points throughout the year.

This year is a piece of cake, as sentiment for risk assets have wildly shifted (for good reason) bearish.  With that, I give you the 2019 Costanza trades in no particular order – or in other words, the trades that you absolutely feel pained to do right now:

2019 Costanza Trades:

Long FANGs

Receive credit protection in IG and HY (aka long LQD and HYG)

Long Eurodollar spreads (EDZ9/EDZ0)

Long Bunds

Short Gold

Long WTI crude

Long AUD/USD

Short EM

Long Bitcoin

Bonus: Long Trump

Let’s go through each and assess the probabilities of Costanza being profitable (probabilities are purely off the cuff estimates for arguments sake)…

1) Long FAANGs

Everyone loved them on the way up in 2018 and you had to own them to keep up with the market but now the FAANG’s, and tech broadly, are contaminated.  

Although street research is once again roundly predicting higher equity indices in 2019 (as they always do - insert rolling eyes emoji), market consensus among those that take actual risk has shifted extremely bearish.  Funds have grossed down or liquidated, RSIs are oversold, and DSIs are near 0.  

However, the next shoe to drop is the retail investor exodus (it has partially started) that could lead to the mother of all passive unwinds.  Imagine the horror on the face of the average investor as they open their Q4/year-end statement in a few weeks and sees the wealth destruction that has taken place in Q4.  The natural investment psyche of the retail investor will be to sell and I think it’s hard for all of us to fathom just how widely owned FAANG’s are within index ETF’s. Therefore, I would have to imagine this trade will not work for Costanza right away, and there is severe risk that a deeper correction could continue into 2019.  

What is the major headwind for Costanza with regards to his FAANG long and tech names more generally?  Government regulation.  Higher rates and wages have been a thorn in the side for margins but more than anything; it is the government’s involvement in Silicon Valley’s business model that has and will continue to be a major hindrance for tech multiple expansion.  There is not much Congress agrees on these days, but Tech regulation, especially with regards to privacy laws, is the one thing.  Ditto in Europe, where the governments are actually playing even rougher.  Some recent data points:

Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who boycotted a Congressional hearing this summer, is now playing ball with Congress saying he supports regulation legislation.

The Federal Trade Commission still has an open investigation into whether Facebook’s conduct violated a previous settlement with the agency.

DC’s Attorney General is suing Facebook for “allegedly letting outside companies improperly access user data and for failing to properly disclose that fact.”

Europe’s new far-reaching privacy laws and anti-trust investigations on tech companies.

Uber being sued for anti-competitive practices.

President Trump has said his administration is seriously looking into monopolistic behavior of Facebook, Google and Amazon.

Those are just a few of many.  The days of uninterrupted, carte blanche for Tech are a thing of the past, and thus a major regime change is happening.  The only question is: is it all priced or not?  The technicals indicate not.  

FANG index formed classic head and shoulder top.  The neckline is broken and the formation targets ~1500 which is still 30% lower form here…

Instinct: margin compression from higher yields/wages, global government scrutiny, and retail investor unwind will lead to a much deeper correction.

Costanza: funds have already purged these names, sentiment is at extreme lows, valuations more reasonable, and Tech is still the wave of the future.

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 25%.  The days of tech rising unadulterated are over.  I think we can say that conservatively.  In my opinion, the government’s involvement in their business puts a top in tech for quite some time, at least in regards to tech names that have thrived on the collection of consumer data and/or don’t pay enough tax/postage.  If the chart above is proven right, that 30% hole will be tough to climb out of by year-end 2019.  I would rather buy THAT dip than this current dip.  Costanza is a braver man than I.

This also means broad US equity indices will struggle, albeit S&Ps not as much due to the “safe haven” names embedded within that index.  However, since 2001 with similar extreme levels of being oversold, the market has been higher 100% of the time 1-year later, with an average return of 23%.  So Costanza has hope given the magnitude of the selloff and poor sentiment; I just find it unlikely he will be happy in the first half of the year with his FAANG long.  

2) Receive credit protection in IG and HY (aka long LQD andHYG)

A similar call to the above long equities, since correlations run high with credit.  However, there are other issues with credit besides general risk sentiment, namely the massive amount of outstanding corporate debt, the large percentage of that debt that will need to be rolled, and the potential for credit downgrades should the economy enter a recession (which is what the front end rates market is pricing).

The amount of non-financial corporate debt-to-GDP has never been higher…

The US corporate refi tsunami is upon us…

This “maturity wall” which spikes next year and will likely need to be rolled comes at the inopportune time of the collapse in crude oil prices.  The energy sector is a big user of the US credit market.  Thus the risk for 2019 is the US credit market seizes up in the face of the refi wave into a recession.  A toxic combination and we can add in the fact that the European credit market will have less support going forward with the ECB stepping back next year.  

ITRAXX Xover Total Return Index is rolling over…

Instinct: the US economy is saturated with corporate debt and it is time to pay the piper with the coming refi wave.  Everything gets exasperated if the US economy slips into a recession which will lead to higher default rates.    

Costanza: the worst is priced in, GE credit widening is a one off non-systemic issue, and the economy will regain traction especially if Trade Wars are settled in 2019

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 35%.  I will assign this a little higher probability of working than tech longs.  I am definitely concerned about the “maturity wall” and the trajectory of the US economy in 2019.  For IG to widen out from here, you have to really believe the economy is falling off a cliff in such a way that defaults will finally rise, which then leads to even higher spreads and more defaults.  It is not unrealistic, thus why I believe it is more likely that credit tightening won’t work.   The one major point the credit market has going for it is the technical chart, which says that most of the move is played out.  As opposed to tech charts, IG has reached its spread widener target.  Thus Costanza could argue during his “airing of grievances” that all the bad news is priced.

IG CDX reached the 94bps target on its inverse head and shoulder pattern…

3) Long Eurodollar spreads (EDZ9/EDZ0)

What a difference a year makes.  Last year at this time, I was pounding the table on the coming resurgence of inflation and how the market was underpricing Fed hiking risk.  That successfully played out, but now post-stock market carnage, oil collapse, and peak economic data; Eurodollar spreads are pricing in a recession and rate cuts!  Oh my. So this again continues the theme we have seen in the first two Costanza trades, revealing a market that is very worried about the trajectory of risk assets and the US economy as a whole. When you look at Fed Fund futures pricing for 2019 (using FFF9/FFF0 spread as my guide), you have 1bps of cuts priced into futures, versus an FOMC dot plot that is projecting 50bps of hikes (past ’19 you will discover even more rate cuts are priced in).  So there is quite a gap that will need to be reconciled.  Will the equity market collapse help to slow an already fizzling economy or is there a possibility the economy recovers (China deal?) and the Fed continues on its course to normalize policy?  

Using Prism’s PAM charting tool, we can see the constant maturity equivalent of EDH9/EDH0 has only gone negative 2x in the past 15 years.  In 2006, it continued to flatten hard, but in 2011 it was a false breakdown and recovered higher...

Costanza’s “feat of strength” is taking the other side of the conventional wisdom that the housing, auto, and coming PMI slowdown due to the oil collapse either won’t alter Powell’s mission or will prove to be a head fake like in 2011.  The slowdown in the data this year was likely caused by a front loading of activity pre-tariffs/trade wars (i.e. buy everything Q2 and then sit tight the rest of the year), so there is a chance that the higher economic trend reemerges, especially if the trade talks with China go well early next year (something Trump warned about this weekend).  Costanza could be laughing at the thought he was able to buy ED spreads negative.  

Instinct: the US economy has peaked, the fiscal impulse dissipates early next year, QT increases, and regional surveys are already showing a coming slowdown.  This will lead to a Fed pause now and possible cuts by end of 2019.

Costanza: Powell is still indicating rate hikes and the economy is projected to grow 2.2% with CPI remaining around the 2% target.  The kicker will come if Trump, feeling pressured by lower equity markets, makes a trade deal with China.  The market will be caught wrong footed as the Fed continues to tighten as activity picks up again.    

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 55%.  Will give a slightly higher nod towards Costanza being right.  Remember, he doesn’t need hikes to win, just no cuts which is a plausible scenario if Trump delivers a market friendly trade deal with China.

4) Long Bunds

There is no possible way Bund yields could go any lower in the face of the ECB ending its asset purchase program, right??  Costanza is saying “easy big fella” (side note: can you name that episode?).  There are plenty of indicators that the Eurozone is careening towards major economic issues.  I want to give a nod to Danielle DiMartino Booth, who is doing excellent, non-consensus economic research over at Quill Intelligence. She points out that the chemicals sector is “arguably the most hyper-cyclical leading indicator,” and using BASF stock as her guide, suggests the Eurozone economy is “poised to hit the skids.”  In fact, she declares Germany to be the “most underpriced recession risk in 2019.”

Interestingly, if you graph BASF stock in Germany (black line) versus Bund yields lagged 100 days (orange line), it would suggest potential financial crisis in the Eurozone which will lead to Bund yields going negative again...

Instinct: ECB, while still reinvesting, ended its APP, Draghi will want to get one hike off before his reign ends towards the end of 2019, the ECB desperately needs to get out of negative rates, Draghi will likely be replaced by someone more hawkish or at least less dovish, and fiscal stimulus to counter the populist movement will all lead to higher rates.    

Costanza: growth has already fallen off sharply, forward indicators suggest potential economic crisis, the ECB is already noting risks shifting to the downside, and there are major political hurdles next year with EU elections

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 60%. If there was ever a Costanza trade it is this one.  I am not sure there are many Bund bulls out there at 24bps so this is ripe for Costanza to be right.  The chart is saying he will nail this one.

German 10yr yields have formed a head and shoulder pattern that targets -40bps if the 15bps neckline gets taken out to the downside…

Quick side note…

Idea #3 (long Eurodollar steepeners) and #4 (long Bunds) are basically implying that the US/German yield spread will widen once again in 2019 (assuming the ED steepeners are akin to higher US rates which has been the correlation).  I would surely say that even combined, that idea is a Costanza trade.  Most expect a narrowing of the US/German 10yr spread going forward.   Since I hit on the Bund side of the US/German 10yr spread, what could drive US rates unexpectedly higher in 2019 and thus help to widen the US/GE spread?

Increasing deficits leading to increasing supply  

That increasing supply has already led to sloppy UST auctions

At a time the rate of change on foreign demand of UST has moved lower

With wages still remaining firm

All equal the need for higher term premium in the US

Now back to the list….

5) Short Gold

This has been an interesting correlation shift.  For most of the year, Gold has been a pure Dollar play (especially vs CNH), but more recently Gold has picked up risk aversion, namely HY credit according to the Quant Insight macro PCA model.

Gold correlation to DXY (blue) and USD/CNH (green) has gone from negative to zero…

Now Gold is most correlated to VIX and HY credit…

Therefore, Costanza shorting Gold is another bet that risk assets will stabilize and the Gold bulls will be told “NO SOUP FOR YOU!”    

Instinct: risk assets continue to trade poorly and Gold offers portfolio protection for the apocalypse.  

Costanza: gold is losing its luster as a safe haven asset and, if the markets turn 2008-style ugly, it will get liquidated as well.    

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 51%. No strong conviction here but Costanza is right more than wrong so a slight edge to risk assets stabilizing and Gold returning to its Dollar correlation.

6) Long WTI

One of the most epic selloffs I have seen with a high-to-low collapse of 45% in just two months.  The market narrative is now back to “elevated US production,” and more importantly, the Saudis, post-Khashoggi murder, have increased supply to push prices down for President Trump.

Costanza would be quick to point out that spare capacity is low and the oil market suffers from chronic underinvestment.  That underinvestment only gets amplified with oil prices sub-$50, and we are already seeing Permian producers cut back on capex plans.  Additionally, the widening in credit markets only makes it harder to obtain capital for capex.  So you have the double whammy of lower prices and wider credit spreads, which will feed into the underinvestment theme.  The days of capital inflows are back to 2008 levels.

By most analyst forecasts, even just a flat line of current production will cause a deficit in the supply/demand imbalance in 2019. We don’t need to be oil experts to know that when oil prices fall as precipitously as they did; rig counts fall and production declines.  Now sprinkle in capex intentions being cut, along with credit issues, and that is Costanza’s recipe for higher oil prices.  And, oh yeah, let’s not forget about the coming IMO 2020 regulations (sulfur emission reduction in cargo ships which will require heavy crude to be drawn from supplies to comply).

Instinct: US is oversupplying the market with its light crude, and the Saudis are more than making up for Iran sanctions to appease President Trump in light of the Khashoggi killing.

Costanza: low spare capacity will eventually catch up to the Saudis, and lower prices, lower capex, and a credit crunch will cause US production to flat line at a time when it needs to be increased (plus, the light API grade the US produces is not sought after).

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 70%.  I think much of the oil decline was technical fund liquidations (most likely large Risk Parity types that were long WTI as their inflation hedge), and all the forward looking supply issues not only remain, but are amplified with lower prices and wider credit.  Costanza is usually right and I think this one is a layup.  Oil prices will be higher than $45 come this time next year.

Use WTI time spreads as your signal when to get long.  As we saw in the fall, time spreads (candles) led spot prices (green line) by about a week.  Thus, if time spreads can break the downtrend, that will be your “tell” to get long WTI like Costanza…

7) Long Aussie$

A slowing Chinese economy and therefore slowing commodity demand, trade wars, and a decelerating domestic housing market have all led to a steady decline in the Oz in 2018.

Will keep this one short and sweet, as it is really the same idea as the other long risk asset trades. The AUD will really benefit from anything positive around the China/Trade War negotiations.  Some sort of deal and the Aussie$ will scream higher.  It’s that simple.

There is one micro issue Costanza should be concerned about and that is the Interest Only (IO) refi wave which will convert those IO mortgages into principle + interest loans.  The reset wave started in 2018 and will increase in intensity in 2019.  This will cause the average borrower to pay about $7,000 more per year in additional payments.  That is a major hit to the housing market via delinquencies, and may be a crushing blow to consumers’ discretionary spending.

The one saving grace for Australia has been the RBA remaining on hold for (jokingly) 37,000 consecutive meetings.  As the below chart shows, at this level of housing collapse, the RBA tends to cut.

Instinct: Australia has felt the effects of the China slowdown and trade wars, along with its own domestic issues.  The currency will need to continue to depreciate to offset that pain.    

Costanza: the equity market weakness will force Trump to play ball with the Chinese which will reverse the AUD higher. Additionally, the new economic weakness in the US and a Fed that could move to cut rates should weaken the USD.

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 55%. Basically a better long than FANGs and credit, as being long AUD$ could also benefit if the Fed moves to an outright easing bias (which will depreciate the USD vs. the AUD).  Apparently, long USD is now the most crowded trade in the market (according to a BAML survey).   A housing crisis in Australia will be the major headwind for the Costanza long.

8) Short EM

This would be Costanza’s hedge against all the long risk asset bets above.  So why is being short EM anti-consensus at a time risk assets are getting rinsed and everyone has turned bearish?  Through conversations with street analysts and clients, there is, for whatever reason, an insatiable demand to buy the EM dip.  After all, EM has been selling off since January so it should be the first to bounce, right? That thought is “making George angry” and why he is going to take the other side of that.

In a world where the China Manufacturing PMI just went into a contraction, European data is falling off a cliff, and US regional surveys are all pointing to a coming slowdown; is EM growth going to be booming and the place to allocate risk?  I understand that it is a short dollar play, but 2019 could be marked by a major global growth slowdown and balance sheet recessions.  That is not the ideal environment for EM.

The technicals say the selloff is not yet complete, as a bearish head and shoulder pattern has formed targeting an additional 6% lower…

Instinct: EM has already taken its pain, Trump/China deal likely in 2019.

Costanza: global growth slowdown will hurt EM the most, especially if USD funding issues reemerge.  EM has never been a safe haven during growth scares and recessions.  

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 55%.  All signs point to a poor global growth trajectory in 2019.

9)  Long Bitcoin

That potential bottom has formed a bullish inverse head and shoulder pattern that sets up for a retest of the 1-year downtrend…

The selloff in bitcoin in 2018 was an once-in-a-lifetime move.  From the highs just after New Year’s, Bitcoin spiraled 85% lower to take over as the largest historic bust since the Tulip crisis.  The crypto naysayers had a field day this year.

Costanza would hypothesize that if you believe the US Dollar is losing its hegemony, the US government debt issue is ballooning to unsustainable levels, Europe is in the midst of a populist meltdown, and China is on the verge of a hard landing; why aren’t crypto currencies like Bitcoin as viable a store of value as a yellow rock?

Interestingly, Bitcoin has started to potentially bottom during the December equity meltdown, lending some credence to the theory that investors are becoming concerned with the global environment and searching for new stores of wealth.

That potential bottom has formed a bullish inverse head and shoulder pattern that sets up for a retest of the 1-year downtrend….

Instinct: crypto currencies have no use and are on their way to near worthlessness.  

Costanza: Bitcoin is starting to rediscover its use as an alternative to traditional stores of value.

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 50%.  No clue and no edge here.  However, it is hitting support levels, it has a bullish formation, and there is extreme bearish sentiment which all reek of a Costanza trade.

Bonus: Long Donald Trump

I cautiously put this in here hoping to avoid all political conversations and opinions, but I think this is an interesting nonmarket, yet market relevant idea.

I don’t think many expect much from POTUS next year, given the House swung to the Democrats and many folks (mostly on the liberal side, to be fair) believe there is looming tail risk that Mueller has enough evidence of some sort of wrongdoing that Trump’s presidency could be in jeopardy.

One could argue whether less Trump or no Trump is good or bad for risk assets.  On the one hand, the more stable Pence could be welcomed by markets, and perhaps if Trump goes, trade war issues dissipate.  On the other, the market rallied on his election victory in 2016, his policies are mostly reflationary, and China has become a legitimate nonpartisan issue.  Therefore, even if Trump is ousted, trade wars likely continue unabated.

The surprise, non-consensus idea would be that Trump crosses the aisle to enact Infrastructure.  Couple that with an earlier than expected China deal, and that is how Costanza will be paid out on a lot of his risk-on calls.  Perhaps the market is underestimating Trump, and he ends up delivering a great deal vs. expectations of a lame duck presidency.

Summary:

As opposed to last year, this year’s Costanza trades (non-consensus calls) have a simple theme.  Costanza is looking for a bounce in risk assets.  What are the realistic paths to get there versus a market that expects more pain?  At least one or more of these have to happen…

Cessation of tariffs/trade wars, which leads to a bounce in Chinese growth and a resumption of the positive growth momentum in the US

A Fed that ends the rate hike cycle and Balance Sheet reduction **coupled with growth remaining ok** (if growth softens further, equities could actually still sell off)

Rebound in the energy complex

US Infrastructure + EU fiscal stimulus + Chinese stimulus (all being discussed currently)

What are the glaring issues that will prove Costanza wrong for the first time in the history of this piece?  To name a few…

US Fiscal Impulse dies out in early ’19 + global QT picks up in intensity

Government intervention in Silicon Valley

Passive unwind into a resumption of the explicit and implicit short vol unwind

The potential for a corporate credit blowup in the US and Europe

Housing busts in Australia, Canada, the US, and Asia  

There is a lot of be worried about in 2019, and I believe we are only in the beginning stages of a risk asset purge.  Costanza is much less worried.

I want to wish everyone a Happy New Year!  I look forward to speaking with everyone again soon and telling you more about Prism’s exciting business model.

[drink-n-watch]

***Editing Irina here – it’s April 5th and it’s definitely snowing here. In your face BoogiePop!***

Well, Boogiepop has come and gone. Although this was yet another anti-climatic ending, it was at least a comprehensible one… Way to set that bar just a millimeter off the ground. Shania is hosting our last episode review, so look forward to that! In the meantime, I’ve compiled some general thoughts on the series.

so grab a drink ad let’s get started!

I have a complicated relationship with BoogiePop phantom that doesn’t laugh and others.

The original anime was one of the first I had ever seen and it captivated me. In the end I thought it failed to wrap things up satisfyingly even then, but I still have a soft spot for it. It was weird and messy and seemed to be desperately trying to say something that it didn’t quite have the words for. It was ripe for interpretation. My little brain thought that maybe this was the unique brand of entertainment I had been looking for.

I wanted to like it and I wanted it to be more. In retrospect, I’m pretty sure that what I actually wanted it to be was Serial Experiments Lain, but I didn’t know that at the time. It was weird and had some interesting character designs and a great premise.

Years later I would come across the novels. I enjoyed them in that specific way you enjoy videos that try to explain Prometheus in detail. I don’t remember if they were good, well written, interesting books. However they provided desperately needed context and background to the Boogiepop lore and I ate it up.

my thoughts exactly!

It’s just so great when you realize all those weird details weren’t just random bits of flair but integral elements of the storyline. Too bad everything is executed in such a way that the average viewer could never have caught on.

Fast forward to the present and we have yet another Boogiepop. As usual, I am psyched!

I have no clue if anyone still remembers the first series or even if it was at all popular at the time. But I cannot wait for another cryptic round of Boogiepop. Especially seeing that this time, I’ve got an entire community to discuss it with. Nothing makes a frustratingly ambiguous narrative better, than friends to help you figure out (or invent) exactly what is going on!

This is the mindset I started the show with. Aside from Steins;Gate 0, this may have been the series I was looking forward to most in recent memory. What can I say, I love weird.

it looked awesome

I’m not sure when my enthusiasm soured. It was pretty early on though. I liked the convoluted timeline and wrap around plot threads. I enjoyed the defined arc structure. The updated designs and animation are in fact very pretty. Technically speaking BoogiePop never laughs with others. Is a well made anime.

Stylistically, it tries hard. Maybe a little too hard. The dialogue is at times truncated and seems purposefully confusing, like an experimental play. Voice actor performances are all very deliberate and clearly carefully directed. The series was entirely crafted to keep the audience off balance and guessing but something went wrong.

Please note that I generally enjoy weird, hard to follow and slow paced narratives. I m fine with open ended plotlines. I will even have fun with series that are simply weird for weird’s sake. My issues here are not with the lack of clarity. In the end, the stories were in fact fairly simple band easy to follow. It’s more that they seemed a little.. pointless.

hmmm I’m starting to suspect it’s more about style…

A lot of shows which bank on coming across as mysterious will keep the characters underdeveloped. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact we can argue about what makes a character underdeveloped at length. The fact is that you can keep a person’s background, motivations and goals completely obscure while still defining their personality. In Boogiepop and others, everyone aside from Boogiepop themself and Nagi, came across like a cardboard cutout. I couldn’t related or empathize with them, which meant that I ultimately never cared much about what happened to them.

Moreover, the villains were also never a properly viable threat since their actions seemed simply plot dictated most of the time. It’s difficult to be anxious for what’s going to happen next if it’s random, you know.

Ironically, the very interesting non linear structure of the plot is partly to blame here. I could forgive flat characters if the events of the story are interesting enough to keep me invested. Because of the time jumps though, you get disconnected from what’s happening. Your suspension of disbelief is shattered and you need a tangible real feeling narrator or point of view character to regain that connection. This is what was missing here.

that would also help!

The slightly better presented supernatural characters are made insistently alien and are used too sparingly to be our audience surrogates, while the everyman characters are so dull as to be difficult to tell apart. In the end I was left with no one to cling to and a plot that just seemed gimmicky as soon as you figure out how to unravel it.

By Jeeves guys, I think I figured it out while trying to explain it. It wouldn’t have solved everything, and most people would probably still have issues with BoogiePop, but for me, a slightly relatable and consistent audience surrogate would have gone a long way to making this one more enjoyable. What are you thoughts on this season of Boogiepop?

If you just can’t get enough of my thoughts on BoogiePop, you can read the episode reviews HERE!

I’m going to throw in a few extra screencaps below but you can see all of them HERE.

Boogiepop Doesn’t Laugh and Neither did I ***Editing Irina here - it's April 5th and it's definitely snowing here. In your face BoogiePop!***