Connect with us

Book excerpt: What makes a great startup idea? Lessons from a veteran entrepreneur

Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt from a new book written by Shirish Nadkarni, a Seattle tech veteran who co-founded Livemocha (acquired by RosettaStone) and TeamOn (acquired by BlackBerry). You think you have come up with a brilliant idea…

Published

on

Shirish Nadkarni.

Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt from a new book written by Shirish Nadkarni, a Seattle tech veteran who co-founded Livemocha (acquired by RosettaStone) and TeamOn (acquired by BlackBerry).

You think you have come up with a brilliant idea for your startup. You have spoken to your friends and colleagues, and they think that the idea has merit. You have even done the preliminary market research and spoken to many potential customers, and feedback has been positive.

But how do you really know that it will form the basis for a great company? Figuring this out is no easy task. After all, VCs are paid millions of dollars in management fees, and even then, for the most successful investors, only one out of ten picks is a major hit.

To consider whether a startup idea has the potential to become a hit, it is important to consider the idea from a number of different strategic perspectives discussed below.

Incumbents are hard to beat on their own turf

Most markets you will target have existing players and market leaders that have been around for years. Incumbents are extremely hard to beat unless there is a major transformation in the industry that you can exploit first. Incumbents typically have a strong industry reputation, a host of features, a fine-tuned sales engine, and customer lock-ins that make it difficult for customers to consider a new player in the market.

Everyone today is familiar with the success of Microsoft Office. What people don’t know is how difficult it was for Microsoft to gain a leadership position in the office productivity space before Windows became a popular platform.

Before the advent of Windows, WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were the de facto market leaders on the MS-DOS operating system. Microsoft had its own MS-DOS-based offerings called Microsoft Word and Microsoft Multiplan. However, Microsoft had very little success beating WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. Users were just too used to the keystroke-based user interfaces of WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 and were locked into the macros that they created in Lotus 1-2-3.

Once Windows 3.0 came on the scene in 1990 and started becoming popular, things shifted in Microsoft’s favor.

WordPerfect and Lotus made the mistake of simply porting their applications from MS-DOS to Windows, which meant that the applications didn’t perform well on Windows. Not surprisingly, Microsoft built new word processing and spreadsheet apps from the ground up that were designed to take advantage of the capabilities offered by Windows. Next, Microsoft made the brilliant move to package these applications along with Microsoft PowerPoint into a bundle called Microsoft Office and made it cheaper than purchasing each application individually.

Over time, Microsoft made sure that all the applications had consistent user interfaces and that it was easy to share data across these applications. It was no surprise that, as Windows became more popular, the market share leadership shifted to Microsoft Office as users wanted the best and most comprehensive suite of applications for Windows.

Global industry transformations

The best opportunities for disruption happen when the industry you are targeting is undergoing a dramatic transformation. At that time, incumbents are typically slow to move because they have existing investments and business models that they are unwilling to disrupt.

Microsoft, for example, failed to recognize how its hold on the PC industry would be disrupted first by the internet and later by mobile devices. It took a very expensive acquisition of Hotmail for Microsoft to get into the game with MSN.com, and it was soon eclipsed again by major players like Google and Facebook.

On the mobile front, Microsoft invested initially in its Pocket PC platform but failed to see the shift to mobile by early players like Research In Motion (RIM) with its iconic BlackBerry device. Later, Apple and Android completely upended the mobile market with their touch-based interfaces and application platforms. By the time that Windows mobile came on the scene, it was too late for Microsoft, and it never got beyond a 1 to 2% market share in the mobile market.

With TeamOn, my plan was to ride the wave of SaaS applications with the shift from IT-installed on-prem (on premises) solutions to applications that operated in the cloud. In the 2000 timeframe, when broadband internet was becoming more widespread among business users, SaaS-based applications provided performance similar to that of locally installed client-server applications. SaaS-based applications offered numerous benefits over on-prem applications — companies didn’t have to hire an expensive IT staff to install and upgrade the applications and back-up user data. It was also possible to access applications from any location with internet access — users were not limited to accessing an application only from within a corporate network.

Livemocha’s homepage in 2013.

When Livemocha was launched, the entire world was going through a globalization phenomenon with dramatic outsourcing of manufacturing and knowledge worker jobs. Global trade was also showing significant growth as tariffs and trade barriers were coming down. Worldwide travel between various regions was increasing significantly as employees at multinational corporations had to travel internationally to coordinate their activities with their employees, customers, and vendors. These transformations were all responsible for the significant interest in foreign language learning, especially English, throughout the world.

While the trend toward globalization was accelerating, a number of social networks began emerging and capturing end-user attention. Facebook and Twitter launched in the early 2000 timeframe, popularizing the notion of social networking. As a result, people started feeling more comfortable interacting with other like-minded people on the internet. A number of special community-focused social networks also emerged to leverage the trend toward social networking.

With Livemocha, we decided to disrupt the traditional CD- ROM-based learning model popularized by Rosetta Stone by offering a web-based social language-learning tool. Unlike Rosetta Stone, the offering was initially free. Later, we introduced a premium version that offered a more advanced set of learning courses with conversational video and grammar content.

It took a long time for Rosetta Stone to respond to Livemocha as it was wedded to the traditional CD-ROM model, which sold at a high price backed by expensive TV advertising. Because it was a public company, it was on the hook to meet quarterly goals and didn’t have the luxury of making a freemium offering like Livemocha.

COVID-19 impact

Looking ahead, the COVID-19 crisis is creating another global transformation in the way we work together, how commerce is conducted, and how experiences are delivered. In a matter of weeks, companies with white-collar office workers were forced to an all remote work situation. Use of virtual collaboration tools like Zoom accelerated dramatically and companies found that employees can be equally productive working from home. The use of workplace automation and collaboration tools like Slack, Microsoft Teams, Smartsheet, Asana, and others also increased significantly.

As a result, many companies like Twitter and Zillow indicated that they will let their workers work remotely on an indefinite basis. Given the prevalence of remote work, I fully expect that new collaboration tools will emerge that will allow employees to be more productive working from home.

As the COVID-19 crisis has dampened consumer demand, many companies have also experienced significant impact to their revenues. There is, therefore, significant pressure on companies to correspondingly reduce their expenses and make their workforces more efficient. As a result, there’s increased interest in digital transformation as a way for companies to create “Digital First” work from anywhere experiences with increased automation. Companies like UIPath, which provide tools for robotic process automation (RPA), have seen a dramatic increase in sales as RPA has become a key tool to reduce costs involved in repetitive office tasks.

Retail commerce is another area that is being disrupted because of the COVID-19 crisis. There has been a dramatic shift from physical retail sales to online e-commerce as shoppers are cautious about shopping at malls. Demand for delivery services like Instacart and DoorDash has also exploded.

These changes are going to create new opportunities for startups to deliver innovative products that satisfy the need for people to conduct commerce online as opposed to in person. A number of online-first consumer brands like Warby Parker, Allbirds, and Madison Reed have emerged in the last few years and have successfully captured consumers’ imagination. I expect that the category of online-only consumer brands will explode as people become more comfortable consummating their purchases online.

Technology platform shifts

Over the last three decades, we have seen new technology platforms emerge that have created tremendous opportunities for startups. We had the emergence of the PC platform in the 80s, followed by the internet platform in the 90s. Finally, mobile emerged as the broadest platform for computing in the early 2000s, enabling more than 4.5 billion users worldwide to gain access to the internet.

Each of these new technology platforms has allowed a whole new generation of companies to emerge and become massive players in the industry. Microsoft rode the PC platform wave, followed by Google and Amazon, which rode the internet wave, and, finally, Facebook and Apple rode the move to mobile.

A number of new companies emerged that disrupted existing market leaders that did not adapt fast enough to the emerging new platforms. Amazon disrupted Barnes & Noble before becoming a general purpose e-commerce platform. Netflix disrupted Blockbuster, and now it is disrupting traditional cable companies, which are losing subscribers by the millions as they cut the cord. In fact, neither of my adult kids has a cable TV subscription. Instead, they rely on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu to access made-for-TV content.

Over the last few years, we are seeing a significant opportunity for new startup creation with the emergence of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) technology. The advent of cheap GPU-based computing power and AI/ML services offered by all the major cloud providers like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform has enabled a whole new generation of AI/ML-based startups to emerge and disrupt existing players in their market. Startups need access to a large amount of labeled data to build machine learning models that make useful predictions for specific use cases. The most successful startups are the ones that have gained early access to proprietary data that they can utilize to fine-tune their models.

KenSci is a Seattle-based company that is leveraging AI/ML technology in the healthcare space. The company was started by Dr. Ankur Teredesai, a computer science professor at the University of Washington, and Samir Manjure, the company’s CEO. KenSci’s risk prediction platform for healthcare is engineered to ingest, transform, and integrate disparate sources of healthcare data, including EHR, claims, admin/finance, and streaming. KenSci uses machine learning to recognize patterns in large volumes of data, helping healthcare systems view the granular details of the patient’s history and predict future risks for optimal care. For example, KenSci makes risk of readmission and end of life predictions to help health- care providers avoid adverse changes in their patients’ health. (Editor’s note: KenSci announced its acquisition to Tegria this week)

Network effects

According to Wikipedia, “A network effect (also called network externality or demand-side economies of scale) is the effect described in economics and business that an additional user of a good or service has on the value of that product to others. When a network effect is present, the value of a product or service increases according to the number of others using it.”

We have seen many examples of how powerful network effects can be in creating unstoppable, winner-take-all juggernauts. eBay was an early example in the auctions market. Many later entrants like Yahoo failed to take on eBay because of the network effect it had established. Facebook and Airbnb are more recent examples where the value of the network has grown exponentially as more users joined their network.

In my case, with Livemocha, we saw our social networking capabilities create network effects that powered our growth to 15 million members in only a matter of a few years. As a result of our powerful network effects, we saw virtually no competitors that adopted our approach to language learning.

As you think through your idea, it will be useful to think about opportunities to create network effects as we did with Livemocha. Marketplaces and social networking apps are typically natural candidates for creating network effects. However, even enterprise apps have the potential for creating network effects.

Slack is a good example of a solution that has a network effect as more users get on to its platform within a large corporate environment. App Annie is another example of a solution that has created a network effect since it offers benchmarking features for app developers. As more apps utilize App Annie to track their usage, App Annie can provide more data on how an app compares with other apps in the same category.

Network effects are not insurmountable, as Facebook has seen. It was disrupted first by Instagram, which offered filters for photo sharing, and later by Snapchat, which offered the concept of ephemeral messaging to win the minds and hearts of teenagers. Fortunately, Facebook acquired Instagram as well as WhatsApp but failed in its effort to acquire Snapchat. Once you become an established player, you have to be on the lookout for young, hungry startups that are looking to disrupt you.

Virality

The term viral marketing was invented by Tim Draper, general partner at Draper Fisher Jurvetson, in the context of Hotmail. Tim introduced the idea by asking the Hotmail team to add a signature “Get your free email at Hotmail” to every email that a Hotmail user sent out. It was responsible for the dramatic growth of Hotmail following its launch in 1996. Hotmail’s rapid growth was one of the key reasons that Microsoft decided to acquire Hotmail in 1997.

Having a viral aspect to your application can dramatically reduce your overall cost of acquisition and drive rapid customer growth. It can be even more effective if your application is inherently viral. By “inherently viral,” I mean an application that causes its users to actively recruit other users.

Hotmail was not an inherently viral application. It got free advertising every time someone sent out an email from a Hotmail account. However, the recipient didn’t need to have Hotmail installed in order to receive email from a sender using Hotmail.

Skype, on the other hand, was an inherently viral application because both parties to a Skype call have to be on Skype to make the call. As a result, an initiator of a Skype call is likely to recruit the other party to use Skype.

However, virality can die off because of technology changes. Skype, for example, has been displaced by WhatsApp, which originally started as a text messaging app. Since introducing video calling features in 2016, WhatsApp has become the de facto audio/video calling app for consumers all over the world.

Enterprise applications can also have viral characteristics. Slack is a great example of a viral application. Its users are motivated to recruit other users so that everyone can communicate easily using Slack. As you think about your startup idea, make sure to think about whether you have an inherently viral application or if you can include viral elements in it. Introducing virality will make it much more possible for your idea to become successful and reduce your overall cost for customer acquisition.

Aspirins, not vitamins

Once you have evaluated your idea from a strategic perspective using the attributes discussed above, it is important to understand how big a pain point you are addressing. As most VCs would say, they are looking to fund aspirins, not vitamins. Ideally, you are addressing a pounding headache where customers are knocking down your door to gain access to your solution. In addition, make sure that your solution is materially better than existing solutions in the market.

Slack is a great example of an “aspirin” solution that addressed the big problem caused by email overload that was destroying productivity for employees, especially in large enterprises. An email inbox is a serial list of communications of all kinds that a person has to wade through to find and act on email messages that are directly relevant to their work.

Unlike email, which is a one-to-many communication channel, Slack has a team-oriented communication architecture. With Slack, you can set up channels for specific projects. Communication and updates relevant to these projects can be routed into specific channels that team members can browse at their convenience. This can significantly reduce the communication that would normally go over email, thus allowing the use of email for more direct one-to-one communication.

Slack also makes it easy to have real-time conversations with any teammate. With direct messaging, it’s easy to grab someone’s attention when you need a quick response. Slack has made it very simple for corporations large and small to adopt its solution by making it free to get started. Slack was a dramatic improvement over email, which contributed to its rapid growth into a multibillion-dollar company.

In the consumer space, Livemocha was successful because it addressed the pressing need of people all around the world to learn English. In most developing countries, strong English-language proficiency can make a big difference in people’s livelihood, allowing them to gain access to better paying jobs. Language education in brick-and-mortar schools can be quite expensive in these countries, which created the demand for inexpensive language-learning tools over the internet. In addition, most English-language learners didn’t have access to native English speakers to develop English speaking proficiency.

Livemocha became very popular because language learners could connect with native English speakers and improve their English speaking skills. In addition, like Slack, Livemocha was free to get started, and consumers had to pay only to gain access to video and grammar content and certified tutors on its platform.

Taken from From Startup to Exit by Shirish Nadkarni. Copyright © 2021 by Shirish Nadkarni. Used by permission of HarperCollins Leadership.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

The Coming Of The Police State In America

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now…

Published

on

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now patrolling the New York City subway system in an attempt to do something about the explosion of crime. As part of this, there are bag checks and new surveillance of all passengers. No legislation, no debate, just an edict from the mayor.

Many citizens who rely on this system for transportation might welcome this. It’s a city of strict gun control, and no one knows for sure if they have the right to defend themselves. Merchants have been harassed and even arrested for trying to stop looting and pillaging in their own shops.

The message has been sent: Only the police can do this job. Whether they do it or not is another matter.

Things on the subway system have gotten crazy. If you know it well, you can manage to travel safely, but visitors to the city who take the wrong train at the wrong time are taking grave risks.

In actual fact, it’s guaranteed that this will only end in confiscating knives and other things that people carry in order to protect themselves while leaving the actual criminals even more free to prey on citizens.

The law-abiding will suffer and the criminals will grow more numerous. It will not end well.

When you step back from the details, what we have is the dawning of a genuine police state in the United States. It only starts in New York City. Where is the Guard going to be deployed next? Anywhere is possible.

If the crime is bad enough, citizens will welcome it. It must have been this way in most times and places that when the police state arrives, the people cheer.

We will all have our own stories of how this came to be. Some might begin with the passage of the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in 2001. Some will focus on gun control and the taking away of citizens’ rights to defend themselves.

My own version of events is closer in time. It began four years ago this month with lockdowns. That’s what shattered the capacity of civil society to function in the United States. Everything that has happened since follows like one domino tumbling after another.

It goes like this:

1) lockdown,

2) loss of moral compass and spreading of loneliness and nihilism,

3) rioting resulting from citizen frustration, 4) police absent because of ideological hectoring,

5) a rise in uncontrolled immigration/refugees,

6) an epidemic of ill health from substance abuse and otherwise,

7) businesses flee the city

8) cities fall into decay, and that results in

9) more surveillance and police state.

The 10th stage is the sacking of liberty and civilization itself.

It doesn’t fall out this way at every point in history, but this seems like a solid outline of what happened in this case. Four years is a very short period of time to see all of this unfold. But it is a fact that New York City was more-or-less civilized only four years ago. No one could have predicted that it would come to this so quickly.

But once the lockdowns happened, all bets were off. Here we had a policy that most directly trampled on all freedoms that we had taken for granted. Schools, businesses, and churches were slammed shut, with various levels of enforcement. The entire workforce was divided between essential and nonessential, and there was widespread confusion about who precisely was in charge of designating and enforcing this.

It felt like martial law at the time, as if all normal civilian law had been displaced by something else. That something had to do with public health, but there was clearly more going on, because suddenly our social media posts were censored and we were being asked to do things that made no sense, such as mask up for a virus that evaded mask protection and walk in only one direction in grocery aisles.

Vast amounts of the white-collar workforce stayed home—and their kids, too—until it became too much to bear. The city became a ghost town. Most U.S. cities were the same.

As the months of disaster rolled on, the captives were let out of their houses for the summer in order to protest racism but no other reason. As a way of excusing this, the same public health authorities said that racism was a virus as bad as COVID-19, so therefore it was permitted.

The protests had turned to riots in many cities, and the police were being defunded and discouraged to do anything about the problem. Citizens watched in horror as downtowns burned and drug-crazed freaks took over whole sections of cities. It was like every standard of decency had been zapped out of an entire swath of the population.

Meanwhile, large checks were arriving in people’s bank accounts, defying every normal economic expectation. How could people not be working and get their bank accounts more flush with cash than ever? There was a new law that didn’t even require that people pay rent. How weird was that? Even student loans didn’t need to be paid.

By the fall, recess from lockdown was over and everyone was told to go home again. But this time they had a job to do: They were supposed to vote. Not at the polling places, because going there would only spread germs, or so the media said. When the voting results finally came in, it was the absentee ballots that swung the election in favor of the opposition party that actually wanted more lockdowns and eventually pushed vaccine mandates on the whole population.

The new party in control took note of the large population movements out of cities and states that they controlled. This would have a large effect on voting patterns in the future. But they had a plan. They would open the borders to millions of people in the guise of caring for refugees. These new warm bodies would become voters in time and certainly count on the census when it came time to reapportion political power.

Meanwhile, the native population had begun to swim in ill health from substance abuse, widespread depression, and demoralization, plus vaccine injury. This increased dependency on the very institutions that had caused the problem in the first place: the medical/scientific establishment.

The rise of crime drove the small businesses out of the city. They had barely survived the lockdowns, but they certainly could not survive the crime epidemic. This undermined the tax base of the city and allowed the criminals to take further control.

The same cities became sanctuaries for the waves of migrants sacking the country, and partisan mayors actually used tax dollars to house these invaders in high-end hotels in the name of having compassion for the stranger. Citizens were pushed out to make way for rampaging migrant hordes, as incredible as this seems.

But with that, of course, crime rose ever further, inciting citizen anger and providing a pretext to bring in the police state in the form of the National Guard, now tasked with cracking down on crime in the transportation system.

What’s the next step? It’s probably already here: mass surveillance and censorship, plus ever-expanding police power. This will be accompanied by further population movements, as those with the means to do so flee the city and even the country and leave it for everyone else to suffer.

As I tell the story, all of this seems inevitable. It is not. It could have been stopped at any point. A wise and prudent political leadership could have admitted the error from the beginning and called on the country to rediscover freedom, decency, and the difference between right and wrong. But ego and pride stopped that from happening, and we are left with the consequences.

The government grows ever bigger and civil society ever less capable of managing itself in large urban centers. Disaster is unfolding in real time, mitigated only by a rising stock market and a financial system that has yet to fall apart completely.

Are we at the middle stages of total collapse, or at the point where the population and people in leadership positions wise up and decide to put an end to the downward slide? It’s hard to know. But this much we do know: There is a growing pocket of resistance out there that is fed up and refuses to sit by and watch this great country be sacked and taken over by everything it was set up to prevent.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending