Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Addendum to Whiskey's Law

In Why The West Collapsed: Case Study Sweden, I proposed "Whiskey's Law" which states that the degree of Multiculturalism and PC in a society is directly related to the amount of equality between men and women, and particularly between men and women of the elites. That the greater the equality between the sexes, all other things being equal, the more loathing of the civilization, culture, heritage, race, religion, and so on will occur in the society. And the greater emphasis on Multiculturalism, PC, and in particular an attempt to import non-Western peoples. A society that has social superiority between (particularly younger) women and their male peers will therefore all other things being equal, will be plagued by PC and Multiculturalism. Naturally, as with all social science theories, this remains merely a theory, and subject to constant revision. In my view, however, any attempt to explain the collapse of the West into PC garbage, must fit the facts, and explain the variance, why some societies are more PC than others.

In the same way that Black society is worth studying, because Blacks collapsed much faster into illegitimacy than Hispanics, Whites, and Asians, so too are places like Sweden, or the United Kingdom. Any remedy that seeks to reverse say, illegitimacy will find far greater effectiveness if it can first understand why the Black nuclear family so rapidly ceased to exist, and why Asians have the lowest rate of illegitimacy among racial groups in the US. Whiskey's Law is only a theory, one I offer for testing and revision, to understand why PC and Multiculturalism is so strong in some places and not in others, and how to remedy the situation.

There are of course limits. Switzerland may have a greater social distance between men and women (women only got the vote over all Cantons in 1971), or it may be that direct democracy simply limits elites. It is however quite odd that elites in the West conspire in the "hi-lo" team-up as Steve Sailer noted, with the low part of the team-up being foreigners. A commenter from India noted that the elites in India have basically brushed off the middle class, noting they have hundreds of millions of votes from poor people, and thus don't have to listen to middle class concerns. But India did not see the need to import impoverished foreigners against their own people, nor has similar "hi-lo" team-ups in places like say, Thailand, or Portugal or Ireland or Hungary resulted in mass immigration, even when in some cases the amount of poor people is relatively low compared to the middle class. It seems odd that elites in the West would seek to import aliens in every way to their nations, given the overt threat to replacing them, which they themselves recognize. The famous quote in Sweden by a high ranking Socialist party member that when Muslims become the majority they will treat Swedes well. Who really believes that?

Other nations that have low amounts of PC and Multiculturalism may be reflecting direct democracy and limits on elites, rather than higher amounts of inequality socially between men and women. But it does seem quite odd that elites in places like Sweden loathe themselves and their nation, while in say, Japan the elites love Japan and all aspects of being Japanese. As do say, Italians and being Italian, even or especially among the elites. Italian elites as far as I know, don't go around disparaging Verdi or Da Vinci and saying they were nothing but trash for being "Dead White Men." Nevertheless the usefulness or not of "Whiskey's Law" remains in its power to describe and PREDICT what societies will be riven by self-hatred and thus PC and Multiculturalism, and which societies will be relatively free of it.

I must also point out that what (under Whiskey's Law) Western Women are seeking, and particularly Elite Western Women, is not a Hitlerian "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche" society, (children, kitchen, church) but one in which men are sexier. If most men are equal, socially, they need to be sexier in other areas. When men do things women say they want, like share household chores, change diapers, cook dinners, do the dishes, etc. they must be far sexier. If today's women's grandmothers were satisfied with men who were faithful, loyal, loving and dependable, and their mothers with men who were faithful, loyal, loving, dependable, and charming and intelligent, today's women demand men who are faithful, loyal, loving, dependable, charming, intelligent, and most of all SEXY!. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo Di Caprio can afford to change diapers, or take care of kids, or be a "Kitchen Bitch" if they want to -- they're big time hot celebrity men who most of the female population wants to have sex with, they can afford it. Today's men, cannot, without an extra effort to become far sexier than they already are.

This accounts in my view, for the failure of the nuclear family in the West, seen first among Black people. Most men cannot be George Clooney, by definition. And being a sexy dominant A-hole who is also charming, in other words "Game" as defined by the various pickup artists, such as "Mystery," or Neil Strauss (aka "Style") or Roissy, is akin to becoming an accomplished martial artist. It takes massive dedication, constant practice, extended training, and astonishing amounts of discipline. Time that competes with all other demands.

Women when made equal to most men, don't want a return to social inequality at lower, previous levels. They do not want a return to being "barefoot and pregnant" in the kitchen. Indeed if you look at the movie "Bridesmaids" which plays on female fears of status and romance, the lead character is insecure because she's unemployed, suddenly, loses her boyfriend, and looks like nothing compared to a successful friend. Women want to keep their careers which mark them successful, competent, and important, outside romantic relationships. Women know, that they will not always be pretty (the error many women consistently make is overestimating their time that they will be pretty). They do not want, despite the popularity of Mad Men, and other projects mining that territory (correction, "Pan Am" is being shown on ABC, not NBC, "Playboy Club" is on NBC), to return to the days of female social inequality. Women in the West merely want sexier men. Sexy being defined as dominant, cocky, arrogant, amusing, always having the right words to say, and being desired by all other women around them.

The ability of men in the West to become what women want, that level of sexiness, is probably quite limited. A few pick up artists and their followers, if they practice diligently, can become that kind of man. Which women find quite satisfying. Probably more common will be the "Situation" type approach, the muscle-guido combination which is found in the site Hot Chicks With Douchebags. It probably does not matter which approach is taken, the recovery of the West hinges on women finding Western men sexy and therefore worthy of defense and admiration. If most men become like the Situation, well it does not matter in the short term, because then PC and Multiculturalism would die down. Most Western Women finding their men quite sexy, because now even if they were roughly equal in pay, status in the company, and so on, working alongside them in a cubicle next door, many women would want them. Therefore, they are by definition desirable. And thus, worthy of defense.

PC and Multiculturalism, therefore, as defined as part of "Whiskey's Law" is merely the overt disgust of most Western women particularly those in the elites with the non-sexy nature of the men who are mostly equal to them. If not outright inferior in social stature, a dweeby guy being inferior to a hot chick, even if the dweeby guy is a relatively high earning accountant and the hot chick works at a Starbucks. The way then to kill PC and Multiculturalism, if "Whiskey's Law" is at all an accurate model for explaining those phenomena, is to make most men far sexier. Thus erasing the reason for PC/Multiculturalism among (particularly) elite women.

Can the West be saved? I think yes, but it will not be saved by acts of bravery, it is sad that no one remembers or cares about 9/11 and the heroic sacrifices of the firemen and police that day, or the passengers who fought back on Flight 93. Women particularly in the elite do not lust after them. Instead of Special Ops fighters, firemen, cops, and ordinary men thrust into heroism, women lusted after sparkly gay vampires (Twilight) or more brutal kinds (Tru Blood). Justin Bieber and Robert Pattinson are objects of lust. Not firemen and cops.

Rather, the West will be saved by men like the Situation, or Roissy, or those who follow either path. To become sexy. Like it or not, the fundamentals of human nature still apply. Women will defend men they find desirable and sexy, no matter what they do. Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Bill Clinton, all behaved criminally or poorly, but women defend them because they are the big-shot big man dominant A-hole that most crave. [Not all women crave the A-hole, but enough do to make that behavior the dominant preference in women in the West.] No amount in justifiable pride in the considerable achievements of the West, which in total add up to far higher than any other civilization, will save the West. Women don't care about that any more than they find the ability of male nerds to create amazing technology sexy. Rather it is the social dominance by being attractive to the broadest range of women that has the only possibility of saving the West. One Pickup Artist or Douchebag at a time.


Anonymous said...

"The way then to kill PC and Multiculturalism, if "Whiskey's Law" is at all an accurate model for explaining those phenomena, is to make most men far sexier. Thus erasing the reason for PC/Multiculturalism among (particularly) elite women."


The way to kill PC and multiculturalism is to make there be consequences for bad behavior. The consequence being hunger and reliance on charity for survival. As it is, if a woman goes out and gets preggers by an alpha douchebag and he runs off, all she has to do is march down to the welfare office and get on the dole.

What allows the woman to go down and get on the dole and thus avoid consequences for her actions? Simple - THE IDEA THAT IT IS OK TO TAKE FROM ONE PERSON AND GIVE TO ANOTHER. If you eliminate the theft, the welfare system goes away and thus the lusting after alphas. Betas like you will get more poon because you are largely stable and dependable although boring and not sexy.

Anonymous said...

The only reason women idealize the kind of douchey alpha you talk about is because there are no consequences for idealizing them. If there were real consequences for idealizing unstable, undependable and immature men, women would stop lusting after them. End forced slavery to the state and you end the idealization of douchebags.

z said...

"Women particularly in the elite do not lust after them. Instead of Special Ops fighters, firemen, cops, and ordinary men thrust into heroism, women lusted after sparkly gay vampires (Twilight) or more brutal kinds (Tru Blood). Justin Bieber and Robert Pattinson are objects of lust. Not firemen and cops."

Women of the elite also developed a pretty hardcore lust for Muslims.

Jules said...

Women want to keep their careers which mark them successful, competent, and important, outside romantic relationships.
Too bad the most unhappy creature on the planet is a 45 year old unmarried professional woman.
Z, if you read Michael Oren's Power, Faith and Fantasy you will note that America has always been fascinated with the middle east. The second most popular book after the bible in 18th century America was the Arabian Nights. US marines were the first to adopt the Egyptian Mameluke sword as a ceremonial officer's weapon, soon copied by *ahem* certain nations. So that romantic ideal of Araby has always been present.

DaFarmer said...

Anonymous:"(Whiskey is)...boring and not sexy." HA!Theres a lot of ladies who might take issue with THAT!!!

Brendan said...

I agree with the premise, but I don't think most guys are going to be able to pull off either "cocky/funny" or "guido/musclehead" very well. I suspect that the overall level of "sexiness" among average guys is going to continue to decline, slightly, until it reaches some level of stasis which is around or maybe slightly below where we are today. The reason is that it is simply too difficult for most guys to pull either one off.

I therefore expect that in the years ahead we will continue to see marriage rates declining in every demographic other than the two-professional-income-very-highly-educated-couples demographic (less than 3%, because less than 3% of the total pop has a graduate or professional degree), while it will decline everywhere else. It remains in the "sliver" demographic because these people are way disproportionately future-oriented compared to the general population, and also tend to find themselves in the "in between spot", once married, where there isn't enough money to make divorce painless, but enough combined money to make remaining married rather very preferable to being divorced.

In all other demographics, marriage will continue to decline as women opt for other arrangements. Yes, a good amount of this is low-education and status babymommas getting WIC and so on. But it also happens in the college-educated demographic (at 39% a fairly significant chunk of people) in that people either have kids out wedlock (normally with sexier men who are bad husband candidates) or, in the cases where marriage *does* occur, get divorced in large numbers, dumping the unsexy betas of this level in the hopes of finding a "better man" (read: a sexier one). It's this "fat demo" that is really struggling now with marriage -- both in forming and maintaining it. The sliver demo above it stays married for the reasons I note above, while in the lower demo below it, marriage is becoming quite rare.

Whiskey's diagnosis is essentially correct for everyone but the sliver demo: men are not bringing what women want to the table, which is at least the ability to support themselves (often lacking in the lower demo) and, in higher demos where this is a given and where women can themselves support themselves, generally sexiness. It's the one "value add" that men can provide to women today. They can pretty much do everything else themselves. Why be married to a kitchen bitch when you can divorce him and get him to pay for an au pair who will be your paid kitchen bitch while you chase sexier men for fun, tingles, and sex? Of course, it doesn't always (or even generally) work out as planned, as women become less sexy themselves and tend to over-rate their ability to trade-up in their 40s when they generally divorce, but one can understand the thinking quite well. If a woman can obtain the financial support of a man from the court system and the chores/household tasks provided by a nanny or au pair, also paid by ex-hubby (at least in part), why bother staying married to him if he isn't giving you the tingles? In the sliver demo, the calculus is somewhat different, because of the "sweet spot" such couples are often in financially where the whole really is greater than the sum of one of its parts plus court-mandated payments. But for the much larger demographic right below them? Not really.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey has said many times [and even in this very post] that most men don't have the capacity to make themselves into pickup artists or douchebags. Many don't want to either. [I'm a MGTOW guy. I have no interest in becoming a PUA or a Situation clone just to get women]. Therefore, this will not save the West because most men can't or won't buy into the program.

Even if men could and would turn themselves into Mystery or the Situation, the fact is that Western civilization was not built by the likes of Mystery and the Situation. These people are barbarians. Barbarians don't build civilizations; they destroy them. Even smart PUAs like Roissy acknowledge this.

What is to be done?

The only way to change the situation is to reverse feminism. Restore women to their natural role in society. Most women don't like having to work in the real world anyway and they thus drop out [hence the pay gap]. Therefore, only men should work in the real world. Women also don't like men who do housework. Therefore, only women should do the housework. We should also bring back slut shaming. Daughters who dishonour the family through slutty behaviour should be sent to live in a convent. Divorce should also be eliminated in all but the most rare circumstances and only for a damn good reason [extreme physical abuse or child abuse, for example]. Obviously, an objective fault requirement in divorce law is essential.

I know all of these remedies are harsh in this day and age, but there is no other way. There is no successful civilization in the history of the world in which men and women were equal. It's simply not natural and when you try to mess with nature, nature always reasserts itself and bites you in the ass. The equality of men and women today, as well as the rise of the likes of Mystery and the Situation are all symptomatic of the decadence and decline of the West. If we don't reverse feminism drastically now, the West is dead. The West's future will be the London riots writ large.

Anonymous said...

"Instead of Special Ops fighters, firemen, cops, and ordinary men thrust into heroism, women lusted after sparkly gay vampires"

There's a lot of truth to what you say, but most of the cops, pilots, and special ops-type guys that I know are not exactly hurting for female companionship. Elite liberal women may not find them attractive, but lots of middle and working class women do. Even in our bizzaro world of today, chicks still dig a uniform, especially one associated with actual danger and derring-do. Of course, I live in the Midwest - things may be different elsewhere.


raliv said...

off topic:

9/11/11 Sunday Night NFL Cowboys/Jets game in NY.

black guy sneaks a tazer into the stadium and starts attacking people. Here is a video (warning strong language)


white people are going to stop going to games.

Anonymous said...

(Cliff Arroyo)

Here's the problem. Most people don't realize just how much unglamorous, unsexy grunt work it takes to keep comfortable western lifestyles going.

Comfortable western lifestyles don't happen without vast nameless armies of men (and a very, very few women) devoting their lives to studying thrilling topics like optimal trash can location and collection schedules, traffic light timing, road surfacing and thousands of other things that no one notices unless something goes wrong.

What women (as a group) and many elite men don't get is that there are men willing and able to devote their working lives to these necessary processes _if_ that career path leads to a family life (wife and kids - which is what most men want). When all the women start chasing high powered executives or lowlife bad boys (in a word: alphas) and think they "deserve more" than a guy who helps make sure that the nasty stuff goes away when they flush the toilet then those men will stop doing that kind of work and the comfortable western lifestyle is history. Orwell was wrong, the new world isn't a boot stamping on a human face it's bumbling, hardscrabble Mexico everywhere and forever. This is _exactly_ what the elite (male and female) want for the US.

Societies can do fine without sexy alphas if there are enough betas doing boring unglamorous grunt work that makes life better for everyone. Societies turn into shit on an ice cream stick without beta worker bees and women (ironically enough) suffer the most when betas are in short supply or have simply opted out of a game they can't win.

Soon enough western women will end up taking a dump by the side of road because their man can't be bothered with lame ass shit like making sure that the torlets work.

While I'm here: Another problem is that no one that you see day in day out at close range can hope to remain 'sexy'. Womens preference for sexy men is a de facto choice to not have a man around on a daily basis.

sestamibi said...

Anon 10:03, you said what I was thinking.

Force works, and always has.

Whiskey said...

Cliff you make a very good point, and it is striking the female preference for old-age companionship being tossed aside for "it takes a village" nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Top story on Yahoo news... uber-alpha Justin Bieber wears women's pants.

The west is doomed. And not a moment too soon.

Anonymous said...

@Cliff Arroyo

As I am thinking about the current changes, I can see the result will be a culture like Mosuo.
Small patriarchal elite and matrilineal + matriarchal slaves.
Backwards and barely surviving but easy to exploit and control.

The only game changer can be external invaders. Like muslims.

Commander Shepard said...

"There's a lot of truth to what you say, but most of the cops, pilots, and special ops-type guys that I know are not exactly hurting for female companionship. Elite liberal women may not find them attractive, but lots of middle and working class women do. Even in our bizzaro world of today, chicks still dig a uniform, especially one associated with actual danger and derring-do. Of course, I live in the Midwest - things may be different elsewhere.: -Anon

True but most of these guys become kitchen bitches (betas) when they settle down. They typically have 1-2 divorces and are financially wiped out due to them. Their lives don't turn out well much of the time.

All the more reason to avoid marriage/children. Now it's even proven that testosterone levels drop with fatherhood and domestication. The very wiring that gives women their security is what repulses them. This appears to me a recent trend more due to social changes than any evolution in women.


Commander Shepard said...

"Rather, the West will be saved by men like the Situation, or Roissy, or those who follow either path." - Whiskey

Agreed. Men need masculine role models. Our beta male fathers are not up to the task and if grandpa is still around he's a white knight mangina.

Anonymous said...

The magnanimity of northern men is to blame for their PC, multiculturalism and female empowerment.

What do northern men get in return for their magnanimity? I have discussed this with my male Swedish friends. What is the number one thing you have gained from immigration? Answer. Kebabs. Name another thing?..tick tick tick.."Cheap coke(soda) at Turkish shops"...and another..tick tick tick..pause.."Maybe pizzas, but we had them before I think"....another.. "I can't think of another"!

Pete said...

Whiskey, as you said yourself, being a sexy alpha male is a full-time job.

Guys who are always peacocking and partying aren't going to save civilization, because they won't have time to do anything else but be sexy.

All of The Situation's time and energy goes to the gym, tanning bed, ironing his shirts, figuring out what product to put in his hair, and hitting the clubs.

You think a bunch of guys like that can sit down and plan a city sewer system or interstate bypass? But I guess they are supposed to be the role model to emulate now?

Women are spoiled and entitled beyond all reason, that's the real problem. They think they are entitled to the best of everything, and if they don't get it, it's because someone conspired to steal what was owed to them.

Even if all middle-class white guys started working out like madmen, tanning and swaggering around aggressively, soon The Situation would become the "new normal," and women would shift to lusting after only the top ten percent of Situation clones.

Because every man would be a tanned Guido musclehead, you see, so 90% of them would be "average" and therefore boring to hypergamous females.

The way to save civilization is to have men go back to doing what they think is right and not giving a shit what women think about it. That's how civilization was built, from 1000 BC to around 1960 AD in the first place!

Anonymous said...

sestamibi and Pete,

Thanks gentlemen. I'm glad I'm not the only one with rather extreme un-PC views. And yet, all we want is restoration of what was the completely normal status quo for centuries.

Reminds me of a line from a Carpenters song: "Makes today seem rather sad, so much has changed."

Anonymous said...

"Top story on Yahoo news... uber-alpha Justin Bieber wears women's pants.

The west is doomed. And not a moment too soon. "

Other guys using the words "uber-alpha" to describe a creampuff like Justin Bieber is another reason why the West is doomed.

I don't care how many teenage bitches want his prepubescent weewee. Justin Bieber is no alpha male. Fuck off with your propaganda.

Commander Shepard said...

As for anyone skeptical of Whiskey's solution your alternative isn't likely to happen either. Pandora's box has opened and the damage cannot be undone. There is no going back.

If you think balancing brain and brawn is impossible think again. You may not like it but our society only rewards superstars. Average is over. Check out this link for more.


Anonymous said...

Your punctuation is getting better, which makes your insightful articles more readable.

Remnant said...

To the extent that PC and multiculturalism are extreme expressions of radical egalitarianism that has been with us since the French Revolution, the greater equality of women need only be seen as one such manifestation of that phenomenon. Thus, why could your law not just as easily be expressed as “the greater equality there is between [social class or phenomenon X] and [social class or phenomenon Y], the more PC and multiculturalism there will be”?

So, if there is such a correlation between the treatment of men and women, it may also be there for majority and minority race, heterosexual and homosexual, adult and child, religion X and religion Y. Why can these variables not be used just as profitably to make the assessment and prediction.

If radical egalitarianism is the source of the problem, then any historical reason why a given society can be guilted into regretting some past inequality will also have predictive power. In the US, that wrong was slavery; in Europe, colonialism. In places like Scandinavia, which never really wronged anybody, it seems to be residual French Revolution philosophy combined with a guilt for having nothing to feel guilty for.

And if you look at places that are not moving towards PC at a rapid pace, it is generally because they lack that feeling of guilt. Japanese feel very little contrition over WWII; they don’t like to talk about it, but they generally feel like THEY were wronged.

I guess Whiskey will say they don’t feel guilty because men are still in charge. That raises a question I have with your “law”: are you claiming it is a law of cause and effect, or merely correlation? If it is just correlation, then I would stand by what I said above. And if you are claiming cause and effect, you would have to say that non-PC places are that way because the women haven’t taken over.

But I can even see exceptions there: China is a place that has been relatively serious about imposing equality of the sexes in the workplace. Yet, that does not seem to have had any effect on relations between the sexes in the home. So called “strong women” still do the cooking, take care of the kids, etc. If you look at the workplace, China may even be ahead of Western countries; but if you look at the home, it looks like the US ca. 1950.

One other point, the breakdown of the African-American household may have been an expression of their racial characteristics: there was much less of a tradition of nuclear households and small tight-knit families in many African cultures. Loose family structure, uncertain paternity, polygamy and maternal heads of families were much more common. So the “breakdown” of the African-American family may have been no more than a reversion to form, combined with and perhaps accelerated by the pernicious effects of the welfare state.

Anonymous said...

"The way to kill PC and multiculturalism is ... "

To shoot at Jews, and whip the women.

Trust me.

Whiskey said...

Anon -- guilt is not a particularly powerful emotion. It generally does not make men give up advantages in life. I've seen relatively few examples of guilt making men (who have held power for most of human existence) give over their money, position, and power to someone else.

China has a huge social distance between men and women, as does Japan, even with efforts to egalitarianize things by Mao and Japanese reformers. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean culture is simply too strong. Western nations by contrast already had a tradition of rough, semi-equality (women had far better treatment in the West than elsewhere).

What man would want to exalt others over him? What man dreams of being ruled by foreign men? Very few. However women disgusted with their own men is another story.

The EDL (anti-immigration) is almost exclusively male. Pro immigration is almost exclusively female in Britain. It makes perfect sense.