Saturday, September 10, 2011

Why The West Collapsed: Case Study Sweden

The case study method has much to recommend it. There are many theories as to why the West has collapsed, into Multicultural, PC-driven weakness. But no Western nation has collapsed as quickly, and as completely, as Sweden. As the above video notes, the constitution no longer requires citizenship to hold high or sensitive office, and the constitution now requires multiculturalism. As the speaker notes, Swedes are now (or their elites are) ashamed of being ... Swedish. And are attempting to replace Sweden and the Swedish Identity with something else, as rapidly as possible. Sweden as the "rape capital of Europe?" Swedish (and other) feminists don't mind. They certainly do not blame the perpetrators: Muslims in Sweden. Deportation of Iraqi Christians but not Muslims? Lying about who perpetrates rapes in Sweden. Hmm. Where have I seen something like that before?

The Case Study Method is not without its flaws, but has quite a number of benefits:

When the Harvard Business School was started, the faculty quickly realized that there were no textbooks suitable to a graduate program in business. Their first solution to this problem was to interview leading practitioners of business and to write detailed accounts of what these managers were doing. Cases are generally written by business school faculty with particular learning objectives in mind and are refined in the classroom before publication. Additional relevant documentation (such as financial statements, time-lines, and short biographies, often referred to in the case as "exhibits"), multimedia supplements (such as video-recordings of interviews with the case protagonist), and a carefully crafted teaching note often accompany cases.

In my view, doing a "mini-case study" on Sweden is beneficial to understanding WHY the West has collapsed, and what can be done about it.

There are several main theories floating around on the various parts of the "Right" or one should say, non-Left. The first blames PC and Multiculturalism on The Frankfurt School, of committed and hyper-competent Cultural Marxists who globally changed the culture to one of PC and Multiculturalism, and led people like Swedes to loathe themselves and worship ... Muslims. The second is that old-time favorite, "It's the Jews you idiot! What was the question." Here the Jews ... used mind-control rays to control a global population in the West, including places historically Jew-Friendly like Germany and France, to ... loathe themselves and import lots of Muslims. Who are notably Jew-friendly. Those "devious Jews!" What will they think of next? [That's sarcasm for those not getting it.] Variations of these two theories blame politicians in search of votes, who import immigrants, or feminism, or the like. Elitism, and a disconnect are blamed. While some of these elements contain partial explanations, in my view they are merely attributes of a much broader, wider element.

Which is massive social change driven by new technology, which in turn drives new economic winners and losers, power-grab opportunities, and a fundamental restructuring of the social order in the West. This has happened before.

The Protestant Reformation, with Martin Luther's 95 Thesis nailed to the Cathedral door in 1517, or Henry VIII in 1529, happened against a backdrop of increasing Catholic Church corruption (Pope Alexander had numerous mistresses and illegitimate children) and insatiable demands for more money (to build massive Cathedrals in Rome and hire massive amounts of mercenaries to build the Papal States). But whereas Jan Hus was burned at the stake, and John Wycliffe was declared a heretic after his death, the Protestants mostly made their break with Rome stick. Scandinavia, Switzerland, much of Germany (the Northern Parts), and the United Provinces which rebelled against Catholic Spain from 1568-1609, all broke successfully from Rome. Northern France was partly Protestant, but did not remain so for long.

Whereas Cathars and other break-away groups such as the Waldensians largely failed, the Protestants in Northern Europe mostly succeeded. Why?

The success was driven by a number of factors, crucially including technology, and involving ... money. The Printing Press allowed, the upper classes, the most critical being the new Merchant Houses, to read the Bible for themselves. Not needing a Priest to explain for them what Christianity was about. A pre-literate Church, the Catholic Church, could not long compete with great Merchant Houses that had their own Bibles and wished to direct their own priests with their own money in their own way (hint: the most Godly were not the Popes and Priests of Rome, but the ... Merchant Houses. Did not God favor them with commercial success?) But just as important as the printing press were gunpowder and Atlantic sailing vessels.

Already by the 1200's, places like Bruge, or the Hanseatic League, had grown very, very rich. Off the wool trade from England, and the fur, timber, and iron trade from Scandinavia, respectively. Letters of credit from these great Merchant Houses were good, as good as gold from the Kings of Europe, and perhaps better, since the former were prone to debasing their currency with too much lead in their coins. The great late Medieval churches in places like Bruge attest to the power and influence the region in the Belgian and Dutch lowlands possessed. As do surviving churches and houses in Northern Germany built around the same time. These places were already rich. And they got richer, particularly in the Netherlands, when trade with the East via great galleons and Atlantic going cargo ships commenced, and with the West with the appearance of sugar. Sugar was particularly important, a century later William Blake did the portrait of a West Indies Sugar Baron having his morning rum poured by a West Indian Slave girl, note how Blake has made the Baron look like a Turkish potentate (the parallel is not meant to be flattering). Sugar was immensely valuable, being rare and unable to be grown in quantities outside the tropics. The Netherlands prospered under what were for the times, enormous riches. Northern Germany meanwhile remained a center of trade with Scandinavia, offering furs, amber, iron, and above all timber (for ships of all types) as well as firearms, clocks, wrought iron, and porcelain. The amount of money was just staggering.

In military developments, gunpowder had changed the way in which Europeans fought. Medieval Kings did not have heavy monetary requirements. Feudal arrangements pushed most of the need to support fighting men onto barons and other great lords, who maintained the mounted knights, and other fighting men, through massive landed estates. In an era where coins were scarce to non-existent, and armies were small, consisting of a core of highly trained (often for decades) and heavily armored mounted fighting men, backed by a fairly disciplined and skilled set of archers, pikeman, and men at arms, power lay with the great lords, mostly, not the Kings. As one English King named John found to his sorrow at Runnymeade. Kings had neither the means (cash on hand) nor the ability to train and retain fighting men year-round, on their own. Thus feudal states were relatively weak, relatively decentralized, and also fairly land-based. Charlemagne, for all his power, was never able to crush Viking incursions, much less meet them on the open sea, in battle. The great King and Emperor mostly just paid the Northmen off.

Gunpowder changed all that. Now, great Merchant Houses could and would fund Kings and Princes to their liking. With professional, year round armies made up not of hideously expensive mounted knights who required twenty years of training, but various middling class and peasants, trained by officers on a few simple tasks with a musket, made easier by ... the printing press which could print out training manuals from the finest military minds of Europe. Bombards and cannon meant high curtain walls and castles were no match for a King with a professional army at his back, and engineering (low, earthen walls to absorb cannon fire, and star forts providing cross-fire) supplanted feudal levies and knights. This meant power shifted to Kings, and those who aided Kings with money. The Merchant Princes, in other words.

The Catholic Church, with its fat system of monasteries and landed estates, were a tempting target not only to Henry VIII, but others who wished to sell all those lands, for quick and easy cash, and had willing buyers (Merchant Princes) with cash on hand. Buyers who moreover would now be bonded to the Ruler, because a Catholic return would lose the buyers their lands and perhaps their heads. Yes Henry had a need to get a quickie divorce or five, but there was all that money to be made. What would the Pope do, send an Army? Or Navy? Now Henry had a big navy, with big guns on board, staffed by professional sailors, who could use compasses to navigate (along with Astrolabes and star charts).

So, in places with Merchant Houses (who never ruled, but nevertheless provided critical financial support for Kings and Rulers they approved of in the North), lots of tempting Church lands, Kings wanting to challenge the Pope, and many able men willing to join in and fight, the Protestant Revolution worked out quite well. In places like Switzerland (ample for defense, and with few great landed estates and many merchant houses) even nearness to the Pope was no problem. While Spain, far from the Pope, had no merchant houses to speak of, no Kings with a cash problem solved only by selling off Church lands (in Spain there was no one able to buy them anyway), and so remained quite Catholic.

It was not JUST the printing press. It was gunpowder, and the Merchant Houses (providing cash to all those big armies with lots of peasants and middling class men with muskets instead of knights run by feudal levy), and big sailing ships carrying cargo (which made the Merchants even richer) that fueled and made certain the Protestant Revolution in those places. All together, had rapidly changed Catholic Europe (in 1492, Europe was completely and it would seem, irrevocably Catholic) into one that was either Protestant or Catholic, and divided among Protestants also.

How then, does Sweden of today, undergoing now a change as profound as that from Catholic Europe in the early 1500's, compare?

Sweden, has almost no Jews. Sweden has been hostile, in fact, to Jews throughout most of its Christian history (few Jews at all ventured into Viking Scandinavia). Though Sweden had few Jews in its history, it has been reliably anti-Israel, and anti-Jewish, since the founding of Israel in 1948. Casual anti-Semitism characterized 19th Century Sweden, and Sweden of course like Switzerland collaborated heavily with the Nazis to avoid invasion and occupation. Meanwhile, Italy with its overtly anti-Muslim Lega Nord, under Mussolini did the bare minimum to assist the Nazi's Final Solution. Primo Levi's mother and sister rode out the War in their Roman apartment. Their neighbors shopped for them. No Italian of course, would have ever trusted their government, Fascist, Communist, or anything else. Or wanted any contact whatsoever with the government, in any way. While Sweden has had up to recently, a fairly non-corrupt, fairly efficient, government. But Switzerland is made up of mostly German speakers, who collaborated with the Nazis, and has a government that is efficient and not very corrupt.

Switzerland of course has passed restrictions on Muslim immigration, and minaret building. While possessed of crazy impulses (lawyers for plants, mandatory sex lessons for kindergartners) like most of Europe, Switzerland has passed several anti-Muslim measures (to be fair it has more direct democracy bypassing elites than say, Sweden). But comparing Sweden, or Switzerland, or Itay, or Germany, one finds not much Jewish influence or presence, and relatively large doses of PC and Multiculturalism. If it was "the Jews you idiot, what was the question?" then one would expect that a lack of Jews in say ... Germany would make that nation, and also Sweden, and Switzerland, a paragon of anti-PC, anti-Multiculturalism. Yet Sweden and Germany are fairly PC and Multiculturalism driven, Sweden being by far the worst of any nation on Earth, and yet lacking totally in Jews. Germany, being notably not ... Jew friendly to put it mildly, is also PC and Multiculturalism-driven. Under a recession and fiscal hard times, not a single German politician has proposed "Let's kick out immigrants and spend the social welfare on ourselves!"

Nor does the explanation of Frankfurt School cultural Marxists hold water. Real, actual hard-core Marxists have a way of dealing with things. Shooting people. Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Guevara, the Kims, all deal with opposition by ... shooting people. Sometimes after torture. In East Germany they built a giant wall, a Secret Police goon squad, and kept prisons well stocked. Male-oriented tyrannies always do this. Violence is the stock in trade, and there are huge goon squads operating under brutal patronage rules to enforce compliance. Indeed, real Hollywood Marxists called before the HUAC hearings who refused to testify (but were card-carrying members of the Communist Party) never loathed being White or male. Or thought that America should disband itself into a Mestizo driven Mexico Norte. Tom Joad was not a "hillbilly zombie," but the moral conscience of America. Johnny may have got his gun, but Dalton Trumbo did not reject violence, just for capitalism's sake. The socialist paradise that Trumbo and Schulberg and the rest envisioned was mostly White, and mostly working-class. Just with them at the top, not Louis B. Mayer or Jack Warner.

Besides which, how can you sell self-loathing to people who don't already hate themselves? How can most people be induced to hate themselves? Most people don't hate themselves, indeed they mostly love themselves. Often, far too much, where the mirror becomes their own God. If subliminal advertising and the like were all powerful, half the cars sold in America would still be GM-made. As they were in the early 1960's. Telling men and women of a country that their heritage, race, religion, history, culture, language, and everything else is worthless, and that obviously failed Third World cultures are superior, are a tough sell. Most people just have too high a regard for themselves. Imagine going to Boston, and telling people in Sports Bars that the Red Sox and Patriots are worthless and should be disbanded, that they should all become Yankees and Jets fans. How many patrons would actually say, "Gee, that's right. I HATE the Sox and Pats. Go Jets! Go Yanks!"

There is no magic button to mind-control masses of people. The more a group desperately asserts something to be true, creates memory holes, and the like the more resistance they create (not the least of which is that young, hungry and ruthless men of ambition are freed by an ever-changing past to seize power and create their own realities in which they are the heroes). Power runs from patronage, fear, control, tradition, and the interplay of these factors combined. Machiavelli had it more right than Orwell in writing the Prince. Neither Stalin nor the BBC could create a "New Man."

Rather, if you look at Sweden, one thing stands out. Like the Kingship of Henry VIII, or the splendid defense of the Mountains and pikeman in Switzerland, or the great wealth in the United Provinces. Women.

Or rather, the nearly full equality, and perhaps even minor social superiority, of Swedish women to Swedish men.

In no other place, are women as fully socially equal to men as in Sweden. Sweden was not always like this, mind, as anyone reading Ibsen (a Norwegian but Norwegian society was at the time akin to that of Sweden) could attest. But starting in the post-WWI era, in 1921, women gained unlimited suffrage (as in the American West, Swedish women had in certain places limited suffrage in the late 19th Century). Norway granted universal suffrage in 1913, Great Britain in 1928, the US in 1920, and in 1971 for Switzerland (all cantons, universally).

Naturally, suffrage alone does not mean equal or slightly superior moral status for women. Mexico has had equal suffrage since 1953, and no would would assert full social equality for women there. But Sweden has gone farther than most nations in making women socially equal, most of the time, to most men, most of the time, if not in fact socially superior. The Feminist Initiative proposed to ban marriage, and generated visits and donations from Jane Fonda, and a member of ABBA (Benny Andersson). Swedish Kindergartens make boys wear dresses:

Swedish journalist Kurt Lundgren had a noteworthy story on his blog this week. A friend told him about a magazine published by Lärarförbundet, the Swedish Teachers’ Union, the largest union for teachers and heads of schools in the country. The magazine, aimed at preschool teachers who take care of children between the ages of 0-6 years old, included recommendations to not only promote “gender equality” but also “sexual equality” at this tender age.
In a kindergarten in Stockholm, the parents were encouraged by the preschool teachers - apparently ideological pioneers - to equip their sons with dresses and female first names. There are now weeks in some places when boys HAVE TO wear a dress. Lundgren considers this sexual indoctrination as worse than the political: “The political nonsense is seeking to alter opinions - the sex freaks seek to alter the children’s personality, their mentality and their entire constitution.”
“When sexual equality was promulgated, and it was decided that a woman’s place was not at home but out at work, there was a rapid change in the language. The customary Swedish for housewife is husmor, which is honourable; it was replaced by the neologism hemmafru, literally ‘the-wife-who-stays-at-home’, which is derogatory. Within a few months, the mass media were able to kill the old and substitute the new term. By the end of 1969, it was almost impossible in everyday conversation to mention the state of housewife without appearing to condemn or to sneer. Swedish had been changed under the eyes and ears of the Swedes. Husmor had been discredited; the only way out was to use hemmafru ironically. Connected with this semantic shift, there was a change in feeling. Women who, a year or so before, had been satisfied, and possibly proud, to stay at home, began to feel the pressure to go out to work. The substitution of one word for the other had been accompanied by insistent propaganda in the mass media, so that it was as if a resolute conditioning campaign had been carried out. Very few were able to recognize the indoctrination in the linguistic manipulation; in the real sense of the word, the population had been brain-washed.”
In Sweden, it is thus unacceptable if girls are presented with pink ice-creams or Barbie dolls because this reinforces gender stereotypes, but the burka is just fine. Meanwhile, Sweden is in the midst of the most explosive rape wave in Scandinavian history, largely caused by immigration. While Swedish girls are called “whores” by Muslim immigrants, Swedish boys are told to wear a dress and study queer theory.

Sweden is supposedly the most “gender equal” country in the world. It’s also one of the nations most eagerly (at least officially, all other viewpoints are banned) embracing Multiculturalism. Promoting “sexual equality” alongside a rapidly growing Muslim minority is going to become an increasingly challenging balancing act.

What does Sweden itself say:

Sweden has one of the highest levels of gender equality in the world. This is based on the belief that a more just and democratic society results from women and men sharing power and influence equally. A well developed welfare system makes it easier for both sexes to balance their work and family life.

Gender equality is a cornerstone of Swedish society. It means that women and men have the same opportunities, rights and obligations in all areas of life. It implies that they can work and support themselves, combine work and care of their children on the same terms, and that neither sex in a relationship need worry about being subjected to abuse or violence.

In the Global Gender Gap Report 2008, Sweden was one of the world leaders in equality. The report, drawn up at the initiative of the World Economic Forum, measures equality in four areas: economics, politics, education and health. It can be read at

Or, as Sandra Tsing Loh wrote in the Atlantic:

Some of us stay married because … what else is there? A lonely apartment and a hot plate?

That said, it’s clear that females are dissatisfied—more and more, divorce seems to be initiated by women. If marriage is the Old World and what lies beyond is the New World, it’s the apparently stable men (comfortable alone in their postfeminist den with their Cook’s Illustrated and their porn) who are Old Worlders, and the Girls’ Night Out, questionnaire-completing women who are the questing New Worlders. They most embody what Tocqueville described as America’s “restless temper,” or l’inquiétude du caractère. (Interestingly, according to EnlightenNext magazine, some northern European women are reportedly eschewing their progressive northern European male counterparts and dating Muslims, who are more like “real men.”)

Double X (a feminist blog) echoed Tsing Loh's lament of the "Kitchen Bitch" in deriding men who are equal and do the laundry, housework, and cooking.

I propose "Whiskey's Law" in which the degree of a nation or society's embrace of Multiculturalism and PC is related directly to the amount of equality and even social superiority between women, on the one hand, and men on the other. That the more most women are equal or slightly superior to most men, the more the society will broadly embrace PC and Multiculturalism. And that further, the more the ELITES are equal among genders, or women elites are slightly superior to most (but not all) male elites, the more the elites will whole-heartedly embrace Multiculturalism and PC.

In my view Sweden, because of its simultaneous embrace of PC and Multiculturalism on the one hand, and female equality on the other hand, is the perfect case study.

Women have been telling men in the West for years, for decades really, what is wrong with the West. It just does not have enough sexy men. And sexy men do not mean metrosexuals. It does not mean guys with rock hard abs, the result of relentless diets and millions of crunches, and a semi-gay attitude (that's half of young male Hollywood). Sexiness is not related to being a blow-dried contestant on American Idol. It is about dominance. Women are hard-wired to crave dominance. Need it, want, do anything for it. Including import lots of dominant Muslim men, in the hope of transforming the nation into a place filled with dominant, sexy A-holes that women crave.

Filled with loathing for a nation, its culture, its society, its history? Heck that describes the average woman's view of the West on a Saturday night when she's pestered by Beta males at the bar and Alpha males ignore her. Women are ruthless in judging a society that does not produce sexy men, and offers nothing else but empty consumerism in its place. No, women did not always HATE HATE HATE Beta males. But largely, they do now. The plague of Multiculturalism, of PC, of the hatred of the West, is almost entirely that of Western women rejecting the "Kitchen Bitch," the man who is roughly equal to her (or even, slightly socially inferior since he must pursue and she must accept/reject).

Look at the ads below:

They worked because though women were broadly equal (and had the voting rights to prove it), even a housewife whose husband worked in a factory craved his approval -- he was her social superior. And thus sexy. Women had the slight inequality, socially, that made for a "sexy sweet spot." See the furor over Mad Men (women love it, with its sexy bad cad who is superior to all those secretaries) and NBC is attempting to clone it TWICE with a series about 1960's Pan Am Flight Attendants and a Playboy Club (with sexy bunnies hoping to score the sexy bad boy lead).

Steve Sailer noted wisely:

Returning to these complaints about disparate impact on women in the executive suites, let me point out that one mechanism that thins the ranks of women in the executive suites is that as young women climb the corporate ladder, they come into less and less contact with the dweebier guys down the ladder and more and more contact with the most powerful and ambitious men at the top. Women don't generally love working in the macho atmospheres found higher up, but a lot of them do fall in love with individual macho executives, whom they often marry. And then they tend to downsize their own careers (since their husbands make so much money) to concentrate on helicopter mothering their children. 

I recall one young woman at my old company who was shooting up the corporate ladder until she became a direct report to the single most brilliant youngish executive. After awhile, he left his wife and kids to marry her, and then she started concentrating less on her own career and instead on the promoting the career of her very high income, very high potential new husband.

Women want and need sexiness in their men. Which means a dominant, Alpha A-hole. Few men in the West can fill that role, but there was enough social inequality that even Steve's described dweeby male counterparts (who are essential in producing and maintaining a modern, technology driven society) were sexy enough (to secretaries and lower-level status co-workers) that marriages were not the sole province of hot young women and the superstar young execs, but between near but not total equals.

That near but not total equality has been the "Secret Sauce" of the West's success. Preventing male in-fighting over women that retards Muslim polygamous societies, and weak polygamy found in West Africa that reduces male involvement in children to basically, none at all. With kids being left to sink or swim in an environment actively hostile to sustained, focused effort on anything abstract.

Sweden fell because women, pushing for full equality, got it. There is nothing men in the West like to do, for the most part, than please women. This is why the West produces so many "nice guys" that women find detestable.

"Nice guys" are required for technology to keep advancing. One of the factors limiting technological advance is that a man may find some limited financial or intellectual rewards being "a nice guy" into technology, or pour all his effort into being a sexy bad boy. Being a bad boy is work, it takes near total waking hour effort for most men to maintain that posture, since it is not natural and must be honed like a martial art.

Sweden got the equality that women craved, and also that the consumer products industry needs. Women make 85% of all consumer purchases we are told. The business empires of L'Oreal, of Benetton, of "Seven for All Mankind" and other luxury $500 jeans, all depend on an independent, late child-bearing woman who spends money on luxury items weekly instead of baby related stuff. Most women would prefer the baby, but only from a sexy guy. Most of the men in the West, prior to full social equality, were sexy enough to make Alpha pursuit a bone-head affair. Why spend all the time, like say, Monica Lewinsky, aimlessly pursuing an Alpha, when you can have a perfectly sexy guy at home? You might not get a chance at a Ferrari, but Ford Mustang is fun enough to drive, and you won't have to share it. Most men in the West were Ford Mustangs, due to the slight social inequality amidst the sexes.

Now, the Ford Mustangs have disappeared. So "five minutes of Alpha beats five years of Beta" as Roissy says, is a reasonable way of behaving to most women. Look at Lewinsky:

Monica, apparently, is desperately trying to live down her past.

The insider told the Enquirer: 'She's alone most of the time and is pretty much a social pariah.'

The source claims Monica has more or less given up on finding love.' Monica still feels like she's the punchline to a dirty joke,' the source said.' The publicity over her affair with Clinton ruined her chances of ever finding a decent guy.

In June she made a rare outing with a small dinner party at Lucy's El Adobe Cafe in Hollywood.

An eyewitness told the Enquirer that gawkers at other tables were making jokes at her expense, while she looked emotionless. 'She stared at her food throughout the dinner and uttered maybe three sentences, the eyewitness said. 'It was a very awkward, uncomfortable evening.'

In March, told how Monica is reportedly still in love with him and 'always will be'.

‘Monica still hasn’t got over Bill and would take him back in a second,’ a friend told the Enquirer.

‘She told me: “There will never be another man in my life that could make me as happy as he did".

Well of course. And that is the reason for the collapse of the West in a nutshell. Sweden exemplifies it the most. Collapsing Christianity, allows near unlimited sexual freedom, as women abandon it in droves, and can trade casual sex with Alphas even when relatively fat. Meanwhile their male peers look like a bad bet, and increasingly find aging cougar types such as the Nice Guy hating woman in the video above, a poor bet compared to online porn found on the internet. Women in the West react in turn, by pushing for massive importation of "sexy dominant guys" who are "real men" and hope they can "have it all." A Western society run by what amounts to sexless drones at the bottom of the status heap (Joe Average White guy) doing the Dirty Jobs (as Mike Rowe found) or the technocracy stuff like maintaining power grids, sewer lines, and the like. While "noble lies" about mythical Black scientists prop up the desperate excuse making for the non-Western "Alpha Males."

Thought experiment. Pop in the various excuses Amy Winehouse made publicly, about ex-husband bad boy drug abuser Blake, into quotes in defense of Multiculturalism and PC by various leftists. What would be the effective difference? As Theodore Dalrymple noted (but lacked the courage to explain further), his young female patients, and his older female patients, and even his professional nurses, spurned nice guys with skilled trades (plumbers, carpenters) in favor of violent, abusive bad boys constantly. Until they reached menopause and the end of their sexual desire. If they ended a relationship with one, they found another just like him. Always with the same scars from fighting, tattoos proclaiming a love of violence, and aggressive dominant behavior. And the same excuses, time after time.

Sweden is importing basically, Muslim bad boys, making excuses for rapes and assaults, embracing PC, and loathing its history, culture, and values, because it is run in the main part to appeal to women (if not run by them directly) and there is nothing Women in the West HATE HATE HATE more than a Beta male. Or a Beta Male society. It wasn't always so, but it is today.

It is absolutely striking how female oriented this process is. Yes, there are no female Prime Ministers in Sweden (ever). No Merchant Prince ran England, or the United Provinces, either. Yet that did not negate the very real power of these Merchant Houses, who could raise lots of money for the King or Prince. Or not. Who always had to be carefully considered, because the King and the Prince did not rule absolutely. If women do not rule, and they do not, in the West, their power is among the first. It has to be considered. Their interests and reactions calculated.

And it is striking how PC and Multiculturalism are enforced. No shootings, goon squads, torture, and the like as in male-run oligarchies and repressive regimes. Instead, ostracism, ridicule, civil sanctions, and the like. Stalin would not have bothered with any of that, he'd have simply shot 20 million people or so. Women do poorly with violence, try to avoid dealing it out personally (because they lack intimidation) and though they might love completely those who deal out the violence, even when it rebounds (as it often does) on them, they prefer not to be part of the sharp end. There are few women who want to be cops, fighter pilots, combat infantrymen, and the like. Women whatever their human faults, do not share the bloodlust and desire for killing that men mostly do. Nor indeed are they good at it, either.

So there it is. The Case Study of Sweden, as defined by its fundamental attributes: Gender Equality, and the resultant self-loathing. As Roissy pointed out,

Also from yesterday’s post, commenter Sebastian Flyte highlighted women’s natural inborn revulsion for beta males with the example of the fun bar game Marry Shag Kill:

Another aspect I’m increasingly seeing – WOMEN ARE PITILESS ABOUT BETAS. 
Most gamers who run the routine “murder, marry, shag” quickly realise this.  For those who don’t, you and the girl point at various people around the bar and state whether you would murder them, marry them, or shag them. 

Sometimes I point at wallflowers and guys with no game. I normally just feel bad for them, there-but-for-the-grace-of-god and so forth, me a year ago, he just needs to learn… but women_are_brutal.  Murder of course, but they embellish it further with unflattering observations on their penis size, acne, relationship history, masturbation habits… the vitriolic hate they have for these guys, it’s scary.  If a couple of alphas walked in and started ripping on the betas, women would join in.

I have noticed the same thing with women when I play Marry Fuck Kill with them. After an initial hesitancy, they get comfortable playing and suddenly the claws and fangs are out, revealing in high definition surround-sound glory their barely submerged joyous hate for the hapless beta male.

The nicer ones might try to think of alternate ways to dispose of the losers.
“Uuumm… yeah I guess I would kill him [pointing at rumpled shirt herb]. Do I really have to kill him? Ew, yuck, could we just have him shot into space or something? Or moved to China?”

If the guy is really emanating the stench of loserness, her killing instinct sharpens:
“Yeah, kill him. Oh god, yes, just kill him.”

If you want to understand how the West was lost, any bar scene will enlighten you. Once, ordinary women were slightly below ordinary men. And craved their acceptance, even of their coffee. Now the men crave acceptance from THEM. And will not get it. There is nothing like the contempt by women for non-sexy men. Hence, a desire to import a whole lot of people, who are not Western, to play status moralizing games (the Help, other "Nice White Lady" moral uplift dramas) or provide "real men."


Brock Townsend said...

Well said.

Anonymous said...

"Once, ordinary women were slightly below ordinary men. And craved their acceptance, even of their coffee. Now the men crave acceptance from THEM. And will not get it."

Payback! Ridicule my coffee, I will ridicule you…and never make coffee for you again.

Shoulda been nicer when you had the chance; brought it on yourself, yes you did!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous above is being deliciously ironic.

That trick never works.

Men are better off never being nice.

And the "payback" when a majority of men realize this (or are replaced by those foreign dominant men) is going to be enjoyable.

jules said...

During the MSNBC GOP debate, Brian Williams and other commentators seemed dismayed that the audience applauded the death penalty as a form of justice. Others have made the argument that the death penalty and gun rights are still popular among the common people in Europe, the only difference being that in Europe the politicians have forced things like abolishing executions, restricting all gun rights and the EU on their voters. So here in America, something is still right with our electoral system. That years of democratic ruin can bring about a Chris Christie or Scott Walker still says something about this country.
The old british parliamentary system only serve the democratic mob, not republicanism. Just look at the shenanigans in my former country of India. The ruling party could care less about the middle class protests. They've literally said in some of their Hindi language press: "who cares? We have the rural vote in the hundreds of millions".
Don't know if you're catholic Whiskey, but I was just listening to a lecture by Joseph Pearce on Shakespeare's catholicism. He noted that during Henry VIII's time, the english catholic church was free of corruption and largely philanthropic. It was Henry who decided piecemeal to go against his subjects because HE wanted a divorce, HE wanted catholic land and money. And as you note, it was the aristocratic upper class in Europe that was initially attracted to the protestant movement.
If your thesis is to be believed, perhaps this is why Tolkien was so skeptical of technology and attributed it to the orcs.
Loving your commentary on Big Hollywood btw. Do you review books on Amazon or is that tied to a real name? Would love to subscribe to your review feed.

Anonymous said...

I think what will happen is we’ll see more “beta” men become more like the alpha assholes women really want… or, if they can’t (or don’t want to) do that, they will just go their own way and leave women to fend for themselves when the west collapses.

In any case, they won’t be the willing chumps who pay for and maintain women’s (and alpha males’) sexual utopia anymore.

jules said...

I doubt that very much. I met two friends from my former beta-fied life. Both are indians living in the US. One's a computer engineer and the other's a medical student. The medical student seems stuck between beta and alpha, he recently had hair removal done on his back because he was embarrassed that the female med students would make fun of him when they all had to take their clothes off in class. The computer engineer is a hardcore doctor who fan (he even bought a sonic screwdriver toy) and a hardcore Harry potter fan and a hardcore soccer fan. He thinks radiohead is the greatest band ever. The computer engineer loves wearing 50 dollar soccer jerseys like he's 10 yrs old. The med student literally got uncomfortable when i talked to him about game and told me to not talk like that in front of him. Every other facebook post from him is lol, emoticon emoticon emoticon. I'd accept that from a fresh off the boat indian grad student but both have been living in america for years.
All fine traits if you're an alpha and you can admit to liking those things with alpha detachment.

Legion said...

This post is absolutely brilliant.

I have read a lot in the manosphere, but this is one of the articles that puts it all together and why we have the results we do. I'll email the address to my son, now in college.

I'm too old to attract females, but I already don't give a damn about them. My money is for me and when I think my son should be helped out.

Anonymous said...


You constantly push the "women hate beta males" theory of the fall of the West. But answer me this. If women hate beta males and if women's sexual freedoms are the problem here, then why would women:

1) vote for welfare statism which destroys their society's freedoms?

2) vote for regulatory controls that destroy the economy that make their sexual freedoms possible and meaningful?

3) voter for the central banking / inflationary regime that destroys the currency that fuels the economy that makes their sexual freedoms possible and meaningful?

Why do they do this? Because of some genetically determined predisposition to welfare statism and socialism? How does socialism help them in their quest for alpha-males?

My point is that there are deeper reasons for the collapse of the West than your materialist HBD argument. And this is reason that Larry Auster mocks your commentary as materialist HBD nonsense. Auster is far closer to the truth when he argues that it is epistemological nominalism that leads to subjectivism and relativism which leads to egalitarianism and "non-discrimination". This leads to left-liberalism with all its pathologies of which feminism is one of the leading forms.

No need for the Whiskey/Roissey "female hypergamy is the cause of the fall of the West" hypothesis.


ps. this post though flawed still had useful historical information. Thanks for that.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant! Hit the gym, try to look good and don't be to nice.

Work hard play hard.

If a guy needs a fresh viewpoint read "I hope they serve beer in hell." if only to break the beta mindset and not take the female to seriuosly.

Jonathan said...

For a guy like me who could fit in the so-called "Beta male" category, this post is like taking the Red pill in The Matrix. I don't think I will try to become like the assholes I can't stand though.

But it makes me see this report by CBN in an all new perspective.

CBN - Norway and Islam

Brendan said...

Great post, Whiskey.

Anonymous said...

All of the problems you talk about, Whiskey, can only become problems by implementation of the idea that it is OK to take from one person and give to another.

Beta males are beta males and will always be beta males. Theirs is the lot to stand by at all times and be obedient to alphas and be grateful that they are allowed at least some chance of mating females. That is the way it has always been and that is the way it always shall be. If you are beta, know your place just as you think the woman should know hers.

What you seem to be pissed about is that a welfare state allows unattractive to semi-attractive females access to alpha males. In the past, there were consequences if those women birthed the alpha's children out of wedlock. Now, thanks to the welfare state, there are no consequences, except for the betas, who make up the bulk of males and thus the bulk of taxpayers.

Ask yourself what allows the welfare state and thus the disenfranchisement of the betas from their alpha castoff poon. The only way that the welfare state exists is if the betas are stupid enough to make themselves slaves to others by accepting that it is OK to take from one person and give to another. I JUST DON'T GET HOW YOU AND YOUR READERS DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT POINT.

Anonymous said...

All of the problems you talk about, Whiskey, can only become problems by implementation of the idea that it is OK to take from one person and give to another.

Beta males are beta males and will always be beta males. Theirs is the lot to stand by at all times and be obedient to alphas and be grateful that they are allowed at least some chance of mating females. That is the way it has always been and that is the way it always shall be. If you are beta, know your place just as you think the woman should know hers.

What you seem to be pissed about is that a welfare state allows unattractive to semi-attractive females access to alpha males. In the past, there were consequences if those women birthed the alpha's children out of wedlock. Now, thanks to the welfare state, there are no consequences, except for the betas, who make up the bulk of males and thus the bulk of taxpayers.

Ask yourself what allows the welfare state and thus the disenfranchisement of the betas from their alpha castoff poon. The only way that the welfare state exists is if the betas are stupid enough to make themselves slaves to others by accepting that it is OK to take from one person and give to another. I JUST DON'T GET HOW YOU AND YOUR READERS DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT POINT.

moneybagzz said...

@Anonymous: For the longest time I have been battling tooth and nail against the Welfailure State cheerleaders (you know, those types who worship @ the altar of government health care crying that the Canadians and the British have it so good).

The primary reason why the Welfailure State exists is because of Government Greed. B/C of GG, our society has devolved into the idea that it is OK to live off the productive behavior of others, so long as I show up and vote to keep that gravy train coming.
Just look @ the financial collapse of Europe (or this country in 2007-2009 thanks to the Democratic Party).
Government Greed: the drive to acquire more of other peoples' money and property using the force of law and the poor and disadvantaged as human shields.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting post Whiskey, but I do have a few critiques.

I don't have any official stats, but most of the young Sweedish people I have run into are white sweeds. This must have been a result of copulation between an ethnic Sweedish woman and ethnic Sweedish man sometime in the mid 80s to early 90s. Unless you're saying things have drastically changed in the last 20 years regarding the social status of Sweedish women compaired to Sweedish men, I can't imagine that the plaurality of (legal) sex that Sweedish women have is with Third World Alpha-males.

That brings me to my next point, the myth of Islamic Alpha-males. Go to any islamic country, and the muslim men are usually scrawny, limp-wristed men. I would argue Muslim men are dominated more easily by their superiors than white men are.

It reminds me of when a black Nation of Islam man called into Michael Savage. He asked him what country has successfully been ruled by black men, and the caller responded with the Nation of Islam. To which Savage replied:

"You put women in cloaks in order to cover them up because you’re afraid of your women. You are afraid of your women because they are smarter than you. And the only power you have is the power over your women. The only power you have is the power to oppress your women."

White countries have been able to have successful white countries where women weren't hauled around like cattle and wearing burkas, but where the values of modesty, chastity, and virtue where upheld. Loose women were looked down upon, and virtuous women where esteemed.

Lastly, I have noticed accross the manosphere, HBD, and white racial consciousness the increasing inmportance of "game," specifically the brand of game as made popular by Neill Strauss, Mystery, Real Social Dynamics and many subsequent "game" flag-bearers.

While game does work for the truly ardent followers and results in a form of synthetic Alpha-male status, most people who try game fail miserably at it, and even the pioneers in game became losers living in "Project Hollywood."

Even at Neill Strauss' launch party for "The Game," it was an all-male affair.

I don't doubt the effectiveness of game used properly, but personally I find more cogent to the prospects of getting laid is attitude. Even then I'm not sure.

Myself and other friends have gotten laid on nights because a girl came up to me and said she thought I was hot.

Go figure. Yes, I'm a beta, but still less beta then I was five years ago. Maybe someday I'll be able to join the ranks of Alpha-lite.

Even so, I don't think Muslims are outcompeting Sweedish men. Why else would they have to rape so often?

Anonymous said...


I would like to add a couple of extremely important ideas that are central to your theory / post which is excellent by the way.

The first is that most of these feminist-socialist utopias exist in countries with proportional representative governments. In affluent countries in northern Europe women’s political power is much greater in proportion to their actual productivity. Men’s constant need and desire to climb the dominance hierarchy means that they will always have a stake in getting ahead economically. Women have figured this out and tap that power source like a hydroelectric dam on a river. Women are able to glom onto the economy in a way that provides them with a guaranteed standard of living irrespective of anything they actually contribute. The benefits include health care, retirement, housing, child care, etc. In a Republic like ours it is much harder for women to monopolize the political power and hence bend the economy in a way that primarily benefits them.

My second point is that many women will gladly trade comfort and security for success. Much of this has to do with the fact that women and men have different reproductive strategies then men. The Red Queen dictates that any woman, irrespective of how ugly, wealthy, smart, or famous she is can have as many children as she desires (age and health withstanding). As a consequence, women do not need to hit a home run in order to win. Men on the other hand do not get a bite at the apple unless they are either physically attractive or have a high social status but if they are they get multiple bites at the apple (Alpha). Many women are very content to have their one child and live in a clean secure apartment somewhere as long as they do not need to do anything unpleasant, difficult, arduous, or dangerous. For men doing that is the reproductive kiss of death.

It is not an accident that these feminist – socialist economies are not growing. They all have stagnant GDP and declining birth rates. It is as if half the population is semi-retired beginning at age 18. Europeans tend to be apartment dwellers. They live in VERY CLEAN small quarters with simple IKEA like furnishings. They have a pleasant existence but no future.

Prof. Woland

nyccine said...

While the analysis is great and, ultimately, the explanation for the rot of PC in Sweden is right, I question the ultimate conclusion that what will solve this is something as simple as men getting a little bit of status on their women. I'm surprised you'd fall into this fallacy, as it's something you've addressed at length before.

Hypergamy doesn't really work that way. Sure, a woman seeing a man as being higher status than her is a vitality important first step, but that won't deal with the urge to mate with the highest-status man possible - you've still got to solve the problem of women having the capability of cheating on her man with a "sexier" man and not only not suffering any financial, legal, or (and this is probably the most vital) social consequences, but quite likely benefiting from the deal.

That is the problem that has to be solved, and you have to find a way to do it without any support from women - who are willing to sacrifice society, and even the well-being of their own kids, just for a shot at being some alpha male's pump and dump - and the alpha males - who are, after all, the real winners of the sexual revolution.

Jimmy the Saint said...

A personal pet peeve - the classification of people as Alphas and Betas is a pop psychology ripoff of pack behavior. Thus, the whole Alpha/Beta thing is a misnomer. There aren't Alpha males, there is only the Alpha male - one, single, solitary - the most dominant male. It is possible to be the Alpha in a small group, but if two such Alphas meet, one will inevitably end up becoming a Beta. Only the most dominant remains the Alpha.

Further, Betas aren't weak and soft; they're simply not *the most dominant*. Basically, they are lieutenants - ready to become the Alpha should the opportunity arise. The people that get labeled as "Betas" are actually "Gammas," subservient, undifferentiated spear-carriers.

ws1835 said...

Whiskey -

A devil's advocate comment regarding case studies. You have noted a handful of case studies from Western Civ that link women's social status to cultural decline. Can you find a counter-factual? i.e., a case study of a society movement that liberated women, but did not cause cultural decline?

btw, not surprising to see a definite link between cultural decline and the decline of masculine social influence. the defense of king and culture is largely a chauvinist exercise. if women are in charge, chauvinism obviously is not going to be their strong suit. consequently, those who do engage in cultural chauvinism (in this case muslims) move into the power vacuum.

Anonymous said...

In my observation women love the metrosexual non-dominant types. Not the manly types. This is in many plaes over the years.

Conatus said...

Hey thanks for noticing I exist over at Sailers place(Telling People what they want to hear, 11/3)(about the Frankfort School and Pathologizing of ethnic pride amongst whites).

Yeah the Frankfort School could not occur in a vacuum, whites were beginning to doubt themselves and their civilization by the time the Frankfort School came along.

I think White Western Civilization was ripe for self critical introspection post WW2. Whites had gone around the world for the prior 200 years saying, "Hey our way is the best, look at the stuff our civilization has! like us and oh, by the way, let us run your land." That worked well for a while. White Western Civilization brought a ton of improvements to the bush all around the world.
But then WW1 and WW2 and Mister Hitler came along and Western Civ, which had been astride the world, also had the time and the money to indulge themselves with anxiety and introspection. Whites and Western Civ started to doubt themselves after suicidal WW1 and WW2 plus the sheer number of deaths. Western Civ was still the richest. They had the money and power to afford the nonpragmatic introspection. Civil rights was the nail in the coffin of white self-esteem. "Holy Shit...we arfe assholes after all" was the thought.

I think the idea of looking inward was kind of new to Whites and Western Civ and Freud was a big popularizer in America followed by the Frankfort School.

Psychology was in its adolescence in WW2 and it found a newly receptive audience in America, a newly introspective, soul searching America. So doubt and abeyance replaced certainty and action. There was a hunger for introspection which had been missing in the former linear looking, compulsively doing Western civilization.

So yeah, there was an appetite for soul searching self blame since White civilization was obviously not perfect or even as good as say, the Victorians thought it was. The Frankfort school filled that need.
But Frankfort School Fans are also the Police of Talk. They determine what you can and cannot say in the public forum without losing your job. Maybe not lose your job but be put on the Neanderthal list of unpromotables. In 1820 80% of Americans worked their own farms, were beholden to no one, and spoke their minds. Now 90% of us work for someone else and we would lose our jobs if we spoke incorrectly so we spend far more time looking around ‘to see what everyone else thinks’ ( like a woman.) You do not want to risk losing that promotion because you were proud of your white ancestors or that horrible white civilization. We learn in grade school high school and the liberal arts how horrible our white ancestors were to the locals, defending them is ‘white supremacist.’ (or is it just what equalicist?). As adults if we watch TV we pick up the same message.
I do not think it is a yearning for self racial abuse, I think it comes from above. The Police of Talk.

Personally now I think we are sated on the feast of self blame, we can no longer afford the psychological self- laceration unless we wish to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, Western Civilization. That is just my opinion and I am a white guy without connections/fame/wealth and I think there are a lot of us out there. My comment at Steve’s was just a note on what has happened, what is and what I hope will change.

But Western civilization is like that line about democracy as a form of government, “Democracy… it is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. “ I would say White Western Civilization is the worst form of Civilization, except for all the rest. Yeah whites have pimples but relatively speaking they are small. It isn’t perfect but it is better for more people than all the rest.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

A Proposal for defining the Feminist vs Anti-Feminist Problem


"It is about dominance. Women are hard-wired to crave dominance. Need it, want, do anything for it. Including import lots of dominant Muslim men, in the hope of transforming the nation into a place filled with dominant, sexy A-holes that women crave."

Yeah sure. That must be why Swedish women are reporting being raped by those Muslim men instead of sexily seduced.

You fail.