The Strange Politics of TV's Alcatraz and Person of Interest

There is only one institution in America with any reach. Only one that really shapes culture. Only one that reflects, and changes it. No, its not churches. Hardly anyone goes to Church any more. Nor is it politics, unaffiliated people are growing and will soon outnumber Republicans. There is only one institution that matters. That is television. True, it does not have the reach it had with only three networks, and no cable tv. But there it is, 17 million people watched the Golden Globes. It is, outside sports and a few other live events, a mostly female-gay ghetto. But it still shapes the attitudes and cultural assumptions of most women. Which brings us to Fox's Alcatraz and CBS's Person of Interest. Both are shows with somewhat strange politics. Alcatraz wants to indict the White male America of the past, for well being White and Male. Not sufficiently multicultural. Meanwhile Person of Interest posits that icky White beta males are the main threat to personal security in NYC, and Black men and women NEVER EVER commit crimes. Why? Because their viewers are nearly all female, and that is what that audience wants.


First, Alcatraz. seen in the trailer below:



Basically, a young White girl with a pixie haircut, and no discernible man in her life, but "hot" (this IS San Francisco, after all), is recruited by a semi-evil cranky old White guy, to work with a "diverse" team of well, a fat Mexican comic book fan and "Professor" and some Indian chick to solve the mystery of why everyone disappeared from Alcatraz. Sub-plots include the wicked, bad White guy who killed her first, less fat Mexican cop partner, who is her ... grandfather! And also the Indian doctor being a time traveler or something, she shows up in a flashback in 1960 in Alcatraz.

The whole thing is laughable, with hard-case WWII vet and Alcatraz con meekly doing what "they" (a voice on a telephone) tells him to do, because well that's what bad, dangerous White guys do. Or guys from 1963 suddenly knowing that they are being watched by video surveillance cameras. Or that time-travelers would use that to ... hire hitmen. Of course!

It is naturally, chick crack. Women love this stuff, the good (puzzles, women love puzzles as any Agatha Christie fan knows), and the bad (basically the semi-lesbian, fat Mexican guy, and the cranky old guy have to chase down evil White male America from 1963 and imprison it). There's a metaphor there, and its very obvious. The shows creators feel the old, straight White male working man's San Francisco is an affront to reality, and want to bring it back to life just to imprison it. Again, chick crack: importance and unraveling the mystery without any responsibility or duty. To country, justice, family, or anything. Or sorting that out. Nope, just easy moral victories over cartoon bad guys. Because everyone knows, that in San Francisco, the most horrible crimes are committed by ... White guys.

Nope, the words of SFPD Captain Michael Biel on the causes of San Francisco's 11 murders in 2011 are:

But police Capt. Michael Biel told the board’s Public Safety Committee the killings are unrelated and do not represent a specific crime wave. Biel said only one of the 11 homicides committed so far this year has been gang-related. Most of the rest, he said, involved social acquaintances and ongoing disputes over money or drugs.

Now, what sort of person kills casual acquaintances in disputes over money and drugs? Oh I know, I know! White guys. Usually icky beta males or lower class blue collar guys. After all, we all know the crime waves WWII vets committed (one of the bad guys in Alcatraz is a WWII vet who stole to feed his family).

Person of Interest, after an interesting start, has followed the path of pandering to the female audience's prejudices. While the pilot played with expectations, the icky beta male White guy being the victim, the "hot" woman being the killer, the main plot, bad corrupt White cops framing innocent Black victims had a noticeable subtext. All the cops were fat, bad looking ethnic White guys, Italians, Irish, and not the handsome good guys.



The most recent episode was the most laughable, embodying Eric Cartman's South Park Dictum that Black people can do no wrong. The character, the person of interest, is a beautiful Dominican woman who is a struggling lawyer, trying to free innocent Black cons wrongfully sent back to prison by their corrupt (again fat and unattractive Italian) parole officer. So the person at Child Protective Services can get a kick-back on falsely claimed kids cared for by the foster parents. The conspirators? A middle aged White couple and ... yes! An Icky White Beta Male. The "twist" is we are supposed to suspect, briefly, a noble Black woman who runs the place. Not the icky White beta male who expresses a romantic interest in the beautiful Dominican woman.

Why that plot point? Because it confirms what most of the White female audience "knows" with religious certainty. ALL Black people are noble and good, and never ever EVER commit crimes, it is racist to think so. The REAL threat is icky White beta males who might even **GASP** ask them out. How awful. Of course they are murderers and corrupt.

How does this willful denial of reality exist? Because most White women have no real contact with actual real, Black male criminals in urban areas. Or noble Hispanics. Those who do, like Alexandra "Asians in the Library" Wallace are not real happy about being second class citizens at best, harassed and threatened at worst. Black ex-cons are not in reality, noble guys trying to "turn their life around" for their son. They are in fact, brutal and dysfunctional and totally without much hope for anything else but aging out of violence. Productive and trustworthy members of society they are not.

This makes the show far different from the 1980's "Equalizer" which was also set in NYC. There, brutal Chinese kidnap or Dominican drug gangs ruled places, or organized crime, or various drug rings. While there were plenty of evil White guys, the beta male White guy was often the one the Equalizer (the incomparable Edward Woodward, sorely missed) protected. Heck even glamor-show "Miami Vice" had no problem in depicting the reality of the drug trade then, mostly Columbian drug lords. But back then, more men watched television, and therefore pandering to female-led PC was not the main concern.



One of the subtexts is that the bad guys are really bad because they are ... racist. "Framing" Black guys for committing the crimes that evil Blue Collar White guys of Ethnic Origin or Beta Male White guys do. I've seen that particular plot point three times on the show this season. That's no accident, undoubtedly the audience responded and it got repeated.

If you don't like PC, you have to destroy TV. Period. Or remake it into a place where shows fear offending .... beta male White guys, and Blue Colar guys of Ethnic Origin.

Either destroy female-led consumerism (by promoting female thrift and value-buying) or start suing the hell out of these production companies and networks for defamation of class. Sue and sue and sue and sue. Sue till the cows come home. And then sue some more. Attrition warfare against an enemy with limited time and money. Force them to abandon the shaping of culture to feed the White female professional viewpoint at its worst not best.

Puzzle stuff? I'm with the female viewers on that one. Its fun! Why not? Character development (but not by icky sex or "shocking" turns to "evil" out of comic books and soap operas) are also a positive development due to women viewers. But lets have an end to the chasing down and imprisonment of the Straight White male past, and icky Beta Male or White Ethnic guy as villain wrongfully framing innocent Black ex-cons. I'd rather watch vampires, witches, and fantasy characters out of "Grimm." Its more believable.
...Read more

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 www.weforum.org.

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, MailOnline.com 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."



...Read more

England Falls

England has fallen. Quicker than I would have thought. Home Secretary Theresa May rules out use of the Army, Water Cannons. The situation is spiraling out of control. High Street areas, the ritzy places of Kensington, Notting Hill, and other "tony" areas have had rioters looting patrons of two-star Michelin restaurants. While Home Secretary May declares that "policing is done with the consent of communities." Code words for no action that the Black, Pakistani Muslim, and now Indian groups that have effectively colonized England would object to, will be taken. As the MP for Northern Ireland notes, both the Army and Water Cannon have been used within the past year in Ireland. But against ... Whites. Not Blacks, Pakistanis, or Indians. As the picture from the Daily Mail shows, a thug (Black) forces a White guy to hand over his clothes. The purpose being simple humiliation (the clothes won't fit).


Meanwhile riots have spread to other cities. Bristol, Birmingham, and Liverpool. Olympic officials are said to be mulling yanking the Olympics from London and awarding them to some other city on an emergency basis. There are not enough police, those that have been mobilized from other cities ... like Bristol are now stuck in London, where they have been fleeing rioters. The police can use no force against the mob, and the mob (nearly all Black or Pakistani or Indian depending on the section of the city) know it. The police are exhausted, working 18 shifts and limited when they do confront the mob to batons and pepper spray. Which will not cut it.

At this point, the utter weakness of England's rulers is exposed. The rulers cannot even secure the property and persons of people in tony, ritzy areas. Notting Hill and Kensington are very, very rich. Islamists and Jihadists will see this weakness and mobilize their own people to create their own mini-states. Enforced by brutal action. What will England do in response? Police by consent?

Here is the end of PC Britain. As feckless as JK Rowlings Ministry of Magic, against Voldemort. With a politically correct female Home Secretary ruling out anything that would offend Black or Muslim-Pakistani mobs. [There are a few White kids engaged in the mob violence, but is vastly Black or Pakistani-Muslim.] And of course if say, Choudary can set up his own mini Islamic Republic (and rest assured he will) inside Britain, so too can hordes of people from very poor countries in North Africa or Africa come there and simply set up where ever they want. Taking what they want. If a mob can rob the tony patrons of a tony restaurant, why not Buckingham Palace? After all, that's the consent of the Community! And why not have, say, half of Libya or Morocco show up at Dover Beach? Ready to take over? That's the price of PC weakness. Of diversity. Of Multiculturalism.


England is finished. Over. Done. Dead. There is no one in the Conservative, Liberal, Labor, or any other party save the BNP willing to use force to preserve what is left of traditional England. No one. [No, not even the UKIP.] And the BNP has no real support in Parliament to form a government. There is no one with any will. To save what is left of England would require shooting hundreds if not thousands of rioters, quite dead, at this point. Locking the rest up, in ugly penal colonies in the South Atlantic while they freeze to death (with ample documentation) and targeted payoffs to certain agitators with the promise of a trip to the Antarctic if deals are not kept (and making examples of deal-breakers). As Machiavelli wrote, it is far easier to rectify things when the situation has not reached a crisis. Early diagnosis of social ills offer remedies that are far less drastic. But no one in England has the courage or will to act, which at this point means killing lots of rioters and nothing else.

What will take its place, is rule by mob of certain enclaves. Black leaders emerging from the mob will rule certain parts of London, which will look like African hell-hole cities, only colder and with snow. Pakistani Muslim leaders will do the same with other sections of major cities which will also be hell holes. And fleeing mob non-White rule will be a host of Englishmen and women. Who will be the first but not last European refugees effectively ethnically cleansed out of their own nation.

France will probably take most of them. And they'll be the core of what promises to be an ugly and angry fight over the ethnic cleansing of Whites out of native European lands. No real effective action can be taken against the mob in the UK. The authorities retain enough power to prevent people from fighting back (as in much of the Harry Potter books the Ministry of Magic's main goal was preventing any fighting back against Voldemort). But people will vote with their feet, even as shuffling refugees into France.

Who will stop the violence? Who will prevent rioters from simply taking more, and more, and more? Who is stopping them now from stripping White passer-by of their ... CLOTHES!

No one. So the rioters will simply take more. Because there is no one to stop them. And they will rule. That is quite obvious. But would you want to live under the rule of the jumped up mob leaders sure to emerge as "rulers" of fragmented England? They won't even be able to keep the power flowing, or sewage processed, or trash picked up. Meanwhile the "government" will be a shattered hulk unable to provide much of anything other than endless punishment to the White natives who are now quite visibly second or third class people in their own lands. Perhaps a few goodies will be handed out, but that is it. Control over London, and most cities, have been given over to the mobs, and there is no means to take it back. Nor will this stuff be confined to cities, it will spread to the countryside as well. Because there is stuff there to take, and no one to stop them.

So out of desperation, people will shuffle into France like WWII refugees, with what pitiable possessions they have left, and form the most visible but not the last examples of ethnic cleansing of White natives in Europe.

England has fallen. It will never be restored to what it was. What will remain is fragmented, non-White kingdoms and Big Man pseudo republics run by folks like Choudary. Islamic mini-kingdoms and the like, conquering England without much trouble. An object lesson of the stupidity of PC, Diversity, Multiculturalism, and the rest. At least the French will know, as will the Italians, the Germans, the Spanish, the Irish, and the rest, what awaits them.

Camp of the Saints arrived in the form of London riots. Because the saints were already there, people just would not see them (again, like the refusal to recognize Voldemort in the Potter books). Of course, there are now a whole lot of people who had something, a bit of property, made dirt poor overnight, in a place where its terrible to be poor, and White. Burnt out shops, stores, homes, and such. Survivors of those undoubtedly slain in riots and arson. These people will make Travis Bickle look like Barney the Dinosaur. And they won't be a loner like Bickle, rather, organized. It was one thing for the OAS to try and retain a lost dream of Algeria. It will be another thing for a whole generation of Englishmen wanting to reclaim England, from exile in France. Ask the Israelis how it works out, with a camp of seething with resentment, exiles on your borders, dreaming of revenge and return of property. That is what awaits the new possessors of England, after their inevitable victory. As Machiavelli advised, humiliation is unwise, better to kill your enemy than leave him poor and alive. Undoubtedly the White guy forced to strip and hand over his clothes will have a life-long hatred for Blacks, and just as undoubtedly the picture in the Daily Mail will generate both fear and anger in the White British population. Which has no desire to experience the same.

Pictures have power. That picture, is bound to enrage most White Britons. Who fear it happening to them. And who are too numerous to kill.

Camp of the Saints is ultimately not sustainable, because it is one thing to force a man to hand over his clothes by reason of your superior legal and physical position (the White guy knows if he resists he will be both beaten by a much larger and stronger man, and go to jail in the bargain). It is quite another thing to keep trash off the streets, or the power going, or raw sewage safely processed. And another to build a modern military force capable of killing people efficiently in large numbers. Eventually those cleansed out will return, or their descendants, and they will be "Potter-like" in the battle finally against Voldemort, willing to make appalling sacrifices to end the threat once and for all.

The one caveat is that the UK Military, primarily the Army, could possibly step in with all other elements of society failing, and shoot half the rioters, with the approval of the Queen, and the majority British public. But that would entail a military rule and suspension of Parliament, PC, Multiculturalism, and the like. I don't see that happening, frankly. Just more of the same in the picture. There is a reason that the current government is not willing to have the Army act, and that Labor is not calling for them either. The concessions the Army would demand would be too great. So England will fall, very far, and very fast.

All that is left is the rising of the Cromwell figure, in exile, in France. Where the French White natives look in fear and wonder and demand something be done on their own situation.

Who wants PC and Multiculturalism and Diversity if all it gets you is being stripped of your clothes (and everything else)? And that's all it does get you, in the end.

...Read more

The Phone Hacking Scandal: PC Makes You Corrupt

The Phone-Hacking scandal involving News Corp's News of the World tabloid, where various celebrities, politicians, and ordinary people (murder victims, slain British soldiers in Afghanistan) had their voicemail hacked generates a lot of media attention on News Corp's rather unsavory practices there. The BBC, Guardian, and the rest of the far-left British establishment (but I repeat myself) has gone into an orgiastic overload regarding the scandal. However, a new editorial by the Wall Street Journal's Holman Jenkins likens it to a British Watergate, and points out the big area of corruption: the Police.


The scandals involving the corrupt and unethical means by which tabloids gain information about celebrity targets has been old news for decades. Donald E. Westlake wrote about tabloid seamy excesses in the 1988 novel Trust Me On This. One of the ways tabloids would gin up scandal and protect themselves, was to pay associates of celebrity targets substantial sums of money to speculate on tape about weird/repelling and patently untrue things about the celebrity. If sued, the tabloid would produce the tape. The major plot-point of the novel was a murder and attempted murders related to a ruthless attempt to generate pictures of a celebrity target that resulted in deaths. That tabloids were ugly and ruthless in generating dubious content about celebrity and politician targets was old news even then, in 1988. If people don't like that, they only needed to stop buying tabloids, or now stop reading their websites. TMZ, Radar Online, X17, and other gossip sites online (the Huffington Post arguably belongs in that category as well) are not going away. Because people LIKE their content, even if most of it is generated by interns with cheap video cameras trolling celebrity hotspots looking to generate confrontations that are newsworthy. [Celebrity publicists have trained most of their clients to say nothing, just smile and wave as they leave.]

Seamy as it is, this gossip stuff sells, and if the public wants it shut down, they need only stop patronizing it. All of these organizations are private, not government run, and depend utterly on the goodwill and patronage of their readers and viewers.

No, the scandalous thing is the corruption of the British police. Long thought of in the US as a sort of homey, unarmed and incorruptible if clueless police force, the British police have been mired in corruption scandals since at least the 1970s. They have also been inept, and totally PC. Indeed the corruption has gone hand in hand with the PC desires of their masters, the British elite.

As Jenkins writes:

But the bigger scandal, as the headlines are starting to reveal, is the police scandal. Even top cops were phone-"blagged" and yet apparently complained to editors about it rather than treating it as a crime.

Had police pursued obvious wrongdoing and jailed a few journalists back in 1999, a lot fewer British citizens would have been victims of privacy invasions. Those who've likened the hacking scandal to Britain's Watergate are onto something. After the Watergate break-in, behavior that had been tolerated, routine and abetted by official agencies became, overnight, untolerated and prosecuted. Remember, it was the FBI's No. 2, blowing a whistle on his own agency, who played "Deep Throat" to the press.

We're also struck at how often the subject of cocaine comes up. Jonathan Rees, the private eye accused of bribing police to get information on behalf of several tabloids, was Scotland Yard's suspect in the unsolved 1987 ax murder of his partner, who was believed about to blow the whistle on cocaine trafficking by police in southeast London. Rees himself subsequently went to jail, along with a corrupt police officer, for planting cocaine on a woman involved in a child custody dispute. Sean Hoare, the late News of the World reporter who blew the whistle on widespread phone hacking at the tabloids, spoke of widespread cocaine usage on tabloid news desks. For what it's worth, we're guessing that drugs will be part of the story before it's over.

Police, routinely helped tabloids and other papers, including the Daily Mirror (not a News Corp paper), the Daily Telegraph (not a News Corp paper), and likely the Guardian and BBC (also not News Corp outfits to put it mildly) obtain information on people in a corrupt manner. Cocaine and other drugs are rumored to be rampant among the police, tabloid reporters, editors, "respectable" papers, politicians, judges, and the entire British elite. As is a corrupt and venal attitude.

The British version of the TV series "Life on Mars" addressed the corruption and lack of PC-ness, with the view that while the corrupt antagonist to the hero might be well, corrupt, he at least got results and was not handcuffed by PC. The Sopranos Tony Soprano, and the Shield's Vic Mackey are similar characters. Audiences across the West are sick of the PC, more so than the corruption. The PC, multi-culti, diversity stuff just means subordination of ordinary White citizens into an eternal groveling position relative to non-Whites, nearly all of whom have nothing but hostility to the White majority, the traditions, and values of the country. [See Luc Besson's "Taken" for a fairly good run-down of this, as well as his "From Paris With Love."]

However, as noted in the film "Taken," the corruption comes with PC. They are part and parcel. France's police forces have always been viewed as corrupt, enforcers for whoever holds the political reins (Vichy and Occupying Nazis, Napoleons I and III, the Bourbons, corrupt Third Republic, Fourth Republic, and Fifth Republic officials). But the British Police until the 1970's retained a reputation for being both efficient and free of corruption. The problem with the British police has been the corrupt nature of their political leaders. Who have demanded adherence to a PC line, which is explicitly anti-Majority, anti-White, anti-culture, anti-Tradition, anti-History, and totally alien to everything about Britain and its culture and its people. So the only people who were promoted, on the ability to adhere to PC and parrot its idiot delusions, were corrupt individuals who had nothing but contempt for Britain and its people and its values.

You cannot have it half-way, or "best of both worlds." If you want sexy men, for women, then you must deal with the death of the nuclear family, and single-motherhood as the norm for almost every family. And the dysfunction that single-motherhood brings, the fragility, the chaos. If you want multiculturalism and "diversity' then you must deal with sexual discrimination, and isolation of menstruating girls at public High schools:

It’s the scene every Friday at the cafeteria of Valley Park Middle School in Toronto. That’s not a private academy, it’s a public school funded by taxpayers. And yet, oddly enough, what’s going on is a prayer service – oh, relax, it’s not Anglican or anything improper like that; it’s Muslim Friday prayers, and the Toronto District School Board says don’t worry, it’s just for convenience: They put the cafeteria at the local imams’ disposal because otherwise the kids would have to troop off to the local mosque and then they’d be late for Lesbian History class or whatever subject is scheduled for Friday afternoon.

The picture is taken from the back of the cafeteria. In the distance are the boys. They’re male, so they get to sit up front at prayers. Behind them are the girls. They’re female, so they have to sit behind the boys because they’re second-class citizens – not in the whole of Canada, not formally, not yet, but in the cafeteria of a middle school run by the Toronto District School Board they most certainly are.

And the third row? The ones with their backs to us in the foreground of the picture? Well, let the Star’s caption writer explain:

At Valley Park Middle School, Muslim students participate in the Friday prayer service. Menstruating girls, at the very back, do not take part.

Oh. As Kathy Shaidle says:

Yep, that’s part of the caption of the Toronto Star photo.

Yes, the country is Canada and the year is 2011.

Just so. Not some exotic photojournalism essay from an upcountry village in Krappistan. But a typical Friday at a middle school in the largest city in Canada. I forget which brand of tampon used to advertise itself with the pitch "Now with new [whatever] you can go horse-riding, water-ski-ing, ballet dancing, whatever you want to do", but perhaps they can just add the tag: "But not participate in Friday prayers at an Ontario public school."

As Steyn notes, local Canadian Muslims are discussing how best to kill homosexuals. Canadian laws forbid religious worship in public schools. But that law is ignored in Toronto, where local schools are 80-90% Muslim. Of course the "real enemy" is traditional culture, values and people. Icky White Beta males, traditional values, the two-parent nuclear family as John McWhorter writes, "A neighborhood where every child had two parents would be a little odd and almost ominous. Except if it were a highly traditional religious community, one would suspect strangely stringent notions regarding compatibility and even sexuality." [Translation: two-parent families are icky and bad, except for say, non-White immigrants who are religious. Those people are OK, they're not "the wrong sort of White people" who need to be annihilated.]

PC is corrupt. You cannot get "halfway corruption" with PC. You get it all. You get a disregard for everything that traditional society teaches is right, and correct, including treatment of women, those not in the majority, individual rights, the historic culture and tradition, and trust. Police rummage through phone records, record calls, spy on people, and sell the information to which ever tabloid or newspaper or media outlet wants it. News of the World or the BBC. The Sun or the Guardian. It does not matter. The corruption engendered by PC never just stops like the fantasy of "Sharia Lite" where you can get off any time. Like Sharia, like Multiculturalism, like PC, like Diversity, it means a corrupt and brutal environment where nobody but the very rich and powerful have any rights. None.

The Guardian and the BBC will surely come to regret their jihad against News Corp. While News Corp is surely guilty, the role the police play in supplying not just News Corp with phone details, but the BBC and the Guardian, who surely used them, is bound to come out. As is the rampant and shared drug use, trafficking, and corruption of a shared, PC-bound elite. Who have nothing but contempt for ordinary people and their values.

What, really, does PC have to offer? Obeisance to the powers-that-be, that is all. Perhaps a few patronage scraps not gobbled up by the main players, thin gruel indeed. For most people, its an obvious lie that is ground in their faces every day. As long as the money lasts to pay enough people off, like the Soviet Union, then the game will continue. But as the money is running out, the game is coming up. The scandals are not just that News Corp. UK papers hacked phones of a murdered 13 year old and British soldiers slain in Afghanistan. It is that the police were selling to all comers, with coke and money and favors and all sorts of corrupt stuff involved, likely all the way up to the top of Labor, Tory, and Liberal Democrats. Along with most of the elite, and the top people at the BBC and Guardian. News Corp's people on the spot, James Murdoch, Rebecca Brooks, and others, all know where the bodies are buried. The shared coke, the favor trading, the police flogging secrets of ordinary people thrust into the news and celebrities alike, all for a price. And who got what to get what, including rival organizations. Like the Boss Tweed Ring, this is not an isolated pattern but a national scandal.

Because PC makes you corrupt. And the price of the corruption is sure to come out. Those in the dock of the media frenzy will drag others right along with them. With the result that the British public will realize their police and elites are a bunch of coked-out corrupt cronies, all connected, and all venal and small.


...Read more

Why Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is a Disaster

Only clueless RINOs like HotAir's Allahpundit or hostile Liberal Democrats could find letting openly gay military personnel serve to be a wise social policy. The first are clueless SWPL folks, the latter profoundly hostile to every institution that supports America. Allowing openly gay people to serve in the Military will be an unmitigated disaster that will cost America dearly. Barack Obama would not have it any other way, but the larger issue is the stupidity of the RINOs who want to have their social liberalism and a functioning America. PC does indeed make you stupid.


As Ann Coulter noted, Bradley Manning is the poster child for letting gays serve openly in the military. Manning was by all accounts, a first-class screw up. But was protected because he was gay, even with DADT. Manning gave Wikileaks the confidential data, including classified diplomatic cables, military documents, and video, because he was angry over his break up with his Drag Queen Boyfriend.

This is the reality of Gay Life. Gays, are not, by and large, respectable, middle class, sober, and staid men who merely like to have sex … with other men. They tend to be like Bobby Trendy than John Wayne. Gay men are largely, flamboyant, emotional, flighty, and lacking in any real discipline. They are poor security risks (being ruled as Manning shows, by emotions and pique) even if they are serving openly. Gays are in short, far closer to one giant hissy fit from betraying their country over a break-up with a Drag Queen, than they are from John Basilone style sacrifice.

For this, we must blame Hollywood. People like Allahpundit simply reflexively accept whatever is shown on the screen. Lacking any real knowledge of gays (not attending say the Folsom Street Fair chronicled by "Zombie" of "Zombietime") squishy RINOs view whatever TV and movies depict as accurate and reflective of reality. The "nice" and staid, sober Gay guys are in reality, all variants of Bobby Trendy, to greater or lesser degree. While staid, sober, and responsible Gay men do exist, they are about as rare as Black Republicans. Just as the reality of Lesbianism is reflected by Rosie O'D0nnell, not Alyson Hannigan playing "Gay Now!" Willow on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

The arguments of the pro-gays in the military camp are: 1. It is inevitable, because public opinion supports it, 2. it is like Desegregating the military under Truman, 3. other militaries like the Netherlands do this, and 4. the courts will do it anyway.

Is this inevitable? Nope. America has wanted its borders secure since the early 1990's, and the widespread majority support for building a massive border fence and deporting every illegal we can, has been stymied ever since. Americans tend to be deferential to serving combat military on what they need in terms of manpower, how the men are mustered and organized, and disciplined. Most Americans moreover are capable of being persuaded …

That Gays in the military are not like Desegregating the military. Because Black and White guys did not want to have sex with each other. In particular, ordinary White women can be told, it is like every icky Beta male lusting after you, now protected and able to "order you" on pain of facing death in battle to service them. Gays in the military GUARANTEES gay sexual harassment. With Gays protected, basically immune the way Muslims are, because of PC and multiculturalism and diversity, all of which have the force of law (one of the fruits, intended or not, of the Civil Rights movement).

The whole point of Civil Rights was to promote "fairness" and "equality" by discriminating against White men (later Straight White Men as the Gay Liberation movement gained power) in favor of everyone else: Blacks, Hispanics, Women, and of course, Gays and Lesbians. This means, as a practical and legal matter (including many Supreme Court decisions) Straight White guys have very few rights, almost none, against those higher in the "protected class" totem pole. Protected Class means in practice, that Major Hassan could scream that he wanted to cut off the heads of infidels, at Army conferences, and nothing was done until he shot and killed 14 people. Because he was part of the Protected Class (as was Bradley Manning).

The only type of Gay guy who joins the military, overwhelmingly, if we are honest, are those desiring sex with other men, in a hot-house, near male only environment. Most gays go into fashion, design, advertising, and other gay-friendly "flamboyant" occupations in civilian life. Sure, there are a few sober, patriotic gays. Just like there is at least one Chinese born Center in the NBA. But extrapolating from the Yao Mings of the world (rare, outlier folks) to the average is the mark of weak minds desperate to keep the PC myths they see on TV and movies, alive.

The flood of gays in the military will harass (with PC/Protected Class impunity) all the straight guys below them rank and power. Again, this is something Jane Average White girl can understand if put to her bluntly. As well as Joe Sixpack already getting it. The Marines in particular understand this. They don't want to share close, personal space for months, with a guy who wants to have sex with them.

For the simple reason that straight men find gay sex repulsive. Even more repulsive than straight women find the idea of having sex with beta males.

Ending DADT is not like Desegregating the military. Because put bluntly, White and Black soldiers did not want to have sex with each other, the other side being repulsed and unwilling. Marines view it as akin to Prison Rape. Which it is.

Yes, other militaries have openly gay soldiers. They also have pretend, toy militaries incapable of fighting their way out of a paper bag. The Dutch Peacekeepers surrendered Srebenica to Miladic and did nothing to stop the massacre. Because they had a pretend, toy military oriented towards politically correct gay soldiers, not an effective fighting force.

You can have a PC-driven, gay military. With tons of Bobby Trendys, and not much else. Or you can have the US Marine model. Not very PC, fairly brutal, but quite effective in molding an effective fighting force. No effective, large, and powerful military has gays serving openly. Yes, you can't eat all the chocolate you want and not get fat. And you cannot have gays in the military, serving openly with a fighting force actually capable of fighting. And winning.

But the saddest thing of all is a refusal to pick a fight with the courts. While it is true that the Executive, and Congress both have limits, and cannot do everything, rule everything, and regulate everything, the same is true for the courts. Courts cannot order military policy. It is outside their purview. Which is not universal. Judges are not god-like philosopher kings ordering everything in modern life. There are limits, and the public is well disposed to side with the military against Judges, often un-elected, extending their authority to the point of personally taking charge of say, the next Battle of Midway.

So what is likely to happen?

First, every active duty military personnel who can leave when their enlistment is up, will. Gay soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are like dumping Bobby Trendy as a protected and highly disruptive force right into a firefight. The military cannot make it work because it cannot be made to work. Already stretched thin and abused, by a hostile Media, Democratic Party, "activists" (anti-American elitists), and lawyers, most of the combat force is likely to quit. Gays being a burden just too much to tolerate. If you were in combat would you sign up again for having to protect a Bobby Trendy trying to have sex with you every night?

And, mission accomplished, no more effective US fighting force. Except nukes. Which will be all that a fabulously hip, cool, edgy, politically correct nation will have left for its defense. No more kicking the can down the road, with limited use of combat troops alongside proxies to keep the lid on regional flashpoints that threaten to become global ones. Instead, EVERY conflict will nuclear, or result in abject US surrender of strategic objectives. This pattern of Western Weakness has been seen before: 1932-39. It is unlikely to end any better than the last time.

Western people want to live in John Lennon's "Imagine." A fantasy of PC utopia where no human conflict exists, and everyone is so hip and cool and "at the end of history." A desire fueled by the desperate need to avoid conflict, at any and all costs. Which results in Western weakness, and conflict anyway. Merely at greater cost. So moral superiority and status-mongering can take center stage. Perhaps this is inevitable in societies that produce staggering amounts of wealth and tend to have, in one form or another, minor aristocracies over and over again.

But the world is not built this way. Gays in the military means a military that does not work. Is at best a toy, play military useful for parades and social engineering but nothing else. One that is "fabulous" but fighting-effective.
...Read more

Stick a Fork in Fox News (and the Wall Street Journal)

Stick a fork in Fox News (and News Corp profits). Recent articles in the New York Times and The Daily Beast show that Murdoch's adult children, and his current wife Wendi, loathe the conservative bent of Fox News that is more profitable (estimated $700 million to $1 billion operating profit per year) than CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and the news broadcasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC combined. Murdoch cannot live forever, and as soon as he passes, the Murdoch family will fire Roger Ailes and run Fox News (and its profits) into the ground. The WSJ too, will come under pressure to be a mere, "me-too" earnest, SWPL lifestyle rag, instead of a serious business newspaper with a conservative editorial page (mostly). Indeed in the Wall Street Journal, this process is already underway.


Why is this? Why does Richard Branson, owner of airline Virgin Atlantic, want a series of carbon targets/taxes? Why does the Murdoch family (or the New York Times controlling Sulzberger family) prefer political correctness over money? A lot of money? Terminal political correctness and "diversity" commitments have driven the NYT to near bankruptcy. You'd imagine that the Sulzberger family would do all it could to keep its money machine going.

The problem is, people with a lot of money, in their personal bank accounts, don't respond well to classical economic rewards. If a person has already, $20, or $80 million dollars, in their bank account, what do they care if the multi-billion dollar business empire they run goes belly up? It won't affect their personal consumption or status within their social group. Meanwhile, holding the politically incorrect, "normal" middle class opinions, is terminal to their social ambitions. James and Lachlan Murdoch, Elisabeth Freud, and Wendi Deng Murdoch all have considerable social ambitions, as does Richard Branson. They won't be invited to the right parties, be fawned over by the "correct" people, will in fact be considered (horrors) "middle class" and there is nothing that rich people hate more than being considered middle class.

This is the same impulse that leads Hollywood to sign "Free Roman Polanski" petitions and dismiss rape of a 13-year-old girl as "judgmental."

The parallels between decadent 18th Century French aristocracy and the peasant and bourgeoisie morality could not be more striking, than the attitudes of the Murdoch family, or Richard Branson.

News Corporation, long term, is finished. Lacking any ability to generate viewers, the Murdoch family (no one is immortal) will turn Fox News into a clone, harder left at that, of MSNBC with a fraction of the latter's tiny amount of viewers. The Wall Street Journal will become a SWPL parody, with no business news at all. Fox Broadcasting will turn into an earnest, PBS-style purveyor of PC moralizing with maybe the viewership of half of PBS.

Unlike the NYT, News Corp is even more highly leveraged, and so the Murdoch family will run it into bankruptcy and sale for assets fairly quickly. About three to five years, would be my guess. Enormous debt levels allowed Murdoch to make expensive acquisitions (such as the WSJ, which News Corp recently wrote down about $1.7 of the book value of the purchase), without diluting equity control, making shareholders very, very rich as the cash comes in. The high level of debt, however, requires the cash coming in, constantly. No one in the Murdoch family besides Rupert seems to understand this financial reality.

Of course this means more influence for conservative blogs and websites, when News Corp flips Fox News to MSNBC-lite, with anchors Markos Moulitsas and Maureen Dowd. Andrew Breitbart's investments in his websites looks more and more prescient. Eventually all of TV and print will be nothing more than a female/gay, SWPL ghetto. Which is not much of a sustainable business model, particularly in a depression, but there it is. Most rich people would rather be thought Politically Correct by their social circle than keep their business empire going.
...Read more

The LA Times and Green Jobs: Stupid, Lazy, or Politically Correct?

The LA Times on its home page had this story, by tiffany.hsu@latimes.com, with the headline "Job growth in California is going green" and the subhead "From January 2007 to January 2008 green jobs increased 5% while total jobs declined 1%."

The SF Gate version of this story noted that "Green jobs just 1% of total in California" and that furthermore, the report cited does not take into account jobs lost during 2008-2009. [SFGate.com is the web version of the San Francisco Chronicle.] The only question is, was the LA Times reporting stupid, lazy, or simply terminally politically correct.


The LA Times story itself, read the whole thing, seems essentially a re-write of the Press Release by Nextten.org. Reporters are notoriously lazy, never more so than in the present day, and the dirty little secret about most of the content in the major newspapers is that most of it is simply re-written (or not) of press releases from politically correct lobbying groups.

The core of the (brief) LA Times report by Hsu is that "green jobs" (which include things like carpentry and electricians) "grew" an astonishing 5% between January 2007 and January 2008, while the overall California economy lost 1% of jobs during the same period. Money quote from the LAT:

The industry is still too small to drag the state out of its jobs slump but could at least nudge the economy toward recovery.

"Green jobs are not a panacea," said Noel Perry, a venture capitalist and founder of Next 10. "But this is the foundation of the green economy, and all the trend lines are up."

In contrast, the SFGate story is solid. Money quote from the SFGate.com reporting:

But taken together, those jobs represent less than 1 percent of employment in the state, according to the report's authors. Green industries have great promise for employment, but they haven't delivered yet.

Reading the SFGate.com reporting, you can learn that report has implications for California's "Green" mandates in counting the jobs that (were) already there, but notes that they could have been destroyed in layoffs during 2008-2009. [They probably were, note how carefully the Next 10 Report avoids any 2008-9 figures, probably because they told a different story.] The Bay Area has mostly energy-generation jobs (7,003), tied to Bay Area research universities, particularly Stanford and Berkeley. The LA area has 1,072 people working on alternative fuels and vehicles. Nearly every job requires massive and continuous federal subsidies, the SFGate article noting that Bay Area solar panel manufacturer Solyndra Inc opened a Bay Area facility after getting a $535 million federal loan guarantee. A careful reader will note that "Green" requires federal "green" i.e. loan guarantees, grants, money to research universities, and employed less than 1% of the total jobs in the State before the recession really hit.

Indeed, the Next 10 report notes that California jobs "dropped" by 1% total while "green" jobs increased by 5%. What neither the LAT nor SFGate note, is that in actual fact, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, California's jobs increased during that period for a total of 183,000 jobs, or 1%. [Without seasonal adjustment. With seasonal adjustment the jobs increased about the same amount, or 241,000 jobs]

Its hard to credit the report's accuracy when the basic data about California's jobs show an increase not decrease (for Jan 2007 to Jan 2008), and further that this can be determined by five minutes reading on the BLS website.

What then, to make of the LAT reporting? Lazy, stupid, or politically correct? Likely, a combination of all three. Reporters are lazy, and will take anything that is perceived as "authoritative" and simply quote it verbatim. You can see reporter Hsu simply quoted the press release, not even bothering to question any assumptions. Because it came from authority, and because the reporter did not bother to think, or even put any effort into the whole thing. SFGate's David R. Baker, at least noted for his readers the obvious (many of the "green" jobs could have been lost during the recession) and that they were in total less than 1% of the total jobs in California during that period. That simply put, "Green Jobs" will NOT employ enough people, ever, to replace the jobs lost during the recession. Indeed, though Baker does not say so (constrained by his own PC-straightjacket), the careful reader can note that the jobs created depend largely on federal funding and consist mostly of White Elephant make-work jobs at research universities out of "Ghostbusters," or unprofitable manufacturing subsidized by taxpayers at enormous expense. Nothing "Green" consists of growth opportunities for high-revenue firms.

Neither Baker nor Hsu ask, moreover, just who is Noel Perry and what does he want from this "report" (which we can see is inaccurate and misleading). A few minutes of Google reveals that Perry is the founder and manager of Baccharis Capital, with interests in various Green Travel and partnerships with REI. A reasonable person might ask, "does Perry have business investments that could gain money by public policy at the Federal and State level directed to Green tax expenditures?" This question was never answered by either Baker nor Hsu.

To be reasonably informed about "green" tax spending (either tax breaks or bonds or grants or all of these in combinations) requires an understanding of how many green jobs there are (answer: 1% of total California jobs, something you would know from the SFGate.com article but NOT the LAT) and what the cause of growth in the "green" job base really is. For the latter, the SFGate article will provide the careful reader with needed information, but only indirectly, so imprisoned are the reporters by PC dogma. Job growth in "green" sectors is almost entirely based on subsidies, and most of it is in various think tanks and universities. Lastly, it is reasonable to enquire just who benefits from the report, particularly the man funding it. Certainly there would be tremendous skepticism from any report issued by the NRA, or Focus on the Family, or Heritage Foundation, by any reporter covering the story. But because the report is politically correct, LAT reporters simply re-run the press release under their byline.

I will note in passing that Baker was not innumerate, quickly grasping that despite the 5% increase in "green jobs" over the period it was a tiny fraction of the overall employment in California. Since neither the report nor the press release itself mention the size of California's jobs during that period, it seems Baker spent a few moments on the BLS site to quickly apprise himself of the number of jobs (about 18 million) in California Jan 2007-Jan 2008. Hsu by contrast seems innumerate, unable to understand that a greater increase in job growth is fairly meaningless with such a tiny fraction of the job market. The "strength" of California's Green economy that she quotes is federal spending to prop up the equivalent of Dr. Venkman in "Ghostbusters." And the LAT wonders why circulation continues to drop like a rock.







...Read more

Decline of the West: Why Part One

Nearly every conservative commentator agrees on the West's decline. Whether it is Ann Coulter, or Victor Davis Hanson or Mark Steyn, Belmont Club or the lesser-known but just as well written Takuan Seiyo and Fjordman, who also posts at Gates of Vienna, all agree the West is beset by specific ills.

Among the ills are, multiculturalism, political correctness, statism, socialism, a spineless response to Islam and Jihad, phony "Green" scams and Global Warming humbuggery, and a general collapse of total standards in culture, morals. Theodore Dalrymple, who wrote "Life at the Bottom," and writes at City Journal as well, has written often of the total collapse of all standards and morals in modern Britain, from the underclass to the Upper Class, as part of this collapse of the West.

But hardly anyone understands WHY the West has declined. Declined so rapidly, so thoroughly, and so completely. The few who have tried to analyze the "why," mainly Seiyo and Fjordman, have gone astray. It is their belief that a few cultural Marxists have seized control of society, and created in Seiyo's words, a group of "Pod People" (from the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and it's many remakes). Obviously, Cultural Marxists exist, and they can be found in your nearest University faculty, in various NGO's connected to government, and even as a recipient of Bill Gates $2 billion in grants, such as Rick Ayers, brother of Bill Ayers and himself a fugitive from justice for seven years.

But these cultural Marxists don't have magical powers of "evil." If people find their ideas deeply attractive, something must be deep at work all over the West, to transform society so clearly and completely in less than fifty years.

Rather than some magical powers of persuasion, unstoppable, or deep conspiracy, or anything of that nature, what has happened all over the West, from Japan and Coastal China to Italy to Norway to the United States, is a broad set of changes, mostly demographic, that have tilted the West towards Multiculturalism, political correctness, and general weakness in all areas along with a general cultural collapse in music, arts, entertainment, and morals.

These broad trends are:

• A huge increase in wealth, through global manufacturing, spurring a global consumer environment


• The collapse of manufacturing in the West


• The so-called "Gentry" of Western nations becoming impossibly rich, and therefore influential outside their limited numbers


• The decline of the middle and working classes in the West


• The Pill, Condom, increased female earning, and anonymous urban living, leading to the death of the nuclear family


• The fragmentation of unifying mass communication institutions and media


• Consumerism, advertising, marketing, and mass media becoming a gay and female ghetto


• Lack of "affordable family formation" leading to hedonism instead of old Western cultural values

Let us examine these factors, and see how they created the decline of the West by undermining the West's fundamental advantage: how people cooperate, in high-trust networks, stemming from widespread nuclear families. Since the secret of the West's advance for nearly a thousand years, from 1000 AD to 1965 or so, is the story of the spreading and deepening of the nuclear family and the resulting cooperation among people in nation-states, driving ever greater increases in wealth, technology, and military, social, and cultural power.

Wealth

As in my post The Bailout, America and the West has since 1945 experienced an exploding GDP, even with intermittent recessions, as the graph below from the St. Louis Federal Reserve makes clear:



Oil Prices have remained mostly low for most of that period, not only in the US but globally:



Source: WTRG

The low oil prices allowed the export of manufacturing jobs to the lowest cost labor (and safety and environmental standards) nations. First, Japan and South Korea in the twenty years following World War Two, and then later to Taiwan, then China, Vietnam, and finally India. Textiles, consumer electronics, computer chip manufacturing, cars, whole classes of manufacturing where the lowest cost labor and least regulations meant lower cost, moved overseas. First from the US, then from Europe and even Japan. Indeed, Pioneer is considering closing it's production of televisions. Nissan will slash 20,000 jobs, but industrial output and employment in Japan has been declining for decades.

Cheap oil prices meant that producers with lowest labor costs could produce "disposable" products such as $25 DVD players, often at big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart and Best Buy, with minimal transport costs. Companies like Komatsu and Caterpillar, which produce expensive, relatively long lasting, and complex earth moving equipment, were still competitive with lower labor cost Chinese and Indian manufacturers. But for the most part, the story of the Post-War global economy has been a growing abundance of cheap, disposable consumer goods of no particular value, but easily affordable. Enabled by cheap oil and relative peace and stability world wide. No submarines sinking cargo containers and ending global shipping.

The US Navy's dominance, and protection of world-trade, and cheap oil fueling massive cargo ships, created the global consumer economy. This global consumer economy in turn created a tremendous amount of wealth, among shippers, manufacturers, companies contracting out manufacturing under their labels, marketing professionals, and so on. With this wealth, naturally, came power. Political power, resting not in Western countries, but in many cases across their borders or entirely outside it.

It's easiest to see this effect by comparing the world of 1955 and 2005. In 1955, the economy was mostly American, the rest of the world still recovering from WWII and much of it Communist, outside global trade except for basic commodities. The world economy was dominated by GM, Ford, Chrysler, Motorola, Philco, and so on. Cars, televisions, radios, office machines, clothes, and so on were mostly manufactured in America, with the exception of a few cheap imports from Japan or Germany. In 2005, very little was manufactured in America, and even Ford, GM, and Chrysler had half or more of the content of their automobiles manufactured and assembled abroad. Nearly all consumer electronics and computers were imported, mostly from China, and of cheap quality. In 1955, most consumer goods, particularly electronics, were expensive. In 2005, most consumer goods, especially electronics, were cheap.

This global consumerism is not limited to America, or Europe either. Ford plans to sell it's Fiesta model in China mainly to young, affluent, and female consumers. This at a time when 70,000 factories are closing and there is 20 million unemployed in China. Not surprising, either, since global consumerism like all massive global trade systems, creates winners and losers.

The winners are those who can act as middle men in various trade systems, or have pursued the lowest cost strategy by moving production to the cheapest nations. It is not surprising that the vast amounts of wealth created by Nike, or Apple, or Microsoft, which has also moved production (software development) to India, have resulted in massive gains in political power. Middle men like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Nike's Phil Knight, replaced old-line moguls at GM, Ford, and Boeing. It's worth noting that neither Apple, nor Nike, nor Microsoft actually make anything in the US. Merely act as branding middle men, and hip designers.

Even less surprising is that this political power is expressed in support of soft multiculturalism, of the sort Bill Gates expresses (releasing mosquitoes into a ballroom conference on aid to the Third World, explaining that First World people should fear being infected as well). [The mosquitoes, he assured his audience later, were sterile.] Power and political influence shifted towards Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, whose fortunes depend mostly on a cheap labor force overseas, and good relations with repressive and anti-American foreign governments. It is no surprise at all that both men are substantial donors to Barack Obama, and various left-wing causes. Nor is it shocking that the fortunes of Nike, or Google, or other major international companies, depending on foreign labor almost exclusively, have embraced political correctness (Google famously refuses to celebrate most American holidays on their home page, particularly Veterans Day or Memorial Day, while celebrating the birthdays of Edvard Munch and Arthur Conan Doyle). Hardly anyone at Google is American, and the few who are embrace the culture that depends on cheap foreign labor, either the H1-B variety or actually outsourced. Microsoft is no better, having been rapidly transformed by the falling stock price (and Sarbanes-Oxley requiring the expensing of stock options) from American born, relatively well compensated software engineers, to Indian and Chinese H1-B Visa holders, with the notorious habit of squeezing out the few remaining American developers once Indian or Chinese program managers are hired in a division.

While America offers fertile ground for examining the money shifts to globalist businesses and figures, the similar rise in Germany of Adidas, in Britain of Saatchi and Saatchi, and the collapse of say, Triumph, BSA, and Goldstar Motorcycles, and Germany's Leica, offer the lesson that this process repeated itself over and over again in the West. Globalist middle-men like Britain's advertising giant won and manufacturers based locally like Triumph or Leica lost.

Collapse of Manufacturing in the West

Along with the rise of global trade based on cheap consumerism, and the massive money shifts to the winners like Microsoft, Nike, and Apple, has been the decline of manufacturing in the West. Takuan Seiyo in a recent article notes the decline of the San Francisco of Hitchcock's films, set in 1957-1963, including Vertigo and The Birds. But I want to refer to an earlier film Dark Passage, made in 1947, when San Francisco was a mostly working-man's town. A town of mostly White, Blue collar workers. A vanished San Francisco when US manufacturing, and it's labor force of mostly (but not exclusively) White men wielded considerable power. What's astonishing about this film is how ordinary and belonging working class White men are, in San Francisco. A town on film at least, of cheap boarding houses and apartments, of no great beauty and charm, of no glamor and excitement, of utter ordinariness.

One of the unseen, but huge transformations, has been that of what Joel Kotkin called the Gentrification of the Democratic Party, and the decline of blue-collar, lunch bucket unionism (which itself was mostly a White male affair). It's astonishing now, to look back upon "liberal" politics of Hubert Humphrey, Pat Brown, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Baines Johnson, and see how oriented it was towards White Working Class union men. Not because these politicians had some innate orientation towards the working class "goodness" of that group, but because that is where the balance of power existed.

Harry Truman beat Dewey on the strength of that White, Blue Collar unionism. Which itself rested on massive employment at places like Ford Motor Company, or Bethlehem Steel, or Lockheed, or McDonnell-Douglass. Jobs that paid good money, and created a large class of men who wanted stability, continued high wage employment, and the kind of American exceptionalism that drove the success of their employer.

As money and power shifted away to low-cost manufacturing countries, and with it employment and power, we could see many Pat Brown types succeeded by well, Jerry Brown. Tribune of the Marin County Gentry. Pushing the obsessions of those with inherited wealth, a concern to run other people's lives (for their general moral improvement of course), and constant status-mongering which is a feature of life among the wealthy, Brown (the very lesser) has been a fixture of California politics since the 1970s.

This is why Pat Brown built the state of California, with it's freeways and (then) world-class university system, and Jerry Brown presided over the start of it's demise, with political correctness, fawning over murderers and criminals, "small is beautiful," and other concerns of the Gentry. Neither were saints or sinners, and both politicians were arrows pointing directly where the power and the money were. For Pat Brown it was the dockworkers and autoworkers of the day (yes, once upon a time cars were manufactured in California). For Jerry Brown it was Silicon Valley millionaires to billionaires, and the old money of San Francisco.

This process, to one degree or another, played itself out in Britain, Italy, Germany, Japan, and pretty much all of the West.

Decline of the Middle Classes

That the middle classes are in decline in the United States (and across the West) cannot be doubted. Housing affordability is part of that, which in turn is driven by two factors: price of housing, and income.

Housing prices all across the West, from Ireland to France to the UK to America, have risen. They have risen the most in coastal or capital cities, with severe constraints on expansion, and lots of relatively educated, young, and ambitious people flooding into them. New York, Boston, Chicago, Washington DC, and Los Angeles typify these job centers in the US, and London, Paris, Rome, and Barcelona typify them in Europe. Housing is less expensive in regional centers, away from the big money, and larger groups of young people. Cities like Dallas, Atlanta, and Salt Lake City have all grown through this appeal of cheap land. But the cheap land comes with lower salaries, and less opportunity to meet particularly younger, educated, professional women.

Meanwhile, real income has declined as a measure of housing affordability. Wage increases have not kept pace with inflation, and outside bubble occupations, such as software engineers in the Dot-com bubble, or real estate people in the housing bubble, actually declined in real purchasing power excluding consumer electronics (and before biofuel idiocy, food). It does a prospective husband no good to have a closet full of X-box equipment and no ability to purchase a house.

Even with the decline of housing prices, most properties remain without buyers, because income is so uncertain. The ability to buy a home, after all, is a bet that earnings for thirty years or so will be stable enough to provide enough money to cover the mortgage. Since the 1970's, the economy has been on one bubble after another, without sustained productivity growth and industrial production and exports that drive broad wage increases and thus wealth across the broad spectrum of the populace.

In short, the West has gotten poorer, mostly, in the most important things: the ability to buy a house and start a family. The move away from broad industrial production is the reason why.

Death of the Nuclear Family

Along with the lack of affordable housing, has come a profound shift in the way men and women relate to each other and form families. Or rather, fail to form families.

First off, women are increasingly having children as single mothers, as the 2006 US Census Survey on women and fertility shows. Depending on how you add things up (note page 6 of the PDF) "not married" can mean living with an unmarried partner or not, and can be either 36% or 41% of all births within the last twelve months of the Survey. I incline to the 41% figure (adding up the 35.5% of not married and 4.8% of "living with unmarried partner"). But to each his own. As noted in the report and elsewhere, births to Black women are 70% illegitimate, and 90% in the urban core, and among Hispanics it is approaching 50%.

The "good news" is that the Census Bureau is responding to these numbers by redefining "legitimacy" as a member of the opposite sex who resided in the household for at least a week. So if Mom's boyfriend stays over that long, the birth is reclassified as "legitimate" or with a claimed father. Political Correctness at it's finest.

Men and women used to get married far younger in the West. At far higher rates. See my posts here for example. Now, the trend is the opposite. Children are delayed, and when they come single motherhood is often a choice.

The typical path for a young woman in 1960, say, was to graduate from college, work for a few years, marry a man, probably 6-7 years her elder, have two kids, return to the workforce at some point. Now for a young woman, in 2009, it is to graduate from college, work for twenty years, a great many love affairs but no real desire to pair off with a "good enough" man rather than the perfect guy, and one designer eugenic yuppie baby, through IVF, or adoption from China.

The Pill, the condom, rising incomes for women, anonymous urban living, as Roissy in DC has noted [Don't let the Pick Up Artist stuff scare you off, he has startling insights into how dysfunctional the male-female relationship has become] enable women worldwide to achieve a seeming utopia, what City Journal writer Kay Hymnowitz has termed the "New Girl Order" of consumer goods, control over their own fertility and sexuality, fashionable clothes, independence, and all around fabulousness! Just look at how Ford in China is targeting "Mei" (the personification of their customer) for sales of the Fiesta. Even in the land of "Little Emperors" and male preference, Ford would believe that sales lie in the New Girl Order.

But like every other utopia, there is a catch. Falling Total Fertility Rates, in countries wherever there is enough female earning power, urban anonymity, and availability of the pill and condom, are the result. Italy, Spain, and Greece have point of no return TFRs. Around 1.1. White Britain and the US have under 2.1, the replacement rate, around 1.9 or so. Even places like Algeria, Tunisia, and Iran, of all places, certainly no feminist paradises, have TFRs of 1.7 or so. The rates are available at the CIA World Factbook, you can look it up!

This happens because women often delay marriage until well into their thirties, when excess baggage on both parties, rather limited attractiveness, and the dilution of the effect of bonding hormones released during sex make a high divorce or break-up rate (for those never marrying but cohabitating) a near certain thing. A man or woman with many, many sex partners will not have any practical hope of bonding with one partner. Certainly not when both have far less limited attractiveness compared to their salad days, when sheer physical attraction could get them over inevitable bumps in the relationship. Even worse of course is the pairing of a woman with many, many sex partners, and a man with relatively few.

Women spend most of their time single, and as a consequence care intensely about what their peers think of them. This bleeds over into men's relationships as well, any young man who is single knows well the importance of looking the "correct way" for whatever fashion holds, and having the "correct" opinions and accessories to have any success in the dating market.

I submit for your amusement: Victoria Beckham hates Straight Guys (most young White women do), Young British Women more promiscuous than men (not sure I believe this one, but data to back up Roissy's general first-hand observations about the dating scene), Britain the most promiscuous nation (this one I believe), same here, the Death of Dating, Certain women regard Drew Peterson as a Catch, and my all time favorite NY Times Redefines Family.

Now, by no means should these links be taken as endorsement that women are somehow "bad" or that they hold responsibility for the decline of the West. But I don't think any casual observer can say that the lack of social institutions, mores, and limits on women's (and men's) actions, sexual expression, and behavior has been a positive result. We see in these links the expression of hatred towards straight White men, general promiscuity that prevents any possibility of a happy marriage, the death of dating and judging the opposite sex on behavior, decorum, character, and other things other than pure physical animal attraction, and murderous thuggishness as the attractive markers of men for women. To round everything out, we have Single Motherhood by choice.

No single factor other than the collapse of how men and women relate to each other, and the inability to form even the nucleus of a nuclear family (lacking only the capital to start having children in a house of their own), explains the fall of the West.

Women live in a constant status competition, for fabulous clothes and pecking order. No article encapsulates this than the recent Marie Claire article "Why I Left My Beta Husband"

A few years ago, my husband, Mark, and I were at one of those hip downtown restaurants sipping mojitos and nibbling on lime-spiked seviche when one of my bosses appeared from a cloud of Cuban-cigar smoke and patted my shoulder. When I introduced him to Mark, he naturally asked what he did for a living. We both froze.

"I do some freelancing," Mark said.

"He studied film at NYU," I said at the same time.
Mark looked at me and shrugged. "I stay home with our daughter," he said, as my colleague quietly balked.

"He makes it possible for me to do my job," I said, laughing. But inside, I was mortified. Technically, I had it all back then, including a gorgeous toddler and a cool job.

What I didn't have was a husband I felt proud of.

Which is the social landscape women inhabit, all the time, of the constant pressure to be hip, cool, trendy, and of course with the correct accessories, Apple computer laptop, fair trade latte, and husband that impresses your boss.

This forms the social landscape of the culture at large, as appeals to women dominate the consumer products industry and the dating market of course. Seeing as how there are more men pursuing single women than single women pursuing men.

Women of course, hate Beta men. See Roissy's blog for more details, especially the comment on top by T AKA Ricky Raw, on the attitude of women towards the Mo Rocca types. Women really do hate most men, because after all, most men are indeed "Beta." Victoria Beckham might be extreme, but most women would share at least some of her attitudes.

It's easy to see why. Beta guys with no social dominance and status hit on them on all the time, and when they don't hit on them, they stare at them or other, unwanted attention. They also provide competition for the limited amount of high paying "cool" jobs that women either occupy or hope to move into, and worst of all, don't excite them. "Boring" is basically a synonym for White Guy among women. Gay men are "fabulous" without having any desire for them, don't block the access of the Alpha man, and are "interesting" in a way that boring guys who work in the office without status just are not.

These two measures, the constant unwanted attention from guys "beneath" them, and competition for scarce top jobs and status, account for how White women are always keen to sign up for a good dose of anti-White male bashing and discrimination. Not just Robert Reich, but most White women, would agree that "No White Men Need Apply" for bailout money, or much of anything.

If there was a process designed to create an alliance of women, gays, non-Whites, in attacking the traditions, cultures, and political alliances of the West as it was before 1965, it would be hard to top the current arrangements. Dear readers, please do not take my words for this. Check out yourself any of the following sites, and explore the attitudes of women towards Barack Obama, traditional Judeo-Christian culture, traditional morals, White men, the military, political correctness, and more therein. Explore: TMZ.com, Televisionwithoutpity.com, and Dlisted.com .

Do not just take my word for it, see for yourself.

Once you understand, most women will be single their entire lives, their social and emotional lives fed by a bunch of Alpha men, who decrease in frequency and duration as they age, and are transient in any case, and "friends" who are nearly all female, and replace the nuclear family, but require a constant struggle to maintain status-pecking order, things become clear. The dominance of political correctness, a fashion in opinions, mirrors that of fashion in shoes. Wacky fads, including "Green" mania and Global Warming, and the hatred of the White guy it all makes sense.

Even the desirable nature of men such as Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Drew Peterson, Chris Brown, and Roman Polanski becomes clear. Women, no longer needing to, on their own account, and not having social institutions and mores forcing them to, do not judge men by what they do and the content of their character revealed by action. Rather, they judge them based on how much status and social dominance they possess. A Roman Polanski, who drugged and raped a 13 year old, can be lionized by a female documentary director. Because he's famous and other famous people think he's cool.

This represents, by the way, a radical shift in how women viewed men. Enabled by the pill, condom, anonymous urban living, and the ability to live their own lives free of integration into a stable community (and fearing censure of same). Take away any two of these and women would revert back to what they were before. And such men would have much to fear from women on any jury.

Nor can the male sex escape censure. Britain's New Year looked like this. The inevitable result of men competing for women on social dominance quickly degenerating into pure thuggery. Just as bad were the drunken women falling apart into stupors on the sidewalk, and being left there, defenseless.

The failure to defend women, in either the Virginia Tech shooting (healthy young adult males did not feel their female classmates were worth dying for, and simply sat passively waiting to die) or the Montreal Massacre years earlier, are canaries in the coalmine. They along with the spate of horror movies showing young women killed (instead of young men killing the monster and well, marrying them or what have you) are part of the disconnect between men and women.

Increasingly, men are defaulting to a passive, disconnected mode when it comes to women. This is worthy of a separate post, but in brief men are largely unable to compete with the few "Alpha" types and women, increasingly, will share the Alphas among themselves, in a "soft" polygamy and choose single motherhood if they have any children at all. This is the downside of the "New Girl Order" and the changes wrought by contraceptive technology and urban living.

Women are not "bad" or responsible for the fall of the West. But the massive shifts in their behavior and lack of nuclear family formation due to the collapse of how men and women related, are indeed a large part of the decline of the West. Ann Coulter was right in that Single Mothers, and the general pain they create in poverty, early sexual contact, teen motherhood, promiscuous behavior, do indeed on average create crimes and misery. For a Black Blogger's take on this, do not fail to check out The Myth of the Ghetto Alpha Male at the Rawness.

Since this is a very long post, I will add my thoughts on how fragmentation of the mass media, consumerism and the capture of marketing and advertising by and for women, and the rise of hedonism to replace the nuclear family, have contributed to the decline of the West.

But in short, I think massive technological changes have created the decline of the West. The pill, condom, urban anonymous living, great mass consumerism wealth accruing to middle men elites, decline of industrial production in the West, and status mongering among single men and women account for pretty much all the decline of the West.
...Read more